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
324359030
label
Transcripts (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
324359030
contentType
document
title
Transcripts (2)
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
324359030
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
2ac7d95023f4953f
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box G07, folder "Transcripts (2)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
TRANSCRIPT transcript and
CBS NEWS
2020 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
All review) without review) without Inc.
FACE THE NATION
as broadcast over the
CBS Television Network
and the
CBS Radio Network
Sunday, December 7, 1975 -- 11:30 AM - 12:00 Noon, EST
Origination: Washington, D. C.
GUEST: HOWARD "BO" CALLOWAY
Campaign Chairman
President Ford Committee
REPORTERS:
George Herman, CBS News
Walter Mears, Associated Press
Connie Chung, CBS News
Producer: Mary 0. Yates
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Associate Producer: Joan Barone
EDITORS: All copyright and right to copyright in this transcript
and in the broadcast are owned by CBS. Newspapers and periodicals are
permitted to reprint up to 250 words of this transcript for the purpose
of reference, discussion or review. For permission to reprint more
than this, contact Director, CBS News Information Services, 524 W. 57th
Street, New York, N. Y. 10019 (212) 765-4321.
THIS IS RECYCLED PAPER
1
HERMAN: Mr. Calloway, what is the most important thing that
President Ford and your campaign organization must do or win to insure
the victory of the President in the nomination?
MR. CALLOWAY: Well, George, the most important thing in any cam-
paign, particularly for an incumbent President, is to do a good job in
being President. And if this President--which I think he definitely
will and has done--can show the American people the leadership of doing
a good job for President in a very difficult time, then we'll win
clearly.
ANNOUNCER: From CBS News, Washington, a spontaneous and unre-
hearsed news interview on FACE THE NATION, with the Campaign Chairman
of the President Ford Committee, Howard "Bo" Calloway. Mr. Calloway
will be questioned by CBS News Correspondent Connie Chung, Associated
Press Special Correspondent Walter Mears, and CBS News Correspondent
George Herman.
HERMAN: Mr. Calloway, you've told us that what you think the
President must do--must do most importantly to win nomination is to be
a bood President, but there's also campaigning to be done. What is the
most important thing in the campaigning process that needs to be done
to insure his nomination?
MR. CALLOWAY: George, I think probably the most important thing
is what politicians call organization-- that is, the canvassing, the
identifying the vote that is for you; having identified that vote, see
that they enthusiastically support the President, and then get to the
polls. As you know, and particularly in a primary, much more so than
a general election--and as you're well aware, there are more primaries
this time than ever before; the old convention is much less important RD
GERALD
LIBRARY
2
than before--1 to identify our people and get them out probably is the
most important job we have in the campaign.
MEARS: The President says he's going to campaign on his own
record and not against other candidates, but you do have another candi-
date running against you. If President Ford isn't going to campaign
against Ronald Reagan, who is? Or are you going to give him a free
ride?
MR. CALLOWAY: Oh, I don't think there'll be a free ride. The
President--one of the great joys of this job that I've got now is
really getting to know the President intimately, and I really believe
that of all the people I've ever seen that have run for any office
whatsoever, he is more determined to run a high road on his own record
and not throwing any mud at all. I believe that.
CHUNG: Mr. Calloway, you were one of the first to call Nelson
Rockefeller Ford's number one problem in winning the nomination, and
you said that President ford might seek a younger man to be his running
mate. Well, the President's ratings have not improved since Nelson
Rockefeller stepped down; what hurdles have you achieved and what--
how much better off is Ford now that Nelson Rockefeller is off the
ticket?
MR. CALLOWAY: Well, Connie, as you know, that--I never said that
Rockefeller was the number one problem. I did say that some Reagan
people had said that he's the number one problem, and by that I got
quoted, which is fair enough, I guess. I don't think we've had any
particular advantage with Governor Rockefeller being off the ticket
for the moment, but I do think it's an issue that Reagan very clearly
in all of his mail, Senator Laxalt was saying the Ford-Rockefeller
FORDO i LIBRARY GERALD
3
ticket, all of this was being done. And I think that that was going to
be made into an issue, and now that cannot be made into an issue; so
because of that in the long run, I think the ticket will be better.
My only point from the very beginning--and Governor Rockefeller agreed
with me totally--was that the President should not make any commitment
to anyone for a Vice President, but should keep an open mind as to
whom he would recommend to the convention. That was the only point I
ever made, and Governor Rockefeller openly agreed with that.
CHUNG: Well, you also said at that time that Reagan leads the
President in the south--this was last summer--because Rockefeller was
still on the ticket. Do you still believe that Reagan leads Mr. Ford
in the south?
MR. CALLOWAY: I don't recall I ever said it quite that way. Per-
haps I did, but the south is probably Governor Reagan's strongest part
of the country, and he is very strong down there; in every southern
state he's very strong. But we've got places of the country where
we're much stronger. I'm not concerned about that.
CHUNG: Are you saying, though, that he does have--is he that
much stronger than the President?
MR. CALLOWAY: Oh, no; no, no. See, people think somehow that
the south is one homogeneous mass, and that sort of thing. There's not
a single southern state that has winner take all. So even if Governor
Reagan did lead in the south--which I by no means say that he does--
even if he did, he might win fifty per cent of the delegates and Ford
might win fifty per cent of the delegates--that kind of thing. So
then when we go to our strong point, then we go picking up. All he's
able to do in the south to maybe hold his own; but we expect to WRFORD
1 LIBRARY GERALD
4
every southern state.
HERMAN: Let me make sure I understand you. Did you at no point
think that Governor--Vice President Rockefeller was a problem to the
President's nomination and election?
MR. CALLOWAY: I never described him as a problem. I--
HERMAN: No, I'm talking about what you thought, rather than what
you said. I don't want to get involved in semantic problems.
MR. CALLOWAY: Well--okay, let me just say that for the good of
the nomination, I think having the issue of Governor Rockefeller as
Vice President out of the way is very helpful to the campaign--
HERMAN: Do you think the situation has improved for the Presi-
dent since Mr. Rockefeller left?
MR. CALLOWAY: Yes, on that point, not because of anti or pro-
Rockefeller, but because you've got it open. What you need to
have is--you don't need to make decisions ahead of time. And because
it's open, I think it's much better.
HERMAN: Can you give me some evidence, some signs that you've
seen that it is better?
MR. CALLOWAY: Oh, I just--we get in touch with our field men
every day; we stay in touch with what the issues are; we know how the
people are feeling about New York, about the Supreme Court, about the
major issues. And on this issue, it has been universal that it's a
plus, in every single state, since--
MEARS: Mr. Calloway, why is President Ford's incumbency an ad-
vantage and Vice President Rockefeller's is not? I mean, you've given
up here a very experienced, very widely known political leader, and
now you say that you don't think he was a liability to the ticket
GERALD RSOFORD LIBRARY
5
I don't see what you've accomplished by his departure.
MR. CALLOWAY: No, no, the Vice President was the first to admit
the very controversial--you know, we all--we know that--very contro-
versial person. And to have a very controversial person clearly on
the ticket, when not another candidate out there has said who he wants
for Vice President--and to have that where an entire campaign--and the
Reagan campaign was clearly started that way, to everything they--
every letter they wrote for money, everything they were doing was
talking about Rockefeller, Rockefeller, Rockefeller. Now to take that
issue away is a plus. It just is. The Vice President would agree
with that.
CHUNG: Well--but Mr. Rockefeller said that it was your comments
that first alerted him to the party squabbles that he was experiencing.
In other words, it was you who started all of the talk about the
Rockefeller problem. And prior to that, he said, he really wasn't
quite alert or quite aware of it.
MR. CALLOWAY: Well, let me just, Connie, assure you I had nothing
to do with that decision of his. I was as surprised as any man in
America. What I'd like to do is get on and talk about this President.
Rockefeller is not on the ticket now. This--we've got a President with
some leadership; I hope I'll get some questions on him, some issues
out there. Rockefeller is no longer an issue.
HERMAN: Are you prepared to define the President's stand on the
issues. Is that--
MR. CALLOWAY: Sure. Well, no, I cannot speak for the President
on what he will do on the issues, but I think I'm prepared to discuss
the political effects of some of the issues that are there. I'm
GERALD not FORD LIBRARY
6
going to say what the President's going to do on any issue. I don't
speak for him on that.
MEARS: Well, what will be the political effect if the President
signs the bill that would permit picketing of an entire construction
site if one union is on strike?
MR. CALLOWAY: When in the primary, I think, Walter, you would
well know that not only the mail that the White House has received,
but our chairmen from around the fifty states that we talk to are very
much opposed to common situs picketing. I think that's very clear.
MEARS: And do you have input on that issue? Are you able to say
this is going to hurt us if you sign this bill?
MR. CALLOWAY: Oh, yes--oh, yes, I have input on that, and very
clear input with the President and with his advisors, which it should
be. You know, you get the feeling from some people that politics is
all bad. It isn't. Politics is the American democracy at work, and
the fact that the American people feel some way should be taken into
consideration by the President. But by no means do I think he should
make his decisions just politically. He should and he does, and very
clearly makes his decisions on what's best for the country.
MEARS: Do you think he will sign that bill?
MR. CALLOWAY: He hasn't told me. I don't know.
HERMAN: But do I gather correctly that you have urged him not to,
or you have said it will be to his detriment if he does sign it?
MR. CALLOWAY: Yes, again, I don't urge him to do one thing or
another, George. I'm not trying to get into semantics, but I do think
politically, if you're talking about the nomination, the best thing
for him to do would be to veto that bill.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
7
HERMAN: And you have told him that?
MR. CALLOWAY: Yes.
CHUNG: Mr. Calloway, if President Ford does not win in New Hamp-
shire and Florida--and you've predicted that he will--wouldn't it be a
serious blow to his--to your campaign, to the campaign that you're
running, and wouldn't it mean that you've obviously failed, and would
you be willing to step down?
