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
4525955
label
Wisconsin Republican Finance Committee Dinner, Milwaukee, WI, June 18, 1966
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525955
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Wisconsin Republican Finance Committee Dinner, Milwaukee, WI, June 18, 1966
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
China
Wisconsin
Democratic Party (U.S.)
Johnson, Lyndon B. (Lyndon Baines), 1908-1973
Agriculture
Great Society
Poverty programs
Congressional elections
Presidential campaign, 1964
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525955
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1966-06-30
month
6
year
1966
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-06-01
month
6
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
4bf4bcef77b922b4
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D20, folder "Wisconsin Republican Finance
Committee Diner, Milwaukee, WI, June 18, 1966" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
milw, Wisc.- GOP Finance Committee, June18, 1966
SPEECH BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN
DEMOCRATIC FOLLIES AND FALLACIES
Ladies and gentlemen,
I come before you tonight with a program that is calculated to win every vote
in the country, a program which is made up of thoroughly unattainable objectives.
If the goals in this program are enacted into law by the Congress, every man in
America will live in a split level house on a country estate, there will be two cars
in every garage, T-bone steaks--prime, naturally--sizzling on the patio every night,
rock and roll music for every teenager in the country from dawn to midnight, and free
ear plugs for every adult, In short, we will have all the goodies Mao Tse-tung
promised the peasants during the Great Leap Forward.
This is a program based on the Democrats' victory formula that says there is no
political substitute for something for nothing, even though the people never get it.
I have put this new program together from the Democrats' 1964 platform, which
they naturally rejected right after they were elected.
Many of these Democratic platform planks need no commentary, but where it better
serves the interests of the Republican Party to do a bit of embellishing, you can be
certain I'll do just that.
The first plank is, of course, dedicated to that great man of peace, Lyndon B.
Johnson. It reads, and I quote from the 1964 Democratic platform:
"The search for peace requires the utmost intelligence, the clearest vision, and
a strong sense of reality." --And I might add that you just can't be a Nervous Nellie
and have peace, either.
But to continue with the plank as written
"Because for four years our Nation has patiently demonstrated these qualities
and persistently used them, the world is closer to peace today than it was in 1960."
I might mention at this point, too, that this platform with its plank on peace
is offered not only to you but to Senators Fulbright and Morse, too, as a "covenant
of unity."
And to all the young men in the Nation, we want to say this, just as the
Democrats said it in 1964:
"We must and we will pursue our examination of the selective service program
to make certain that it is continued only as long as it is necessary and that we mete
out military manpower needs without social and economic injustice."
We Republicans will build the peace, as the Democrats promised to do in 1964.
What nobler statement can be made than that of the Democrats two years ago when they
said: "We are slowly but surely approaching the point where effective international
(MORE)
Digitized from Box D20 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
agreements providing for inspection and control can begin to lift the crushing burden
of armaments off the backs of the people of the world."
It's true that the Red Chinese now have the A-bomb and probably will have
intermediate range missiles in two or three years and intercontinental ballistic
missiles inside of 10 years. But why worry about that? We're going to get rid of
the armaments load even if we have to fight a war to do it.
We continue to oppose the admission of Red China to the United Nations. We
Republicans have said that before and we say it now. The Democrats said it is 1964,
but they had no idea that Arthur Goldberg was going to have to make a speech before
the National Press Club in 1966 and might want to talk about letting Red China into
the U.N.
Peace in a political platform is not enough, of course. We must also have
prosperity. We Republicans pledge to promote a prosperity built not on the sands of
inflation but on a sound dollar, a prosperity based not on taking from one man to
give to another but on making every man a proud and productive citizen able to make
his own way.
The Democrats pledged prosperity in 1964 and in doing so stressed "the importance
of low interest rates." That was before Lyndon Johnson hit on the idea of pooling
government loans and selling $5,000 shares in them to big-wheel investors who will
get juicy returns from the government for the use of their money. That was before it
occurred to Mr. Johnson that if you sell a piece of the action to the big boys, you
can use their cash to hold down the federal deficit. That was before Mr. Johnson
decided it was smarter to drive up interest rates for the little guy than to cut back
government spending. That was before Mr. Johnson figured it was better to charge the
taxpayers more money to pick up this outside capital than it was to post a $6 billion
deficit.
