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.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525549
label
Ford Press Releases - Inflation, 1968
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525549
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Inflation, 1968
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Federal budget
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525549
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1968-02-29
month
2
year
1968
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1968-02-01
month
2
year
1968
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
7f57a0e109f062a5
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D8, folder "Ford Press Releases - Inflation,
1968" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File 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. The Council 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Digitized from Box D8 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Copy
7 February 1968
11111
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE PLEDGES ACTION TO ESTABLISH PRIORITIES,
REDUCE SPENDING AND REVISE AND REFORM EXISTING PROGRAMS
The deepening fiscal crisis at home and abroad demands courage, leadership
and candor.
Unfortunately, the Johnson Administration has failed to demonstrate any of
these qualities. Instead, it has sown the seeds for yet another spending explosion.
The proposed expenditures of $186.1 billion in the 1969 budget and the estimated
deficit of $8 to $21.2 billion are evidences of a government slipping out of control.
Action must be taken by this Congress to impose spending priorities, reduce govern-
mental expenditures and reestablish fiscal credibility.
The spending policies of the Johnson Administration have fed the inflationary
fires, skyrocketed interest rates and created large deficits. They have led to a
marked reduction in the purchasing power of the dollar, caused a catastrophic drain
on the gold supply of this Country and endangered the world monetary system.
Secrecy, improvisation and pclitically inspired estimates have become the
hallmark of the Great Society economic planning.
The Johnson Administration has stubbornly insisted that this Country could
fight a major war and escalate nondefense spending. The results devastating in-
flation, a dollar under attack, proposed controls on travel and investment abroad, a
plea for a 10 percent surtax, the threat of wage and price controls and a request
that the 25 percent gold cover be removed.
Under the new unified budget concept, the President proposes expenditures of
$186.1 billion in fiscal 1969. If Congress enacts his tax proposals, he anticipates
revenues of $178.1 billion and a deficit of $8 billion. Without the tax increase, a
deficit of $21.2 billion is forecast.
(over)
Under the 1969 Budget, new obligational authority would increase by nearly
$18 billion compared to an increase of $7.4 billion in the current year. Total bud-
get authority would increase by over $15 billion compared to less than $4 billion in
the current year. Net obligations incurred would increase by $15.7 billion compared
to $10.8 billion in the current year.
Based on the pattern of the past, there is reason to believe that the 1969
budget may present a misleading picture both as to income and outgo. Thus, even with
the enactment of the surtax, the budget deficit may be nearer $15 billion than the $8
billion the President has predicted.
For example, the President's budget assumes that the war in Vietnam will cost
$26.3 billion. This may be at least $4 billion low just as the 1968 estimate has
proven to be. Also, the President has asked for only a 10 percent increase in grants
to the States for public assistance. In each of the last three budgets, the Admin-
istration's estimate has been off several hundred million dollars. In fiscal 1968
the Administration has had to ask for an increase of some 26 percent over the original
request.
The overall expenditure estimates of the past three budgets have been in-
credibly wide of the mark. In 1966, the first administration estimate was a full
$10.4 billion less than actual spending. In 1967, the spread between the original
and final estimate was $10 billion. This year's budget document projects a $4
billion increase over last January's estimate and fiscal 1968 is only half over.
Also, the original estimate for the deficit in fiscal 1968 was $8 billion. Now the
President estimates that the deficit may be $19.8 billion with a tax increase and
$22.8 billion without.
It is little wonder that the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee
has warned: "History strongly cautions us to assume that the budget will turn out
for the worse rather than the better; that it is wise to hedge against the uncertain-
ties, the slippages, the failures."
The dramatic increase in spending under the Johnson Administration is re-
flected in the fact that in fiscal 1965 the Administrative budget expenditures
(more)
totaled $96.5 billion. At that time, defense costs were $50.2 billion. In fiscal
1969, administrative budget expenditures are estimated to total $147.3 billion. Of
this amount, $76.9 billion will be for defense. While defense costs have increased
by $26.7 billion from 1965 to 1969, nondefense spending has increased $24.2 billion.
Thus, on a percentage basis, both defense and nondefense spending have increased by
52 percent from 1965 to 1969.
In 4 years, full-time permanent employment in the executive branch will have
increased by 454,747 to a total of 2,687,500 civilian employees. This represents an
increase of more than 20 percent. In this period employment has decreased in only
one agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and then by only 1.5
percent. Now, in spite of the fiscal crisis, the budget anticipates a further in-
crease in 1969 over 1968 of 45,600 full-time permanent employees in the Executive
Branch.
Certainly no significant effort has been made by the Johnson Administration
to restrain other Government spending when Vietnam defense costs were clearly escal-
ating. On the contrary, in 1965 and again in 1966 when the Republicans were out-
numbered two to one, President Johnson and his rubber stamp Democratic majority in
Congress hastily enacted a flood of new and extremely costly programs. The next
installments on these programs are now due.
This then may be the true measure of the 1969 budget as well as the Johnson
Administration. It is a business as usual approach. It is characterized by fast
talk and glib promises. It is so committed to the Great Society Programs and in-
creased spending that it has neither the will nor the competency to face up to our
mounting economic problems and our new and pressing needs.
In the First Session of the 90th Congress, Republicans were instrumental in
saving the American taxpayers $4.1 billion in proposed spending and in cutting $5.8
billion from the President's new appropriation requests. A Republican expenditure
limitation of $131.5 billion was adopted by the House of Representatives. In a
series of 23 roll call votes on specific reductions, Republican Members of the House
of Representatives averaged 85 percent support while Democrats averaged only 17
(over)
percent support.
In the Second Session, we pledge an even greater effort to establish
priorities, reduce spending and revise and reform existing programs. This Country
must win the battle of the budget so that it may emerge from the present fiscal
crisis strong and better equipped to meet its obligations and challenges at home
and abroad.