MR. CALLOWAY: Connie, let me answer those two questions. One,
I didn't ask for this job. I'd be willing to step down any moment
that I thought I could help President Ford. I have one mission in
this job--is to help President Ford, and the minute I'm not doing that,
I'm in the way and I would get out so willingly that there would be--
there wouldn't be anything except I would get out. Now let's talk
about New Hampshire and Florida, because you brought that up. New
Hampshire and Florida are important, because they're important states
in their own right, but because they're two of the first three, or
perhaps the first four primaries, depending on what Vermont does. But
they're not our best states. Everybody knows that. New Hampshire has
some very particular things in New Hampshire. They have a governor,
and the only statewide newspaper who's enthusiastically for Reagan--
the only state where that's true in the whole country. Governor Reagan
has clearly identified New Hampshire as his best northern state. Then
we go to Florida, and Governor Reagan is concentrating so much on those
two states, he's even said they're the first two primaries; they're
not, but he just--that's all he's thinking. He has a two-state strat-
egy. His campaign manager in Florida has said that they will win
Florida by 66 per cent, and he stays with that. Florida is clearly
GERALI FORD LIBRARY
8
his best, or at least as good as any southern state.
Now if Reagan should win his best states, you know, we haven't
gotten to Michigan; we'll fight him in Michigan, you know, that's our
home state, of our governor. Here's what we're going to do. We're
going into New Hampshire, Reagan's clearly--by his own admission--best
northern state; we're going to beat him in his best northern state.
Then the third primary, on the ninth of March, we're going to Florida;
we're going to beat him in his best southern state. Then we're going
to his home state of Illinois on the sixteenth of March, where he has
tremendous home ties, and we're going to beat him in his home state.
Having beaten him in his best northern state, his best southern state,
and his home state, I think all of this talk about the President
hasn't faced an electorate will be over.
HERMAN: You've kind of put yourself-- in a phrase, you've kind of
put yourself out on a limb by predicting these three victories.
MR. CALLOWAY: That's right.
HERMAN: If any of them should turn into a defeat, would that be
serious?
MR. CALLOWAY: It would be very serious, George, very serious, but
we're not over. We've still got our good states coming, you see. The
luck of the draw, which he's taking proper advantage of, are his good
states came early. All right. Now if we got beat in Michigan, yes,
okay, I'd say now you've beat us in one of our states. That's not
going to happen.
HERMAN: But these three which you've predicted--New Hampshire,
Florida, Illinois--if you got beaten, say, in all three of those, would
that be a fatal indication?
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
9
MR. CALLOWAY: I don't think there's such a thing as fatal. It
would be serious. It would be very serious. But that's--we're not
going to do that.
MEARS: What is the President going to do personally to--in these
campaigns? How much time is he going to spend in those states?
MR. CALLOWAY: Well, Walter, one of the disadvantages of incum-
bency, of course, is that you've got other things to do. The running
of the country is, again--as I said in the first question, I think the
most important thing this President should do politically is to do an
outstanding job as President, which I think he's doing. Now, in doing
that he can't spend the time in New Hampshire. Governor Reagan has
indicated he'll spend fifteen days there. Obviously, we're not going
to do that. We'll probably spend a day or two.
MEARS: He spent a full day campaigning for a Senate candidate
up there. Won't he do as much in his own campaign as he did for Louis
Wyman?
MR. CALLOWAY: Well, that's one of the great things about this
President, you know. All of this campaigning he's been doing, and
criticized, rightly or wrongly, for doing campaigning when perhaps he
should be in Washington--a of that has not been for himself. It's
been for Senator Wyman, it's been for the Republican Party in various
states, and prior to his going there, a great many Democrats were say-
ing that the Republican Party, as a result of Watergate and other
things, was at such a low ebb it needed help for the good of the two-
party system. The President was working for that. The President
hasn't raised a nickel in his own behalf- not yet -- everything for
others. Now right or wrong, he did that. Now that time's over. We
LIBRARY GERALD 5
10
now getting into the President's campaign, and from now on most of
what he does politically will be in his own behalf, which I of
course--
(MORE)
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
11
MEARS: Is he going to spend as much time and do as much travel-
ing then in his own behalf as he has been in the past four, five
months, at the Republican Party's --
MR. CALLOWAY: Well, I would guess something like the same.
This isn't decided, Walter, but something like the same, where he will
be every week or so doing something in his own behalf - - 31 primaries,
perhaps as many as 33 - - he won't campaign in all 33 states; he will
be entered in all primary states, wherever that comes out, 31 or 33.
MEARS: But he will, as he said last summer, for the party, be
going out every week, or every weekend, to campaign then?
MR. CALLOWAY: No, I'm not committing - - I'm saying something
like that, and we've not yet worked that schedule; it depends on what
the pressures of the presidency are, what's happening with the budget,
as you know,
which will be a very busy time for a while now, /he's worked on that
even in China and Manila; what's happening on the state of the union;
what the pressures are; what trips he's taking for the presidency.
HERMAN: You offered a few moments ago to talk about the issues,
which you said you thought was very important. Are there any other
issues on which you have advised the President on political conse-
quences?
MR. CALLOWAY: George, again, my job is not to tell the President
what to do; he's got a Domestic Council --
HERMAN: But your job is to report to him --
MR. CALLOWAY: Yes, and I would say last week two big issues,
last couple of weeks -- New York and the Supreme Court. Both of them
came out very well politically. Now I'm not saying that the President
picked Judge Stevens for a political purpose, but it came out well
FORD 93 LIBRARY
12
politically; it's been well received, good. New York came out very
well politically. Those who've tried to say the President is waffling,
it just, you know, that won't sell. He stuck firm and New York did
what it had to do to get its house in order -- a lot of leadership.
There are three issues coming up now --
CHUNG: Is he in better shape in New York because of that?
MR. CALLOWAY: What's that?
CHUNG: Is he in better shape in New York because of that?
MR. CALLOWAY: I wouldn't say he's in better shape yet, Connie.
The people of New York have had some pretty bad press, two editorials
a day by the New York Times, New York Daily News saying drop dead.
You don't get over that in a hurry, because it's been very severe
against the President; 520 banks organized against the President to
take them out of bankruptcy on their own bonds. You know, that's
heavy, that's heavy stuff, you don't get over it quick, but around,
away from New York, and away from the northeast, the President is
perceived, and we know this, we check with our people, as one of great
leadership in holding firm when Governor Carey and Mayor Beame thought
they couldn't do it, and then they put it together.
HERMAN: We interrupted you when you were saying there were three
issues coming up now?
MR. CALLOWAY: There are three coming up right now. There are
100, George, but there are three that are really sort of important
from the campaign viewpoint -- common situs picketing, the tax cut,
and the energy bill. Now those are some pretty tough decisions, you
know. Reagan can talk about his rhetoric and what he did as governor
and stuff like that, which he exaggerates a little bit here and
there, GERALE LIBRARY
a
13
but we've got a man who's got to stand on there, and these three
issues, all will cut both ways.
HERMAN: What is your advice on them?
MR. CALLOWAY: I think politically the President would be well
advised to veto all three bills, but I'm not - - again, don't say that--
I'm not the one responsible for advising him. The Domestic Council
has far better input on the domestic things; Frank Zarb has much better
input on energy; but - -
HERMAN: But you have a responsibility too to tell the President
the political consequences; I presume you have done that?
MR. CALLOWAY: I have, and will continue to, yes.
CHUNG: You think he can veto a tax cut bill in an election year?
MR. CALLOWAY: Connie, I think he will not only do it, but I
think he will do it in a way the American people will understand. He
has said over and over that we've got to do something about big defi-
cits, and he has said that if we have a tax cut that is not coupled
with a spending cut, then he will veto it. Now, I think that makes
sense. You know, the political thing, and people say what's he, a
political president, the political thing is to veto tax cuts and put
more spending in. We all know that, that's third-grade politics.
He's not going to third-grade politics; he feels that the government
is big enough and we ought to get a handle on it, and to cut taxes
without cutting spending is in his view irresponsible and -- you know,
again I'm a little out of :my field in predicting what he's going to
do, but I would not be at all surprised if he vetoed that tax bill,
even as politically damaging as the conventional wisdom would say it
would be.
FORD & LIBRARY 678879
14
CHUNG: Mr. Calloway, what is your field is the campaign, and
you've been accused of running a clumsy, inept campaign, that you
mishandled the Rockefeller situation. Do you think that you should
really take all the blame for that? There has been also some talk
that the campaign lacks White House direction. Would you say that
you could use a little help from that side?
MR. CALLOWAY: Connie, naturally we started off in the campaign
with a feeling in the White House that governmental should be separate-
1y from political, and after the last campaign, you know, I understand
that; there's a lot of merit in that. But now, in the last few weeks,
we are working much closely -- more closely together. Again, I have
no responsibility for telling the President what to do. My only res-
ponsibility is to say here's what the political effect is, and then he
weighs with a thousand other effects, and I'm -- now I have that oppor-
tunity. I've always had it with the President, but we are now working
with the various advisors much more than we used to.
MEARS: Is your campaign in financial trouble?
MR. CALLOWAY: Not at all. We're not in the shape we'd like to
be -- gosh, money is not coming in easy the way people thought it
would. We've raised $1,200,000; we've got some $300,000 in the bank;
and during the Christmas period when money is really hard to come by,
we're spending it a lot faster than it's coming in, so that concerns
us. We've got a new finance chairman, Bob Mosbacher, who in my judg-
ment will do an outstanding job; he will be available to be here full
time, which is just a great, great advantage to us in the campaign.
He's well known, and I have no long range concerns. I will admit that
things will get a little bit tight because traditionally people
GERALE don't FORD LIBRARY
15
give political money at Christmas time.