In 1964 the Democrats were interested in economy and in using wisely every
dollar of the taxpayer's money--or so they said.
We Republicans herewith renew our continuing pledge to treat every dollar of tax
money as though it were our own. If we were presently in power, we could borrow the
words of the Democrats who promised in 1964 to "continue a frugal government, getting
a dollar's value for a dollar spent."
Of course, the war on poverty as conceived by LBJ, Sargent Shriver, and Adam
Clayton Powell had not been launched at that time, and the Democratic Platform
writers of two years ago had no idea that $1.75 billion would be spent so economically
in the war on poverty that there would be very little to show for it.
Senate Democratic Leader Mike Mansfield had no inkling two years ago that in
1966 he would be saying about the Job Corps: "It was not my intention to support the
establishment of three reformatories in my state."
(MORE)
-3-
Sen. Vance Hartke, Democrat of Indiana, could not have imagined he would be
stating: "I question the continuation of poverty programs such as the youth camps."
Rep. Augustus Hawkins, Democrat of California, could not have supposed that he
would declare: "The community development program as adopted by Congress is not
functioning as it was set up. What is being done to this program is a crime."
Rep. Robert Sweeney, Democrat of Ohio, could not have dreamed that he would
describe the Job Corps as a "fantastically expensive failure
costing taxpayers
$11,252 a year per enrollee." He could not know he would venture the opinion that
"this money can be better used by the Office of Education, the Department of Labor
and the military education channels."
Sen. Albert Gore, Democrat of Tennessee, could not have guessed that he would be
calling the Office of Economic Opportunity "a grossly disorganized affair" and adding
that "while I hope some order will be brought out of current chaos, I become more
doubtful daily."
We Republicans would like to take on the job of fighting poverty, since the
Democratic warriors obviously are bobbling it and falling far short of their pledge
to use the taxpayers' dollars wisely.
We promise, if elected, to launch an Opportunity Crusade that will cost the
federal government hundreds of millions of dollars less but accomplish far more. We
promise, if elected, to enter into an anti-poverty alliance with the states and
private enterprise that will muster more than an additional half billion dollars
annually for the assault on poverty while costing the taxpayers far less.
Notwithstanding the fact that Poverty Czar Sargent Shriver has the power to
override governors of the states, we Republicans still feel constrained to borrow
these words from the 1964 Democratic Platform:
"The Federal Government exists not to subordinate the states, but to support
them."
Why shouldn't the Democrats say this about the states? They're used to
supporting everyone else.
Prices we have to say something in the Republican program about keeping prices
in
line. Let's see now how did the Democrats phrase their platform promise in 1964?
Here it is: "Our enviable record of price stability must be maintained. Stability
is essential to protect our citizens--particularly the retired and handicapped--from
the ravages of inflation."
What a shame that the 1957-59 dollar now is worth only 86 cents! The Democrats
sure are going to have a hard time convincing the old folks that they're being pro-
tected from the ravages of inflation. I guess they'll just have to promise them
another Social Security increase. Oh yes, Lyndon's already done that, hasn't he?
(MORE)
-4-
And all the Republicans have to offer is a sound dollar!
What about the farmer? We Republicans are dedicated to "the goals of higher
incomes to the farm and ranch, particularly the family-sized farm, lower prices for
the consumer, and lower costs to the Government."
The Democrats used those words in 1964, but that's all right. Of course, it 80
happens that, on the farm, farm prices are six per cent lower now than they were in
1951. At the same time the irate housewife pays 16 per cent more at the supermarket.
So to appease housewives angered by high food prices, the Democrats beat down prices
received by the farmer. And to lower costs to the Government, the Democrats substi-
tuted margarine for butter in all the food welfare programs and the menus of the Army,
Marines and Air Force.
After dumping Commodity Credit Corporation grain on the market to force down
grain prices, the Government now is buttering up the wheat farmer by announcing a
15 per cent increase in wheat acreage allotments. But if the farmer is confused, all
he has to do is go back and read the 1964 Democratic Platform and that will straighten
him out.
Now, let's be fair about this. There are some Democrats who are worried about
where their leader is taking them, whether the Great Society is a good society, and
who is going to pay the bills.
It was a Democrat--the Senate majority leader, no less--who said last fall upon
adjournment of Congress that in '66 Congress should "spend less time on new legislation
and more time correcting oversights in legislation we have just passed."
And "Honest Mike" Mansfield continued: "We have passed a lot of major bills at
this session, some of them very hastily, and they stand in extreme need of a going-
over for loopholes, rough corners, and particularly for an assessment of current and
ultimate cost in the framework of our capacity to meet it."
Have the Democrats in the 89th Congress done what Mike Mansfield promised?
Since there are Ladies present, I'll answer that question with just one word instead
of two--NO!
My colleagues in the House have hammered away at the Democrats to get them to
improve on some of Lyndon's Lulus, like the poverty program I just got through
talking about, but we just don't have the troops right now to make it stick. How
about giving us some help in November?
Honest Mike Mansfield was worried about the price tag on Great Society legisla-
tion. One of the directors of the National Planning Association has come up with
the answer after a two-year study of 16 proposed Great Seciety goals and their cost
in 1962 dollars.
(MORE)
-5-
His principal conclusion was that by 1975, if all of the goals were pursued
simultaneously, their cost that year would be $150 billion more than the estimated
gross national product of approximately one trillion dollars. That's what I said--
a trillion dollars.
If a Democrat had talked that kind of spending in the days when people really
got excited about politics in this country, the folks would have run him out of town
on a rail.
I'm not asking you to run 'em out of town. I'm just asking you to do something
that will get the spenders and Great Society manipulators out of our hair without
the tar and feathers treatment. Run the Democrats out of office in November. That's
all I ask. Let's all give 'em hell.
Thank you
###
Knowles
"DEMOCRATIC FOLLIES AND FALLACIES" Faird Byrnes Davis
O'Konobi
Thompon
SPEECH FOR WISCONSIN REPUBLICAN FINANCE COMMITTEE DINNER
Jeah Kimburg
speit
Republics elmity
SATURDAY 7 P.M., JUNE 18, 1966
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,
I COME BEFORE YOU TONIGHT WITH A PROGRAM THAT IS
CALCULATED TO WIN EVERY VOTE IN THE COUNTRY, A PROGRAM
WHICH IS MADE UP OF THOROUGHLY UNATTAINABLE OBJECTIVES.
IF THE GOALS IN THIS PROGRAM ARE ENACTED INTO LAW BY
THE CONGRESS, EVERY MAN IN AMERICA WILL LIVE IN A SPLIT
LEVEL HOUSE ON A COUNTRY ESTATE, THERE WILL BE TWO CARS
IN EVERY GARAGE, T-BONE STEAKS--PRIME, NATURALLY--SIZZLING
ON THE PATIO EVERY NIGHT, ROCK-AND-ROLL MUSIC FOR EVERY
TEENAGER IN THE COUNTRY FROM DAWN TO MIDNIGHT, AND FREE
EAR PLUGS FOR EVERY ADULT. IN SHORT, WE WILL HAVE ALL
Chinese Communits
GREAT LEAP FORWARD.
THE GOODIES MAO TSE-TUNG PROMISED THE PEASANTS DURING THE GERALE FORD
LIBRARY
-2-
WIS. REPB. FIN.
THIS IS A PROGRAM BASED ON THE DEMOCRATS' VICTORY
FORMULA THAT SAYS THERE IS NO POLITICAL SUBSTITUTE FOR
SOMETHING FOR NOTHING, EVEN THOUGH THE PEOPLE NEVER GET IT.
Tonight
I HAVE PUT THIS NEW PROGRAM TOGETHER FROM THE DEMOCRATS'
A
1964 PLATFORM, WHICH THEY NATURALLY REJECTED RIGHT AFTER
THEY WERE ELECTED.