MEARS: Will you be -- will you accept, or will you recommend
that the President accept the federal campaign subsidy after the first
of the year?
MR. CALLOWAY: Walter, we haven't got there yet, but I think the
likelihood is that we will. That cuts both ways politically; some
people say, well, you shouldn't take federal money, because what's the
federal government financing for; and others say, my goodness, I pay
enough taxes, if it's there available in the federal checkoff, why
don't you take it? So we haven't made that decision, probably will
make it within a week; we have asked the Federal Election Commission
to certify us for matching funds, so that if we do make that decision,
we'll get it promptly.
MEARS: Will Reagan's decision on that have anything to do with
yours?
MR. CALLOWAY: I don't think so.
MEARS: If Reagan turns down the money, doesn't that put you in
a little more difficult position if you accept it?
MR. CALLOWAY: Oh, perhaps it could, but that would be far down
the line. You know, believe it or not, we're not running this cam-
paign to counter Reagan at all; we're running our own campaign.
CHUNG: You mentioned Mr. Mosbacher; he's a big oil and gas man
out of Houston, and he is the President's finance chairman. Do you
see any problem with the President squaring that with his energy
policy?
MR. CALLOWAY: Well, I'm sure that Bob Mosbacher would say he
could quickly raise Texas oil money a lot easier if the energy bill
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
16
is vetoed -- we know that -- but that's not -- I don't even mention
things of that kind to the President. That's not -- I don't think
that's worth mentioning -- the President knows that. He knows the oil
companies are against this bill.
CHUNG: I'd like to get back to New Hampshire - -
HERMAN: Can I just stop for a second there and say do you think
that knowing that, he's in any way influenced by it?
MR. CALLOWAY: Well, George, you're influenced by everything in
life, but I think it's a very minimal influence. His -- he has a
balance in this energy bill, and it's a tough, tough call. I have no
idea what he's going to do -- 'balance between -- he's gone up with
his bill -- the country needs a comprehensive energy bill. Here is a
comprehensive energy bill that's done five or six or seven things
that he wants to do, but in control of prices it's just opposite of
everything he's tried to do in deregulation, in trying to lower the
demand by increasing the prices if necessary. It's just backwards of
everything he's said, so what do you do? You don't get a bill, you
can take this and veto that. It's a tough call. You know, I could
no more -- that's why he's President and I'm not - - it's a tough,
tough call, and whatever you do, you make enemies.
MEARS: A couple of times you've said that you're not running
against Reagan, but in a campaign don't you come down to a situation
where somebody has to say, my guy is better than their guy, and: here
is why?
MR. CALLOWAY: We're prepared to do that, Walter.
MEARS: Who's going to do it? I mean, the President says
won't --
GERALD he
FORD & LIBRARY
17
MR. CALLOWAY: Well, let me say this -- the President -- his
record is well known in 50 states. Reagan's record is really only
well known in one state, and that's California, because that's the
only place he's really served and been looked at closely. And he's
had a free ride -- nobody looking at him closely. I don't think he'll
have a free ride much longer. I think it's interesting --
HERMAN: Does that imply some kind of a truth squad, or something
of that sort?
MR. CALLOWAY: No, let me go what it might imply, and talk about
that a little bit. I think it's very interesting that in California,
that's the one state where Reagan is well known, and normally a major
a
candidate of a state, his own governor, can get/ favorite son, just
carry everybody in that state -- that's not too difficult -- it's
normally done. We have the state chairman, party chairman, for Presi-
dent Ford, the national committeeman for President Ford; we have the
largest state that has a Republican mayor (SIC) in the country for
President Ford; we have a majority of the congressmen, and that's not
ideological, that's all the way from Chuck Wiggins to Pete McCloskey
for President Ford. We have the people he worked with in the legis-
lature; the majority leader of the State Senate is actively for Presi-
dent Ford. Now they're coming to us and saying, you know, Reagan is
getting away with murder, he's saying things about what he did in
New York - - excuse me, in California -- and those people who knew him
best, who worked with him, it just isn't so.
HERMAN: So how are you going to bring that out?
MR. CALLOWAY: Well, they have come to us, and they've said
look, we would like to -- to talk a little bit -- those who know him
FORD & LIBRARY GER
18
would like to talk about what he really did -- change -- how the
rhetoric was, and what the actuality was. We haven't made a decision;
under the old days -- we just say, do what you want.
HERMAN: What are you thinking of?
MR. CALLOWAY: Well --
HERMAN: If not a truth squad?
MR. CALLOWAY: Well, if not a truth -- Reagan himself has said,
look, I want to be judged on my record. Now the record is -- the
record is not what he said it is - -
HERMAN: How are you going to bring it out?
MR. CALLOWAY: Well, I think if Denny Carpenter, the majority
leader of the senate, perhaps wanted to do that, which we understand
he does, he can point out that this great fiscal conservative, as he
says he is, went from 4.6 billion to 10.2 billion while he was governor.
HERMAN: Would you finance this? I'm trying to find out what
you're going to do with all this material?
MR. CALLOWAY: George, I don't know. Under the new law we've
got to -- under the old law, as I said, we could just say, do what you
want to. Now if he comes in and goes from California to New Hampshire,
and the people in New Hampshire have an article of faith -- they say
no new taxes, and he says that you know under Reagan personal income
taxes went up 500 per cent -- that's on the record.
HERMAN: Will you bring somebody into New Hampshire to say that?
MR. CALLOWAY: George, we haven't made that decision. It's a
decision we haven't made. But you know the taxes did go up 500 per
cent, personal income taxes, under Reagan. Somebody needs to make
that record --
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
19
HERMAN: What somebody, and how are you going to do it?
MR. CALLOWAY: Well, I'll say Denny Carpenter - -
HERMAN: Besides you here on this program.
MR. CALLOWAY: Well, but -- okay -- but I'm saying Denny Carpenter
but that decision is not made, and if Denny hears this and he's watch-
ing, he'll say --
HERMAN: When will you make it?
MR. CALLOWAY: Oh, I think -- everything is in a lull for politics
during Christmas; it will be made in January, I think.
MEARS: Can I put another question on this Reagan-Ford situation.
It's been demonstrated in past campaigns that the ideological candi-
date, the candidate who represents one wing of the party, tends to do
better in primaries. You're casting the President in the middle and
saying he's going to stay home and be president; doesn't that give him
a particular problem against Reagan--
MR. CALLOWAY: It does.
MEARS: - - who has an identifiable constituency wherever he goes?
MR. CALLOWAY: Tough, tough problem, because Reagan would tend
to get the activists who get out in primaries. Now, on the other hand,
when you get to the general election, Reagan's got most of his votes
already in the primary, and we take our primary votes, the Republican
votes, add independent votes - -
MEARS: Yes, but your problem is to get to the general election,
and that's what I'm asking you - - how are you --
MR. CALLOWAY: We're going to get there by winning in his best
northern state, his best southern state, and his home state, and then
come to see me -- I think he'll look better.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
20
CHUNG: Mr. Calloway --
MEARS: Sure will. (LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: Mr. Calloway, if the President does not do that well in
New Hampshire, and if Reagan comes through with a fairly good showing,
isn't that a good enough showing for Reagan, because look at McCarthy
in '68, and McGovern in '72 -- they didn't win, but they came up
pretty well, and that was something that moved their campaign on.
MR. CALLOWAY: Different kind. Different. What they have done,
and the Reagan forces have done this, they have said this President
has never had a constituency outside of Grand Rapids, let's give him
one. They have said this is our best northern state, it's the state
we're going to win,; we're going to win Florida by 66 per cent. And
you know the old saying in politics that close counts in horseshoes - -
close doesn't count in politics. If we win by 50 plus one vote, 50
per cent plus one vote, it will have been a dramatic victory because
Reagan has made this his best northern state.
CHUNG: Well, couldn't that apply to you too, because you're pre-
dicting victory in New Hampshire, and you're predicting victory in
Florida?
MR. CALLOWAY: Connie, if we lose New Hampshire and Florida, as
I've said to George, we're in serious trouble, but we're not over,
it's his best state.. Now if we lose in Michigan, we're in serious,
serious trouble. Compare Michigan with New Hampshire, his best state
with our best state, or our home state. Or Illinois with Michigan,
his home state with our home state. See, those are the ground rules
we think are appropriate.
HERMAN: And our ground rule is that we've run out of time
GERALD R. Thank FORD LIBRARY
21
you very much, Mr. Calloway, for being with us on Face the Nation.
ANNOUNCER: Today on FACE THE NATION, the Campaign Chairman of
the President Ford Committee, Howard "Bo" Calloway, was interviewed by
CBS News Correspondent Connie Chung, Associated Press Special Corres-
pondent Walter Mears, and CBS News Correspondent George Herman. Next
week, Shimon Peres, Defense Minister of Israel, will FACE THE NATION.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
Ageling with the Covernor)
Saturday, December 13, 1975
Lyn Nofziger, Press Secretary
(In Los Angeles)
Peter Hannaford, Research Director
(213) 477-8231
450
Excerpts of remarks by the Hon. Ronald Reagan,
former Governor of California,
to the Southern Republican Conference Banquet,
Albert Thomas Convention Center, Houston, Texas,
Saturday, December 13, 1975.
"It's a pleasure to be here this evening. We go back a lot of years
and 8 lot of campaigns. I've spoken in most of your states and know that
we share the same basic beliefs and philosophy of government.
"Those beliefs have persuaded me to enter this race for our Party's
Presidential nomination.
"We are at a point where the basic tenets of our Republican philosophy
must be restated with clarity and in positive terms. Eleven months from
now, the people of America will make E choice between our caudidate and one
selected by the other party to represent its point of view.
"Too often in recent years we have glossed over the differences that
separate our two parties. To often the people have been offered only à
choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledoc. And there have been those who
have unkindly said there have been times when the choice has been between
Tweedledum and Tweedledum.
"Some years ago, 1 left the Democratic Party because it no longer stood
for things 1 could believe in. The Republican Party did, and 1 hope it will
continue to do so.
"A political party dies when it iorsakes its basic belicis. Our party
will die if it becomes a 'yes, but' version of the Democrats -- a party that,
instead of saying 'no' to the social tinkering and the excesses of the
Democrats, says 'Yes, but a little slower', or 'Yes, but a little less', or
'Yes, but we can do those same things better'. The people of this millys
are looking for more than that today.
GERALD
more
LIBRARY
"Daniel Boorstin, the historian, has said, 'What is the usin difference
between a political machine and a political party?' A party is organized for
a purpose larger than its own survival. A political machine exists for its
OWD sake; its primary, in a sense only, purpose is survival.' Which do ve
want to be? You know the answer to that as well as I do. We've fought too
long and given too much to settle just for survival. We have à
purpose. It is nothing less than the survival of this vay of life ve call
America.
"Since January, in more than 30 states I've talked to Republicans
about a banner for our party -- 2 banner with bold, bright colors; no pale
pastels. Not only Republicans, but disaffected Independents and Democrate
vill also rally to such a banner.
"I speak of colors, but you know that is a synonym for beliefs ve will
not compromise. Beliefs that will once and for all mark 05 68 the party of
the people == the people who pay our government's bills, fight OUT country's
wars, do the daily work that makes our society function, and who still have
time and the desire to care for the less fortunate.
"We're the party of the small businessman. The party of the independent
entrepreneuz, the farmer, the self-employed, the worker who has used his
job skill to earn his share of the American Dream for himself and his family.
The party of the concerned school teacher and the PTA parent. OE those who
care when Big Government intrudes into our lives and districts YOI businesses
and busses OUT children and squanders our hard-earued wages; cheapening the
dollar so that none of US can be sure of the future or of our ability to
provide for ourselves and our families in out non-earning years.
"To put it in two words, we are the party of independents, spelled
d-e-n-t-s, and independence, spelled d-e-n-c-e. The party of independent
FORD
from the oppressive hand of government.
people who believe ardently in personal liberty and independance BERAIR all
LIBRARY
"These words have been both our strength and our weakness. Our
strength, because our sense of independence has allowed us LO endure, We
lose some battles, but come back to fight another day. Our weakness because,
as stroug-minded individuals, we have often refused to pull together to win
the big political battles we must win to keep our people independent of a
government that continues to encroach on every facet of their lives.
"Another one of the bold colors in our banner must stand for a strong
national defense and a foreign policy based, first and foremost, on what is
good for the United States. Peace with freedom was not, and 1s not, an
empty phrase; for peace without freedom is meaningless. And, freedom without
peace means only that once again some foreign aggressor has mistaken our
lack of military preparedness for an unwillingness to defend our freedom.
"As long as we are second to none in military strength, no one will
risk attacking us. To be second in military power is the same as being lest.
No nation in all man's history that placed its faith in treaties and let its
hardware go has ever lived to write many pages in history. A great and free
society must also be a strong society. Appeasement leads only to war.
"For 25 years, the Roman Senator Cato concluded every speech with the
line, 'Carthage must be destroyed'. Finally, he had his way -- Rome set out
to WAT on Cartbage. The people of Carthage were affluent, given to art,
culture and sports. Theirs was the highest standard of living in the world
and they wanted peace desperately. Envoys were sent to negotiate with the
Romans. Finally, Rome relented on condition that Carthage send as hostages
the sons of their 300 leading families. It was done. Then, Rome demanded
all of Carthages warships and weapons. They were delivered. Then came the
final demand -- that the people of Carthage leave their city because Rome
intended to destroy the city. Recognizing the enormity of history's greatest
deception, the people of Carthage turned on their leaders and torp then
limb from limb. Then they set out to build ships, spears and cagapults.
LIBRARY
more--more--more
It was too little too late. The people of Carthage were slaughtered, the
city leveled and the earth plowed and sown with sall 50 it could never again
be planted.
"It must be our commitment to spend whatever is necessary to remain strong
to consider our nation's own self-interests first in dealings
Not at the expense of others and not without generosity to there who need it
helping hand, but always with the realization that OBI seli-isterests must
not be cast aside just for the sake of making 2 deal,
"This is not jingoism or gumboat diplomacy. It La clean Lease recog-
nition of the need in a hostile world for self-protection. 21 ***** keeping
the Panama Canal, which ve have managed with fairness 00 all the world and
which is essential to the defense of the Western Hemisphere against those
who might have designs on TUB OT intentions for giobal damination, In short,
ve bought it, VE paid for it, it is sovereign U.S. territory and ve should
keep it. Our stewardship has been beneficial to all sei **** #### so than
the people of Passma, who, because of it, enjoy one of the Viglest standards
of living in all of Latin America. The U.S. presently bes plans for 1 billion
dollar modernization of the canal which would Bean 2 par stimulus to the
economy of Panama and an increased prosperity for the Penemenies people.
"All of this is being held up by a pro-communist distates who saired
power eight years ago by overthrowing the duly elected greatment of Panama.
In eight years, there have been no elections and DO civil rights. There
has been instead censorship of the DIRES, povefty for the people and totali-
tarismism.
"Wc have a sovereign right to the canal zone, affirmed by --- own
Supreme Court and acknowledged by an elected government of Passma, We also
have a responsibility to the free world LO keep that vital passage way DUE
of the hands of B ruthless and irresponsible dictator.
more
more
&
FORD
CORALD
LIBRARK
"And, on the subject of dietators, in By opinion, it is not in our
best interest, not in the interest of freedom to case our restrictions
on trade and diplomatic relations with Castro's Cube until ve see positive
signs that he no longer will allow his nation to be a convenient Caribbean
outpost for the Soviet Union's military machine and that he will 20 longer
plot trouble in the Americas and in new third world nations such as Angola.
"Speaking of Angola, it is ironic that the same Soviet Union that
talked loftily of the rights of other nations at the Helsinki conference is
today pouring millions of dollars worth of ammunition and supplies to
communist forces in that newly-freed land. It secus LO me the cause of
freedom would be well served if ve and OUT allies would great recognition
to the non-communist regime of Angola providing it with the legitimacy it
needs in the eyes of its neighbors.
"We cannot abdicate our free world leadership even though it was not
sought by us. Nor can VC deny our interest in protecting the fragile peace
in the Middle East. We are, and must remain, committed to a strong HATO
alliance in Europe and to the fact that we are all power in the Pacifit.
"To those who say we shouldn't be interfering in the problems of other
nations around the rim of the Pacific Basin, the answer is -- is years past
VC did interfere and by 60 doing caused some of those very problems.
"It was in the days of Camelot -- the New Frontier -- that the U.S.
used its power to force the anti-communist government of Laos to give in
to communist insurgents and accept them as part of 8 coulition government.
Now, in the long established communist pattern, the coslition is 20 more.
Without regard to treaties and Agreements, the communist Pathet Lao has
taken over that country. Once again the curtain has come down on freedom.
"If now there is to be talk of extending an olive branch LA Hanoi, well
so let it happen only after there has been à full accounting of our Seph missin
in action. And we might well ask assurance that the rights of crstwhide
alive will be guaranteed. Basic morality demands that ve reaffirm bur deter-
mination to stand by long-time friends and allies in Taivan- and South Korea.
"There should be a bold color on our banner standing unmistakably for
fiscal integrity; an end to the cycles of inflation, recession, uncoployment.
then more and greater inflation. When it comes to the argument over whether
we should have a Republican $60 billion deficit OT a Democratic $80 billion
deficit, 1 find there's no room for me on either side. Our goal must be
a balanced budget. Oh, but ve are told threc-quarters of the budget is
uncontrollable -- fixed by statutes passed by Congress. Well, statutes
passed by Congress can be repealed by Congress; and since the Democratic
majority in Congress shows no inclination to do this, then it's time to
elect E Republican Congress that will.
"If the federal government won't put its house in order instead of
debauching our dollars by running the printing press overtime, then how
in the name of heaven can we demand fiscal responsibility from New York
or any other city? Just the other day, the Council of Democratic Mayors
went on record demanding federal help for all cities. That's like asking
the captain of the "Titanic" for a lift. Three-fourths of the American
people live in cities. Are they suggesting the other one-fourth can pay to
provide city services for the three-fourths? In the meantime, the federal
government spends a billion dollars a day and goes $1-1/2 billion deeper
into debt each week and grows like a fungus, on the assumption if it gets
big enough it can manage the nation's business.
"We need a color in our banner that stands for the free market system ==
free enterprise. For under that system, our country has prospered like no
other in the world. And yet, for more than four decades, social engineers
have tinkered with that system, claiming its imperfections can be eliminated
by such tinkering. Others would forsake the tinkering and the free market
system to plunge us into the idiocy of Karl Marx. Why do we even listen to
FORD
them? If they are too obsessed with their economic tinkertoys to
GERALD
compare
LIBRARY
our way with the examples we have of Socialist failure, they deserve no
audience from US.
"Our English cousins have been going down the road of government inter-
vention and socialism since World War 11. Their nationalized, government-
run industries -- steel, coal, natural gas and airlines -- lose about
$600 or $700 million a year. Curiously enough, in the one area we are
alike, we more than match them. Their post office loses about $675 million
a year, all on its own.
"But inflation in England 18 25%+ and the rate of productivity in
their government-run industries is the lowest of all the Western European
nations.
"There is a more dramatic example for comparison which many of you
have heard me tell before. Forgive me if 1 repeat it for those who may not
be aware of it.