MANY OF THESE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM PLANKS NEED NO
certainly mothing complementary
COMMENTARY, BUT WHERE IT BETTER SERVES THE INTERESTS OF
Republican commentary or
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO DO A BIT OF EMBELLISHING, YOU CAN
BE CERTAIN I'LL DO JUST THAT.
(GO INTO MAIN TEXT OF SPEECH)
LIBRARY
-13-
WIS. REPB. FIN.
AND ALL THE REPUBLICANS HAVE TO OFFER IS A SOUND DOLLAR!
and for wgtht years under Essenhiwer + Mefron we did have level prices, no inflation
WHAT ABOUT THE FARMER? WE REPUBLICANS ARE DEDICATED
TO "THE GOALS OF HIGHER INCOMES TO THE FARM AND RANCH,
PARTICULARLY THE FAMILY-SIZED FARM, LOWER PRICES FOR THE
CONSUMER, AND LOWER COSTS TO THE GOVERNMENT.
THE DEMOCRATS USED THOSE WORDS IN 1964, BUT THAT'S
ALL RIGHT. OF COURSE, IT SO HAPPENS THAT, ON THE FARM,
FARM PRICES ARE SIX PER CENT LOWER NOW THAN THEY WERE IN
1951. AT THE SAME TIME THE IRATE HOUSEWIFE PAYS 16 PER CENT
MORE AT THE SUPERMARKET. SO TO APPEASE HOUSEWIVES ANGERED
BY HIGH FOOD PRICES, THE DEMOCRATS BEAT DOWN PRICES RECEIVED
BY THE FARMER. AND TO LOWER COSTS TO THE GOVERNMENT, THE
DEMOCRATS SUBSTITUTED MARGARINE FOR BUTTER IN ALL THE FOOD
GERALD
LIBRARY
-14-
WIS. REPB. FIN.
WELFARE PROGRAMS AND THE MENUS OF THE ARMY, MARINES AND
AIR FORCE.
AFTER DUMPING COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION GRAIN ON
THE MARKET TO FORCE DOWN GRAIN PRICES, THE GOVERNMENT
NOW IS BUTTERING UP THE WHEAT FARMER BY ANNOUNCING A
15 PER CENT INCREASE IN WHEAT ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS. BUT
IF THE FARMER IS CONFUSED, ALL HE HAS TO DO IS GO BACK
AND READ THE 1964 DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM AND THAT WILL
STRAIGHTEN HIM OUT.
NOW, LET'S BE FAIR ABOUT THIS. THERE ARE SOME DEMOCRATS
WHO ARE WORRIED ABOUT WHERE THEIR LEADER IS TAKING THEM,
WHETHER THE GREAT SOCIETY IS A GOOD SOCIETY, AND WHO IS
GOING TO PAY THE BILLS.
GERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
-15-
WIS. REPB. FIN.
IT WAS A DEMOCRAT--THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, NO LESS--
WHO SAID LAST FALL UPON ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS THAT IN '66
CONGRESS SHOULD "SPEND LESS TIME ON NEW LEGISLATION AND
MORE TIME CORRECTING OVERSIGHTS IN LEGISLATION WE HAVE
JUST PASSED.
AND "HONEST MIKE" MANSFIELD CONTINUED: "WE HAVE PASSED
A LOT OF MAJOR BILLS AT THIS SESSION, SOME OF THEM VERY
HASTILY, AND THEY STAND IN EXTREME NEED OF A GOING-OVER
FOR LOOPHOLES, ROUGH CORNERS, AND PARTICULARLY FOR AN
ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT AND ULTIMATE COST IN THE FRAMEWORK
OF OUR CAPACITY TO MEET IT."
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
HAVE THE DEMOCRATS IN THE 89TH CONGRESS DONE WHAT
MIKE MANSFIELD PROMISED? SINCE THERE ARE LADIES PRESENT,
I'LL ANSWER THAT QUESTION WITH JUST ONE WORD INSTEAD OF
TWO---NO!