"If Socialism 1s the answer, we don't have to argue about it on theory
alone =- the theory of Capitalism versus the theory of Socialism. We have
our OWD country and we have à concrete example of Socialism. We have
another great nation in this world. It has a land mass greater than our
own; it's rich with natural resources; it has 250 million capable people;
and for nearly 60 years they have been free to fully implement -- without
hinderance or interference -- the principles of Karl Marx' Socialism.
We could be just like them; but it would take à little doing on our part.
We'd have to start by cutting our paychecks by 80Z; move 33 million workers
back to the farm; destroy 59 million television sets; tear up 14 out of
15 miles of highway: junk 19 out of 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of
our railroad track; knock down 70% of our houses; rip out nine-tenths of
our telephones; and then all we'd have to do is find # Capitalist
that would sell us wheat on credit 50 we wouldn't starve!
GERALD COUPORD LIBRARY
BOTO more more
"One more word about the free market. Now 1 know that where most of you
come from they don't grow wheat. And 1 know all of us worry about the price
of bread.
"But let me tell you this: nobody would worry about the sale of wheat
to Russia upping the price of a loaf of bread à penny OT two if the taxing
policies and the inflationary policies of the Congress and the federal
government hadn't already run the price of bread out of sight. No matter
how you slice it, the sale of wheat to Russia is not responsible for the
high price of bread, it is the sale of sound, frugal Republican principles
down the river by both parties that has increased those prices.
"In a hungry world, the government told the wheat farmers of America
to plant from fence TOW to fence row, and then to sell their wheat 00 the
open market. Well, they sowed and they-reaped and hied themselves off to
the market, but government had changed the rules somewhere between the
harvest and the expected sale, and there they are, left with a surplus of
wheat. Between weather, insects and other natural hazards, farming is a
trade that makes à Las Vegas crap table look like Ell. guaranteed annual
income. The American farmer doesn't need government waffling and indecision
added to his other troubles.
"This not ==== we the policy
toward trade with Russia. We have walked the extra mile with the Soviet
Union in pursuit of peace -- all the way to Vladivostock, LO Helsinki, to
SALT 1 and now to SALT II.
"And, if we can believe the respected journal, AVIATION WEEK, and
the charges made by former Secretary of Defense, Mel Laird, the Soviet
Union has apparently been violating SALT I; and there is good reason to
believe we gave away too much at Vladivostock.
"In failing LO let Andrei Sakharov, the Nobel Prize winner, out
FORD
Russiay they proved they had TO intention of attding by the spirix GERALD of the
more more more
Helsinki document. They continue to promote bloodshed and trouble in
Angola and Portugal.
"Detente, it seems, has become à one-way street. If we are to have
Detente, then let it be without illusions. George Washington, in his
Farewell Address, warned, 'There can be no greater eTToΓ than to expect
or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation'.
"We can exchange all the ballet dancers and opeΓa singers we want,
but Detente's success or failure will still be measured in terms of
quid pro quo -- something for something.
"The Soviet Union continues to outspend us in armaments -- by 60Z in
253
in
conventional
It
is
abvious
they
building
not à defensive force, but one designéd for offense. In order to do this,
they must forego production of consumer goods & even food for their OWD people
In other words, their vaunted economic system == the utopia of Karl Marx--
cannot provide guns and butter. We, and our free world allies, should face
the question of whether we are not contributing to the slavery of their
people as well as danger to ourselves by builing out their creaking,
incompetent system when it finds itself in trouble. Would they, without
our help, have to abandon ares building in order to feed their people or
face the possibility of an uprising and revolution by à desperate and
hungry populace? If the answer to this is yes, then we are faced with a
question of national security and pure moral principle. If our decision is
on the side of morality and security, we cannot ask the farmer to bear the
full burden. We, as a nation, would have to think of his produce as a
part of national defense and be prepared to offer a market for what he
raises. Perhaps it could even be stored for future sale when and if the
Soviet chooses real Detente and abandons its build-up of offensive weapons.
FORD
"We come to another color for our banner -- this one standing Sfor a
LIBRA,
fundamental belief in our federation of sovereign states -- the belief that
BoΓe
government governs best the closer it is to the people.
"We have centralized in Washington control of a number of functions
which, if they are to be performed by government at all, should be admini-
stared at the state and local levels. Among these, 1 would include velfare,
medicaid, food stamps, education, community and regional development.
"It is not enough to say that under the leadership of the majority
party we have the most irresponsible Congress in the memory of any one of
us. A handful in both House and Senate valiantly fight all rear guard action
against the excesses of the majority, but the tide of inflationary measures,
unwise energy proposals and needless harassment of the productive sector,
rolls on inexorably.
"The result is a fourth branch of government -- à permanent structure
of unelected employees determining policy to a greater extent than most of
US know. And this has led to an interlocking bureaucracy == what 1 have
referred to as the Washington buddy system -- that involves not only the
Congress and government bureaucracy, but at growing body of employees
representing other levels of government, labor, business and a host of
special interests. As the federal government has expanded into new fields,
these others have grown in numbers because of the necessity of dealing
with the increasingly complex structure of government. Inevitably they
find their personal interests are intertwined. If the federal bureaucracy
is eliminated, there will be no need or place for them. And 50 they feed
on each other.
"These are not evil men, but they are its part of à system and soon
their original purpose becomes involved with perpetuating the system.
"As Parkinson said: Government hires a rat catcher and soon he
becomes a rodent control officer. He's not about to eliminate the roason FORD
for his job.
GERALD
11-11-11
"Let me give you a recent example. Early last month, a group of
large corporations announced it would mount a major lobbying campaign LD
persuade Congress that we should sign a new treaty with Panama, giving
away the canal. They are very frank as to why they are doing this. Their
business interests in Central America have been threatened with sabotage
and destruction if we don't give in to the military dictator's demands.
Apparently the idea did not originate with them, but with our own State
Department.
"Those within the framework of that buddy system strive CO meet the
nation's needs, but the system very often comes first.
"The transition from federal to state control should be phased and
orderly, but I believe it should be up to the people of each state to say
how much they wish to pay for such programs. Given the facts, 1 believe
they will act with good sense and compassion.
"These programs can be better and more cheaply administered at the
state level. Of course, you will not get uniformity -- but what is $0
sacred about uniformity. Indeed, Our strength has always been diversity
and it is diversity, not conformity, we should seek.
"It is true that states assuming some of these programs will have
to raise taxes, but this will be more than offset by the reduction at the
federal level because T assure you these programs can be administered at
lower cost by the states.
"I know there are states that receive more from the federal govern-
ment in aid than they send to it in the form of taxes. But they will
have more to spend on themselves if the federal government is forced to
reduce its OWD expenditures. Government should be forced to balance its
budget; and forced to return back to the states much of the 121 base it
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
more--more--more more
12--12--12
has preempted. Sometimes when you hear this talk, that some states couldn't
get along without help from their sister states, remember New York is one
of those sister states. 1 wonder if anyone is suggesting that New York
is in a position now to help any other state in the Union.
"I am confident that the American people are ready LO demand that the
federal government gets its weight off their backs and its fingers out of
their pockets and purses.
"Unless we pick leaders who are willing to go over the head of the
system and take the people's case to the voters, to the citizens of the
50 states, we are doomed to a never-ending, never-successful struggle.
"Sometimes when you are up to your elbows counting alligators, It
is hard to remember your original objective was to drain the swamp.
"Ladies and gentlemen, 1 think we can take on the system. 1 think
the people want DE to, and expect VG to: I think that until ve do --
and when 1 say 've's 1 mean we Republicans -- ] think that until we do
we are not only failing our trust as Republican leaders, but we are also
failing OUT trust as concerned Americans. For, until we do, ve will
never rally to our side those disaffected non-voters who have quit
voting, not out of apathy, but because they no longer believe they can
influence government to make it responsive to their needs.
"Nor vill we attract those Democrats who have had it PP ID their necks
with hig spending social programs that interfere with their lives; big
inflation that robs them of both jobs and money; and big cuts in national
defense chat leaves the nagging worry that America may not be able LO
defend herself in time of need.
"Our task is no longer one of selling our philosophy, our Republicanism,
to a citizenry enthused about government, confident of government
FORD
ability to be the horn of plenty granting instant utopia.
GERALD
LIBRARY
BOTO
BOTO
"A few years ago, more than three-fourths of all Americans did hold
such a belief. No longer! Today. more than two-thirds of OUT people --
Republicans, Independents and Democrate alike -- are convinced they RTS
not getting their money's worth from government.
"Even our opponents are aware of this, as their campaign rhotoric
shows. In the leadership gathering in Louisville -- officially named the
National Democratic Issues Conference -- they milled in confusion 88 they
faced the revelation that big government doesn't seem to work anymore.
If there vas consensus at all, it was that the only solution for the
problem of big government is bigger government.
"The hall rang with such phrases as 'welfare mess', 'food stamp rip-
off' and the 'busing failure'. But still they cheered and applauded
the familier old tunes they lived with for 40 years -- the recommenda-
tion for public ownership of corporations. Another stressed that 'we
can't have a master plan for society run by Washington elitists', = and
then proposed a National Institute for Planning to be established by the
federal government.
"One of their bright BCW breed of young Governors, who has beguiled
the press by walking to work and declaring that the (ederal system as It
is set up is not working, told the disciples, 'We have seen enough of
failing great social programs and the bankruptcy of New York City to
conclude that something is radically wrong and that more of the same won't
do'. Having delivered himself of lines which any Republican could embrace,
he then proposed A national health insurance plan, nationalizing Lrans-
portation, a federal energy program and a federal guarantee of a job for
everyone.
"They suffer from B kind of political schizophrenis. They know the
problem, but can only solve it with more of the same doctrimaire liberalism
that caused it 16 the first place.
GERALD
LIBRARY
more
more
BATA
14-14--14
"In 1972, we had the votes of millions of patriotic Americans, mainly
because for the first time they understood what the Democratic leadership
had done Lo that party and to this nation. This time, we can give them
a more positive reason for voting. We can prove if we are willing to
take the high road that there is à difference between the parties and
that we will not dilute that difference for political expediency, ve will
not compromise our principles. All we need to do to turn this country
around and point it in the direction in which we believe it should be
going is to offer it a banner around which to rally -- the banner of
Responsible Republicatism. #
ALL
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC RADIO AND
TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "NBC'S MEET THE PRESS."
NEET THIS E PRESS
Produced by Betty Cole Dukert
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1975
GUEST:
THOMAS P. O'NEILL, Jr. (D., Mass.)
Majority Leader, House of Representatives
MODERATOR:
Bill Nonroe - NBC News
PANEL:
Catherine Mackin - NBC News
Neil MacNeil - Time Magazine
Walter Mears Associated Press
Robert Novak - Chicago Sun-Times
as
-
This is a rush transcript pro-
vided for the information and
convenience of the press.Accu-
racy is not guaranteed. In case
of doubt, please check with
MEET THE PRESS
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
2
111
-
MR. MONROE: Our guest today on MEET THE PRESS is the
2
Democratic leader of the House of Representatives. He is
3
known informally as Tip O'Neill, formally as Thomas P. O'Neill,
4
Jr. Congressman O'Neill, a close political associate of
E
Senator Ted Kennedy has represented Cambridge, Massachusetts
E
in the House for 23 years. lie is likely to become the next
?
Speaker of the House if Speaker Albert retires next year.
8
We will have the first questions now from Catherine
9
Mackin of NBC News.
10
MS. MACKIN: Mr. O'Neill, do you think the United States
11
should become involved as we apparently are in the war in
12
Angola?
13
MR. O'NEILL: Well, interestingly about the Angola
14
situation, I talked with the Speaker of the House last
night. He hadn't been informed by the White House or by
15
16
Mr. Kissinger: I as part of the leadership have not been.
member
17
I don't know of any / in the leadership who has been contacted
the
by the Administration or by / State Department.
18
I do know that the Pike Committee has been informed,
19
and I do know that the International Relations Committee has
20
been informed.
21
We should have known about it through the years, that is
22
the government itself - in 1964 when this was before the
23
panel of the UN, this was the one issue that the United States
24
was on the same side with Russia, on the decolonizati
25
BERALE of FORD LIBRARA
3
-
Angola, taking it from Portugal and making it an independent
2
nation.
3
I would have to say at the present time, this is one
4
of the most serious problems that the Congress is coming back
5
to, tomorrow. The press over the weekend has really caught
6
the House by surprise. I have talked with some of the
7
members of the committee. They have been briefed. Mr. Pike
8
is asking for a report within 48 hours: How did we get in
9
the position WE are in? What do we do about it? where are
10
we going from here? Who made the decision that the CIA should
use $25 million in funds and $25 more million in funds are
11
12
about to be used? What about the budget of $65 million that is
13
brooded about they are asking the Congress? These are the
14
questions that the Congress wants.
15
The young members of the Congress that I have talked to
16
within the last 48 hours are appalled at the fact that we
17
are even in there. It is a question that within 30 days the
African nations are having a conference: I think we ought to
18
wait until we find out what the result of that is. Axe we on
19
20
the right side? There are three divisions over there. The
Russians are supporting one. The other two seem to be together
21
22
The northern group and the southern group against the group
that are in the middle. It is a question that is facing the
23
Congress, without any knowledge - let me just say this.
24
I know the feeling of the Congress is, no troops, no advisors,
25
no Americans whatsoever, I can assure you, will be
Angola.
CERALE ent
4
1
MS. MACKIN: Was this a repetition then in some manner
2
or form of the Vietnam involvement? How we began to get
3
involved in Vietnam?
4
MR. O'NEILL: Well, in Vietnam, of course, we sent ad-
5
visers over there, technicians and things of that nature and
eventually we sent troops over. I can assure you we are not
6
Joing to do that. That is not the will of the Congress of
7
the United States.
8
The newer members would be absolutely apalled and there
9
would not be reaction.
10
This is one of the questions that has been facing the
11
country and that the Congress is so tremendously upset about:
12
Who sets the policy in a thing like that? Who says we should
13
send the CIA in? Who decided what group that we should be
14
with?
15
These are the things the Congress doesn't know. They want
16
to know, and they are going to find it out within this week.
17
*****
18
MR. MAC NEIL: Congressman, everyone seems to agree that
19
President Ford is a nice guy but there is growing concern,
20
if not alarm, that he has the capacity to serve as the
21
President. You have known him a long time. What is your judg-
22
ment of his skill as a politician and as a leader?
23
MR. O'NEILL: As the President of the United States, he
24
R. FORD
25
has been a complete disaster, there is no question GERAL about that,
BRARY
5
1
and I must say I as one who voted to confirm him as the
2
Vice President when Spiro Agnew resigned.
3
The truth of the matter is, you have to look at the
4
record and the record is such that unemployment has gone up from
5
about six per cent when he took over to a high of 9.3, and now
3 8.3 inflation has risen. Unemployment is at the rate of
6
$7.7 million. He has no positive programs.
7
Now, in retrospect, as I look at my vote that I made,
8
should I have voted for him; should I have known that he was
9
going to be this type of President? Yes. lle was always one
10
that was swimming against the stream. There was never any
11
extreme leadership; there was never anything for progress for
12
the country. He was one who it is a question of whether he
13
was right, or right of right. He was always trying to cut back
14
programs. Never with any definite ideas to improve the
15
country.
16
So, what I have to say, he has no qualities of leadership
17
and he has been a disastrous President.
18
MR. MAC NEIL: lle has suffered a sharp fall in his standing
19
at the polls. Will this make it easier for a Democratic
20
Congress to override his vetoes such as the tax extension cut?
21
MR. O'NEILL: Well, we have the tax extension cut. I
22
anticipate it should be on his desk on Tuesday and it could very
23
wellle the veto would be back in the House Tuesday night
24
&
FORD
25
But he vacillates so that I can't say for sure that GERMED is
going
LIBRARY
G
1
to veto it. If you look at his whole program along the line,
2
he comes out strongly and says one thing and then, as time goes
3
along, he changes his mind. It could well be he will change his
4
mind by Tuesday.
5
I would hope for the best interests of the country he
will change his mind by Tuesday. Will it make it easier for
6
U.S. to pass a veto?
7
8
I have to look at the record for what has happened. He
asked for a $395 billion budget. He talked with some of the
9
Democratic leadership the other day and he now says he is
10
interested in a $406 billion budget. There is no earthly
11
rhyme or reason why he should veto this. This is going to mean
12
600,000 jobs in America, and an increase in flation of 1.5
13
per cent, bringing it up to 9.5 per cent, but it is a political
14
issue. It is a political issue with him. It is the politics
15
of the thing.
16
He is trying to get right of Reagan and normally the
17
President of the United States, at a time like this, would
18
never be vetoing a bill of this type.
19
MR. MAC NEIL: Do you think it would be easier for a
20
Democratic candidate next year to beat President Ford or
21
Ronald Reagan?
22
MR. O'NEILL: I think the Democrats will defeat either
23
&
FORD
one of them very easily. Ford has an atrocious record,
24
of LIBRARY
course, and Reagan's record as Governor, all that Reagan has
25
7
1
going for him is some charisma. To be perfectly truthful,
2
his record as Governor of California, he increased the tax
3
rate about 300 per cent and increased the budget a tremendous
4
amount of money.
5
Calloway --- that is a problem within the Republican
6
party right now, as to who is right of right. The Democrats
7
are going to win and they are going to win with whatever
8
candidate we bring brward. There is no question in my mind
9
that the American public wants at this time a President of
10
the United States and a Congress of the same party. They are
just sick and tired of the actions of eight years of the
11
12
Administration being of one party and the House being of another
13
party.
Mr. Mears. You mentioned the President's offer of what he
14
15
sees as a compromise on a $406 billion ceiling as the price for
a tax bill.
16
Congress is in the process of approving now a $375
17
billion ceiling for the current year. What is SO drastic
18
to agreeing to $406 billion?
19
MR. O'NEILL: It isn't the question of the agreement; it
20
is the question of the situation of the thing. First of all,
21
he came out that he wanted a $28 billion tax cut and a $28
22
billion cut in the budget. Then he changed and he said he
23
wanted a flat $395 billion budget for the fiscal year 1977.
24
25
We are talking about starting with October of 1976 GERATORY FORDAT
GERALD
LIBRASY
3
:
is when the fiscal year 1977 starts.
2
Then the next proposal he had was a $406 billion budget.
3
Well, the budget at this particular time is $375 billion.
4
You have had an eight per cent increase, inflation rate, for
5
the last three years. That would automatically bring the
6
budget to $405 billion, but we have a new process that is
VI
going on and that new process that is going on is the budgetary
8
committee and the budgetary committee this year set a figure of
9
$375 billion and, in doing so, we have saed the taxpayers
10
of America $10 billion.
11
Now, the ordinary public isn't aware of the fact that
12
of the last seven budgets that have been sent to the Congress
13
of the United States by the Republican Administration, the
14
Congress of the United States has cut five of them.
15
In five instances in five years we have come in with a
16
budget lower than the President of the United States yet the
17
President will say "The wild spending Congress.
The people believe that. The people don't realize we have
18
actually cut the President's budget. We want to be under the
19
$406 billion he is offering. We want to be under $395 billion
20
that he is offering.
21
Take the budget of this year for example. He came in
22
with an increase for defense of 16 per cent. We gave them an
23
increase of 3 per cent. He cut back education, health R.NEP Agel
24
25
fare 13 per cent. We increased it 30 per cent.
GERALD
LIBRARY
9
1
We believe that the Congress of the United States has
2
got the priorities.