-16-
WIS. REPB. FIN.
MY COLLEAGUES IN THE HOUSE HAVE HAMMERED AWAY AT THE
DEMOCRATS TO GET THEM TO IMPROVE ON SOME OF LYNDON'S LULUS,
LIKE THE POVERTY PROGRAM I JUST GOT THROUGH TALKING ABOUT,
BUT WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE TROOPS RIGHT NOW TO MAKE IT
STICK. HOW ABOUT GIVING US SOME HELP IN NOVEMBER? Re-lect
John Byrnto HONEST mil Faird, MIKE then MANSFIELD Davis, al WAS Konohi WORRIED Vern Tempson ABOUT - THE and Bill PRICE TAG /Heng Sheeldy
ON GREAT SOCIETY LEGISLATION. ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF
THE NATIONAL PLANNING ASSOCIATION HAS COME UP WITH THE
ANSWER AFTER A TWO-YEAR STUDY OF 16 PROPOSED GREAT SOCIETY
GOALS AND THEIR COST IN 1962 DOLLARS.
HIS PRINCIPAL CONCLUSION WAS THAT BY 1975, IF ALL OF
THE GOALS WERE PURSUED SIMULTANEOUSLY, THEIR COST THAT
YEAR WOULD BE $150 BILLION MORE THAN THE ESTIMATED GROSS
NATIONAL PRODUCT OF APPROXIMATELY ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
-17-
WIS. REPB. FIN.
THAT'S WHAT I SAID--A TRILLION DOLLARS.
IF A DEMOCRAT HAD TALKED THAT KIND OF SPENDING IN THE
DAYS WHEN PEOPLE REALLY GOT EXCITED ABOUT POLITICS IN THIS
COUNTRY, THE FOLKS WOULD HAVE RUN HIM OUT OF TOWN ON A RAIL.
I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO RUN EM OUT OF TOWN. I'M JUST
ASKING YOU TO DO SOMETHING THAT WILL GET THE SPENDERS AND
GREAT SOCIETY MANIPULATORS OUT OF OUR HAIR WITHOUT THE
TAR AND FEATHERS TREATMENT. RUN THE DEMOCRATS OUT OF
OFFICE IN NOVERBER. THAT'S ALL I ASK. LET'S ALL GIVE 'EM
HELL.
The your time
----THANK YOU----
treasurer
talent
--END OF SPEECH--
GERALO FORD LIBRARY
SPEECH BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN
DEMOCRATIC FOLLIES AND FALLACIES
Ladies and gentlemen,
I come before you tonight with a program that is calculated to win every vote
in the country, a program which is made up of thoroughly unattainable objectives.
If the goals in this program are enacted into law by the Congress, every man in
America will live in a split level house on a country estate, there will be two cars
in every garage, T-bone steaks--prime, naturally--sizzling on the patio every night,
rock and roll music for every teenager in the country from dawn to midnight, and free
ear plugs for every adult, In short, we will have all the goodies Mao Tse-tung
promised the peasants during the Great Leap Forward.
This is a program based on the Democrats' victory formula that says there is no
political substitute for something for nothing, even though the people never get it.
I have put this new program together from the Democrats' 1964 platform, which
they naturally rejected right after they were elected.
Many of these Democratic platform planks need no commentary, but where it better
serves the interests of the Republican Party to do a bit of embellishing, you can be
certain I'll do just that.
The first plank is, of course, dedicated to that great man of peace, Lyndon B.
Johnson. It reads, and I quote from the 1964 Democratic platform:
"The search for peace requires the utmost intelligence, the clearest vision, and
a strong sense of reality." --And I might add that you just can't be a Nervous Nellie
and have peace, either.
But to continue with the plank as written
"Because for four years our Nation has patiently demonstrated these qualities
and persistently used them, the world is closer to peace today than it was in 1960."
I might mention at this point, too, that this platform with its plank on peace
is offered not only to you but to Senators Fulbright and Morse, too, as a "covenant
of unity."
And to all the young men in the Nation, we want to say this, just as the
Democrats said it in 1964:
"We must and we will pursue our examination of the selective service program
to make certain that it is continued only as long as it is necessary and that we mete
out military manpower needs without social and economic injustice."
We Republicans will build the peace, as the Democrats promised to do in 1964.
What nobler statement can be made than that of the Democrats two years ago when they
said: "We are slowly but surely approaching the point where effective international
(MORE)
-2-
agreements providing for inspection and control can begin to lift the crushing burden
of armaments off the backs of the people of the world."
It's true that the Red Chinese now have the A-bomb and probably will have
intermediate range missiles in two or three years and intercontinental ballistic
missiles inside of 10 years. Buy why worry about that? We're going to get rid of
the armaments load even if we have to fight a war to do it.
We continue to oppose the admission of Red China to the United Nations. We
Republicans have said that before and we say it now. The Democrats said it is 1964,
but they had no idea that Arthur Goldberg was going to have to make a speech before
the National Press Club in 1966 and might want to talk about letting Red China into
the U.N.
Peace in a political platform is not enough, of course. We must also have
prosperity. We Republicans pledge to promote a prosperity built not on the sands of
inflation but on a sound dollar, a prosperity based not on taking from one man to
give to another but on making every man a proud and productive citizen able to make
his own way.
The Democrats pledged prosperity in 1964 and in doing so stressed importance
of low interest rates." That was before Lyndon Johnson hit on the idea of pooling
government loans and selling $5,000 shares in them to big-wheel investors who will
get juicy returns from the government for the use of their money. That was before it
occurred to Mr. Johnson that if you sell a piece of the action to the big boys, you
can use their cash to hold down the federal defisit. That was before Mr. Johnson
decided it was smarter to drive up interest rates for the little guy than to cut back
government spending. That was before Mr. Johnson figured it was better to charge the
taxpayers more money to pick up this outside capital than it was to post a $6 billion
deficit.
In 1964 the Democrats were interested in economy and in using wisely every
dollar of the taxpayer's money--or so they said,
We Republicans herewith renew our continuing pledge to treat every dollar of tax
money as though it were our own. If we were presently in power, we could borrow the
words of the Democrats who promised in 1964 to "continue a frugal government, getting
a dollar's value for a dollar spent."
Of course, the war on poverty as conceived by LBJ, Sargent Shriver, and Adam
Clayton Powell had not been launched at that time, and the Democratic Platform
writers of two years ago had no idea that $1.75 billion would be spent so economically
in the war on poverty that there would be very little to show for it.
Senate Democratic Leader Mike Mansfield had no inkling two years ago that in
1966 he would be saying about the Job Corps: "It was not my intention to support the
establishment of three reformatories in my state."
(MORE)
-3-
Sen. Vance Hartke, Democrat of Indiana, could not have imagined he would be
stating: "I question the continuation of poverty programs such as the youth camps."
Rep. Augustus Hawkins, Democrat of California, could not have supposed that he
would declare: "The community development program as adopted by Congress is not
functioning as it was set up. What is being done to this program is a crime."
Rep. Robert Sweeney, Democrat of Ohio, could not have dreamed that he would
describe the Job Corps as a "fantastically expensive failure
costing taxpayers
$11,252 a year per enrollee." He could not know he would venture the opinion that
"this money can be better used by the Office of Education, the Department of Labor
and the military education channels."
Sen. Albert Gore, Democrat of Tennessee, could not have guessed that he would be
calling the Office of Economic Opportunity "a grossly disorganized affair" and adding
that "while I hope some order will be brought out of current chaos, I become more
doubtful daily."
We Republicans would like to take on the job of fighting poverty, since the
Democratic warriors obviously are bobbling it and falling far short of their pledge
to use the taxpayers' dollars wisely.
We promise, if elected, to launch an Opportunity Crusade that will cost the
federal government hundreds of millions of dollars less but accomplish far more. We
promise, if elected, to enter into an anti-poverty alliance with the states and
private enterprise that will muster more than an additional half billion dollars
annually for the assault on poverty while costing the taxpayers far less.