3
How do we know what is going to happen starting from
4
October on? This is purely political as far as the President
5
is concerned. He thinks this is a good issue that he's got
but it makes no sense whatever.
6
7
MR. MEARS: Is it not also political on the part of the
B
Congress?
9
MR. O'NEILL: No, there is nothing political about it.
10
We have a new system. Give us an opportunity. We are under
a trial this year. We have to have, by May 15th, a budget for
11
the United States. We will set at that time a figure. All
12
13
authorizations by committees must be in and passed and signed
14
by the President of the United States by May 15th. On May
15th we will give you a budget for the following year. All
15
we are asking the President of the United States is to hold
16
off and give us a temporary tax for six months.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
25
mcl
10
1
MR. NOVAK: Mr. O'Neill, you and Speaker Albert applied
2
the muscle recently, and the House Democratic Caucus defeated
3
an attempt to get a Constitutional amendment against
4
school busing on the Floor by a two to one margin. Now having
5
done that, do you have any plans for next year, to provide
6
some
relief for your constituents and
7
other people from busing?
8
MR. O'NEILL: Well, the busing situation is B
9
situation, and Boston is caught in the turmoil. The truth of
10
the matter is, the question comes on the issue of segregation.
11
It is very costly busing. As a matter of fact, the polls,
12
I understand, whether it is black or white, 80 percent of the
13
people of Boston are opposed to busing.
14
MR. NOVAK: Do you have a statutory solution?
15
MR. O'NEILL: Do we have a solution?
16
MR. NOVAK: Yes, sir.
17
MR. O'NEILL: A very interesting fact about it is this:
18
It is obvious you are not going to get through a Constitutional
amendment. The vote of the Democratic Caucus showed that.
19
20
We have Richardson Pryor and Mo Udall. Both have filed legis-
21
lation. Richardson Pryor is a member of Congress from North
22
Carolina. He is a former federal court justice. He has filed
23
legislation, and he thinks that we can work it out legislative-
24
wise, and the Judiciary Committee doesn't feel we should
25
change the Constitution.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
2
11
1
I as an individual? No, I am not an attorney. Is any-
2
thing being done in the Congress of the United States?
3
The Judiciary Committee and the various committees, at the
4
present time, realizing the great problem that has faced Ameri-
5
ca, realizing how this has faced the large cities of the
6
country, they are working on it. They are trying to do some-
7
thing about it.
8
MR. NOVAK: Would you agree with Senator McGovern that
9
any Democrat who favors a Constitutional amendment against
10
busing has no right to be nominated for President?
11
MR. O'NEILL: Well, no, I can't go that far at all. I
12
am opposed to it myself, to be perfectly truthful, but the
13
answer is no. I think McGovern is wrong on that. Maybe Mc-
14
Govern is looking for an issue for himself to get back in the
15
fight, but there is no question in my mind you are talking
16
about an issue that is not going to take place. It is not
17
going to pass the Congress of the United States.
18
MR. NOVAK: You are still supposed to represent your con-
19
stituents, sir. Do you think your constituents in Charlestown
20
approve of you applying the muscle to prevent a Constitutional
21
amendment from even reaching the House Floor?
22
MR. O'NEILL: No, but that is one of the things that
28
they will have to weigh when they weigh my record as having
24
served that district for 23 years. Do the economic factors R.FORD I
25
do for the area, the representation I give the people, GERÉAD am
LIBRARY
3
12
I
not entitled to my own viewpoints on a matter? Do they expect
2
me to come down here, because the great majority of the people
3
are for the legislation, that is the way I vote? No. They
4
know better than that. They have had confidence in me during
E
the years, and I feel I will be reelected, despite the issue
of busing. Busing to me is a sad issue. I am sorry, we have
7
to live within the law, and that is all there is to it. I
0
hope we can come up with legislation that will cure it.
9
MR. MONROE: If the President vetos the Tax Extension Bill
10
will the House override the veto?
11
MR. O' NEILL: I would hope we would override it, because
12
the factors that will happen -- it is a sad thing when you
13
consider the fact, here it is on the eve of Christmas. A.
14
family of four making $8,000, that means four dollars a week
15
to them. How about the person who is out budgeting something
16
to make a merry Christmas for his youngsters, and he finds out
17
that after he has given it to them, the first of the year comes
18
around and there is now $4.00 taken away in the money he
wanted to give the budget. But there is a million reasons --
19
It means
20
650,000 jobs in America, it means increase in inflation.
21
We have got to face the fact of what has happened along
22
the line. This is a political issue between Reagan and the
23
President of the United States. I would have to say that we
24
will override the veto of the President of the United States,
25
unless the President of the United States comes up
GERULD and rea LIBRARY
13
1
does arm-twisting to the members of the House.
2
When we had this bill before us, you have to take into
3
consideration that we only beat the previous question by 20
4
votes, we only passed the bill by 31 votes. They were follow-
5
ing along on the issue that we should have a flat $395 billion
6
ceiling. They were following the wishes of the President of
7
the United States. Now it comes down to the crux: Will he
8
veto it? He says he will veto it. He has changed his mind
9
along the line. I think we will override his veto.
10
MS. MACKIN: Mr. O'Neill, do you think reporters, when
11
we are out covering candidates, do we cover their personal
12
lives? Should we tell people whether they drink or they
13
don't, whether they are faithful to their wives or not?
14
MR. O'NEILL: That is a very interesting question.
15
I kind of resent, myself, as a man of public life, those who
16
go snooping around to find out - fortunately, I have a family
17
that is very closely knitted, and I have tried to lead a life
18
that I can be proud of, but to be trailing a candidate to
10
see if you can find the inequities in his life, I don't think
20
it is fair. I don't think the American public likes it, to be
21
perfectly truthful. I think a man should be judged on his
22
public service and the record that he has in public office.
23
MR. MAC NEIL: Congressman, you nentioned the unhappiness
24
of the House leadership on the Angola situation. Last week
25
there was an abortive attempt to cite Henry Kissinger
GERAZO R-FORD for LIBRARY
14
1
contempt of Congress. Why is Secretary Kissinger so
2
unpopular in the House of Representatives?
3
MR. O'NEILL: Well, there was a time when Kissinger was
A
able to mesmerize the Congress. He was a new voice, he was a
5
new person, he was an international figure. They had great
6
respect because of his knowledge and the manner in which he
7
was able to field questions. He was always willing to come
8
before the briefings that the Congress has. You have the aver-
9
age Cabinet member up there, he doesn't have 25 or 50 people.
10
When Kissinger came up, he would draw 350 people and would
11
field the questions well.
12
Now the point has come in fielding those questions, well
13
they find there are an awful lot of mistakes and misanswers.
14
One time he answeres one way and another time he answers
15
another way. His credibility isn't as good as it has been
16
in the past. They think he has an inflated ego. They think he
17
has been making decisions on himself. In many instances,
18
probably without the President's advice. But in all instances
19
for the most part without the Congress.
The Congress wants some input. The Congress at this particular
20
time, as far as Kissinger is concerned, I would have to say
21
that he is pretty low in the esteem of the Congress, in
22
as comparison where he was so terrifically high a couple of
23
years ago.
24
25
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
15
I
MR. MEARS: Mr. O'Neill, at the start of this Congress
2
the House underwent some rather drastic changes in the name
3
of reform, in committee chairmanships and the seniority
4
system. You had about one full session under this new system
5
now. What has happened as a result? What is different?
MR. O'NEILL: Well, there is openness in Congress; there
6
is input in Congress. The new members are alert, keen, able,
7
talented, with new views. Because of what has happened,
8
putting new members, for example, on the Ways and Means
9
Committee, we have been able to get a tax reform bill out that
10
is now pending in the Senate. We have had open executive
11
sessions. I think all this augers well for the country. I
12
think the reforms that we have done was something we needed for
13
years. There hadn't been really a reform since 1946 and we
14
should review ourselves and we hadn't reviewed ourselves until
15
we made the change.
16
MR. MEARS: Is there anything on the books that affects
17
the average citizen that wouldn't be there if you hadn't made
18
those changes at the start of the session?
19
MR. O'NEILL: No, I would have to say there probably
20
isn't, but there is more openness in America. The people are
21
more acquainted, more knowledgeable about their government
22
than they have ever been before.
23
Now, why do I say that? I say that because 92 new
24
25
members were elected to Congress. They have gone back into FORD
&
their districts; they have talked about issues, international GERRID
ABRARY
Lite
16
2
1
and national. They have given better reporting. They have
2
had Town Hall meetings of the area around their districts.
3
They have mobile units go around. The people are more
4
acquainted and more familiar with their Congressmen than ever
before. There is more openness in government and I think
5
that is good for the country.
6
MR. MONROE: We have about two and a half minutes.
7
MR. NOVAK: Mr. O'Neill, over the last year you have been
8
very active and very successful in cutting off aid to Turkey
9
as a result of a Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
10
Now, the other day, when the Israeli airplanes, which
11
are obtained from the United States, bombed civilians in
12
Lebanon, I didn't see you making any proposal to cut off aid to
13
Israel. Can you explain why that is?
14
MR. O'NEILL: Very easily. That is a complete difference.
15
There is no comparison in the issues. When the Greeks under
16
?
Sanson had invaded Cyprus and the war was over and the
17
Greeks and the Turks and the Cypriots were sitting at Geneva,
18
it was then that the Turks invaded, when there was no war going
19
on.
20
They invaded with 40,000 troops using American arms,
21
and they overran the country.
22
Now, what has happened here is that the Israelis have
23
been fighting PLOS for years and they had reason to believe,
24
or knowledge, that the PLOs were using this particul;
25
GERALD FORD HIBRAPY as
17
1
a base and they say there were even missiles there. And
2
so, consequently, it is a question of being able to defend
3
yourself against an attack that you are anticipating rather
4
than an invasion the Turks made when the war was over.
5
MR. NOVAK: Do you commend that use of American aid
then to bomb civilians?
6
7
MR. O'NEILL: I don't commend anything. I am a pacifist
8
by nature. I would like to say there will be no wars whatso-
9
ever but certainly in this particular instance there is no
10
comparison in the analogy you are trying to make.
11
The Israelis have no other alternative but to protect
12
themselves, and when you know somebody is laying across the
line with missiles pointed at you, you have no other alterna-
13
tive but to go in and smash them.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
18
1
MS. MACKIN: A couple months ago, Mr. O'Neill, you said
2
that Senator Kennedy said for you to keep him alive in the
3
Presidential sweepstakes, or whatever you want to call it.
4
What's the latest word on that? Are you keeping him alive ---
5
MR. O'NEILL: Well, very interestingly, I talked with Ted
6
last week. I said, "Ted, after the caucuses that were held in
7
New York, after the caucuses were held in Massachusetts, no-
8
body emerged. Do you want me to put you back in the fight?"
9
He said, "No way. I am not a candidate for President of
10
the United States."
11
MS. MACKIN: Do you believe that?
12
MR. O'NEILL: I do.
13
MR. MONROE: We are about out of time. Thank you very
14
much, Congressman O'Neill, for being with us on MEET THE PRESS.
****
15
16
NEXT WEEK: William Seidman, Assistant to the President
for Economic Affairs
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
EXCERPTS FROM REMARKS Conway, N. H. - Monday, January 5, 1976
(1)
A Republican Congressman has revealed some very
startling facts. He's chairing a subcommittee. Washington
generates enough paper work each year to fill 50 major league
baseball stadiums. Ten years ago the Federal government had
3,800 different forms. Today there are 6,000, not counting the
Internal Revenue Service which has another 4,000. The 6,000
are generated by 3,500 bureaus, agencies and services that main-
tain 8,000 separate record systems. And still, with all that
record keeping, the Social Security couldn't tell.
could
tell
a
man that he was dead and shut off his disability amounts. And,
when he appeared before them in the flesh--very much alive, they
still couldn't figure out a way to get his payments restored.
But he managed by for awhile, because they gave him several hundred
dollars to pay for his funeral.
(2)
Some of you here tonight, I know, must have paid into
the Social Security program month after month, year after year,
in the belief that you'd have a monthly benefit check as long as
you lived. Now you're told there is a great imbalance in Social
Security-- that it's been as badly handled as the government has
handled all its other finances. It's in need of overhaul, but
there is one thing that must be made unmistakably certain, any
reform must have as its first priority a guarantee that all who
were counting on Social Security for their livelihood will con-
FORD
tinue to receive their monthly check and that the benefits will
not decline in purchasing power
will keep pace with inflation.
LIBRARY
Excerpts from Remarks - Conway, N. H. - Monday, January 5, 1976
(2)
Reform there must be. There are inequities begging to
be corrected. Take Federal employees, for instance. As a group,
they decided a long time ago to stay out of the Social Security
system, opted instead for their own pension program. And yet,
some of them retire on those pensions at normal retirement age
and then they get a job out in the private sector for a relatively
short time, quit and then draw full Social Security benefits along
with their Federal pensions.
And, if you work 35 or 40 years in the private sector,
retire at age 65, you can't even draw your full Social Secutiry
benefits unless you earn no more than $2,760. Women are treated
unfairly under the system. A woman must be married to her husband
20 years before she gains any right to his Social Secutiry benefits.
A homemaker bears and raises children but for some reason she and
her husband are divorced after, say, 18 years. She doesn't get a
nickel of his benefits when he retires. It's an inequity that
should be corrected. A great many working women pay into the
system while they're working but get nothing back. If a woman
works and then retires, she gets nothing extra if her half of
her husband's benefits is more than her own would have been
individually. So, she pays into the program and gets nothing back.
Or, take the case of two different men reaching the age
of 65. One was president of the company, made good money and
invested it. He retires with enough to live on from his investments.
He also is entitled to his Social Security benefits. The other man,
say he is a plumber, same age. He'd like to work just for a few
more years -maybe to pay off the mortgate. But, if he does, he
FORD
can't earn more than $2,760. There's something wrong with a system
GERAL
LIBRARY
1
EXCERPTS FROM REMARKS - Whitefield, N. H., Tuesday, January 6th
I know that some of you here today paid in for months--
years into the Social Security program in the belief that it would.
you'd have a monthly benefit check as long as you lived. Now, even
Washington is admitting that there is a great imbalance in Social
Security, that it's been as badly handled as all their other money
affairs. It is in need of an overhaul, but there's one thing that
I think must be made unmistakably clear to everyone. Any reform
must have as its first priority a guarantee that those who must
depend on Social Security for their livelihood will
(Tape ran out, but remarks appear to be basically the same as those
made in Conway on 1/5/76)
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
Excerpts from Remarks - Conway, N. H. - January 5, 1976
(3)
that won't allow people who want to work, and can work, to do so
after age 65 without giving up the benefits they've paid for.
The system is also unfair to younger workers. No one
under 40 in America today stands to get back anywhere near as
much as he put into the system. First, in any reform
as I say
we must recognize the rights of our retired citizens to their
regular Social Security benefits, as well as the rights of today's
workers who have been paying into the system. We must work to
correct the inequities that I have described. Any other reform
proposals should be studied with an open mind and with great care.
Down the road, it's possible the government might decide
to make some option available to new workers entering the system,
and if it does, it must make certain to do so
doesn't jeopardize
today's retired people or workers in any way. And then, there is
one reform that stands out above all others--that is for the Federal
government to set a schedule for balancing the budget so that we can
depend those on Social Security--that their dollars will get as
much next month as they will buy today or as they had bought in
months past.
FORD i GERALD LIBRARY
Conway, New Hampshire - Monday, January 5, 1976
QUESTION: Back in 1964, you supported Barry Goldwater and
William Miller and I believe at that time--as a matter of fact
I know--that you and Mr. Goldwater both recommended that Social
Security be voluntary. Therefore, the whole program of Social
Security, which is going to cost $75 million dollars next year,
would have been abolished because I don't know anybody below
the age of--a lot of people below the age of 35--who can't say
they don't want that program because they can do so much better
with their own programs. How would you change now--when a great
portion of your speech was for reform of Social Security rather
than abolishing it?
REAGAN: People said that Barry Goldwater wanted voluntary Social
Security. People said--have said since--that I abrogated the same
thing--that in a speech that I made on the national network in
behalf of Barry Goldwater about 10 days or so before the election.
You will find that the voluntary features that I talked about were
the same things that I mentioned tonight, including such things
then as the fact that today you pay in to what we're told is an
insurance program but you cannot name your own beneficiary. For
example, I used the example in that speech, that a young man
raised by an aunt--not his mother--raised by an aunt, paying into
Social Security, has an accident, dies--his aunt who has raised
him from childhood cannot inherit his benefits as his mother
could because she's not his mother even though she served as his
mother all those years. And I said that, certainly, the least
that you could do is let the individual paying in do what GERMLO he could
GE
Conway, New Hampshire - Monday, January 5, 1976
(2)
do with an insurance company and name his own beneficiaries--who
he wants to receive the money when he is gone. I named a number
of other areas at that time, but no, at that time Barry Goldwater
and I, following suit, were trying to warn the people of this
country that Social Security was based on some false assumptions
but, unfortunately, we were only warning of something we felt
might--that we thought was going to happen. Today, Social Security
must admit that it is two and a quarter trillion dollars out of
balance by actuarial standards. Now, the time is at hand to reform
and make sure that some generation of Americans is not going to
find the cupboard is bare when they want that money. But to do it,
I will tell you now, you cannot put this program in balance with-
out all of us participating. Maybe some place down the road--some
day there might come a time where you could introduce some other
features into it, but right now all of the plans that I know that
are being talked about by economists are based on plans in which
the compulsory features of participation would remain.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
Plymouth, New Hampshire - Wednesday, January 7, 1976
QUESTION: Governor Reagan, recently I read an article in the
newspaper where there was $255 million diverted from the Social
Security Fund, which is almost broke, and it was sent abroad as
foreign aid where there were 9 Cadillacs bought for some shieks
and
over in Iran or somewhere. What would you propose could
be done to eliminate the waste of the old people's Social Security
money?
REAGAN: Well, I think there is a complete reform needed in Social
Security. I don't know about that particular incident, but I do
know that Social Security is now two and a trillion quarter
dollars out of balance on an actuarial basis and it must be
reformed. But what I have insisted on is that any reform must be
started with the first priority and that is the guaranteed pro-
tection of the payments to those now receiving them and those
who are counting on them for their retirement years. But then,
it must be put on a sound basis.
The Social Security Fund--Trust Fund--is supposed to
be a fund to pay for a year or two of Social Security if there
should be a calamity such as 1929 in which there wouldn't be
the incoming money to pay the benefits. The truth of the matter
is, that Trust Fund is down to about 9 months, but worse, the
Trust fund is not in cash. The government has replaced the Trust
Fund with bonds. Now, if you hold a government bond, it is an
IOU from the government, but how in the devil can the governmentor
give itself an IO Me? And that is what they have done with the
GERALD
LIBRARY
Plymouth, New Hampshire - Wednesday, January 7, 1976
(2)
Social Security Trust Fund and it has to be reorganized.
The projections of Social Security were based on a belief
that the number of workers would increase faster than the number of
retirees. That has been reversed. The number of retirees is
increasing faster than the number of workers and today three workers,
with their pay roll tax, are supporting one recipient of Social
Security. That is why there has got to be a fundamental reorganiza-
tion of the program, but always with the guarantee that they are not
going to doublecorss someone that they have promised they are going
to help.
FORD R GERALD LIBRARY