Notwithstanding the fact that Poverty Czar Sargent Shriver has the power to
override governors of the states, we Republicans still feel constrained to borrow
these words from the 1964 Democratic Platform:
"The Federal Government exists not to subordinate the states, but to support
them."
Why shouldn't the Democrats say this about the states? They're used to
supporting everyone else.
Prices
we have to say something in the Republican program about keeping prices
in
line.
Let's see now how did the Democrats phrase their platform promise in 1964?
Here it is: "Our enviable record of price stability must be maintained. Stability
is essential to protect our citizens--particularly the retired and handicepped--from
the ravages of inflation."
What a shame that the 1957-59 dollar now is worth only 86 cents! The Democrats
sure are going to have a hard time convincing the old folks that they're being pro-
tected from the ravages of inflation. I guess they'll just have to promise them
another Social Security increase. Oh yes, Lyndon's already done that, hasn't he?
(MORE)
-4-
And all the Republicans have to offer is a sound dollar!
What about the farmer? We Republicans are dedicated to "the goals of higher
incomes to the farm and ranch, particularly the family-sized farm, lower prices for
the consumer, and lower costs to the Government."
The Democrats used those words in 1964, but that's all right. Of course, it so
happens that, on the farm, farm prices are six per cent lower now than they were in
1951. At the same time the irate housewife pays 16 per cent more at the supermarket.
So to appease housewives angered by high food prices, the Democrats beat down prices
received by the farmer. And to lower costs to the Government, the Democrats substi-
tuted margarine for butter in all the food welfare programs and the menus of the Army,
Marines and Air Force.
After dumping Commodity Credit Corporation grain on the market to force down
grain prices, the Government now is buttering up the wheat farmer by announcing a
15 per cent increase in wheat acreage allotments. But if the farmer is confused, all
he has to do is go back and read the 1964 Democratic Platform and that will straighten
him out.
Now, let's be fair about this. There are some Democrats who are worried about
where their leader is taking them, whether the Great Society is a good society, and
who is going to pay the bills.
It was a Democrat--the Senate majority leader, no less--who said last fall upon
adjournment of Congress that in '66 Congress should "spend less time on new legislation
and more time correcting oversights in legislation we have just passed."
And "Honest Mike" Mansfield continued: "We have passed a lot of major bills at
this session, some of them very hastily, and they stand in extreme need of a going-
over for loopholes, rough corners, and particularly for an assessment of current and
ultimate cost in the framework of our capacity to meet it."
Have the Democrats in the 89th Congress done what Mike Mansfield promised?
Since there are ladies present, I'll answer that question with just one word instead
of two--NO!
My colleagues in the House have hammered away at the Democrats to get them to
improve on some of Lyndon's Lulus, like the poverty program I just got through
talking about, but we just don't have the troops right now to make it stick. How
about giving us some help in November?
Honest Mike Mansfield was worried about the price tag on Great Society legisla-
tion. One of the directors of the National Planning Association has come up with
the answer after a two-year study of 16 proposed Great Society goals and their cost
in 1962 dollars.
(MORE)
-5-
His principal conclusion was that by 1975, if all of the goals were pursued
simultaneously, their cost that year would be $150 billion more than the estimated
gross national product of approximately one trillion dollars. That's what I said--
a trillion dollars.
If a Democrat had talked that kind of spending in the days when people really
got excited about politics in this country, the folks would have run him out of town
on a rail.
I'm not asking you to run 'em out of town. I'm just asking you to do something
that will get the spenders and Great Society manipulators out of our hair without
the tar and feathers treatment. Run the Democrats out of office in November. That's
all I ask. Let's all give 'em hell.
Thank you
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE AT 8 P.M. (EDT)
SATURDAY, JUNE 18, 1966
SPEECH EXCERPTS--WISCONSIN GOP FINANCE COMMITTEE DINNER, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN.
What has happened to the promises made by the Democrats in their 1964
Platform? They got in on them but they have run out on them.
One plank was dedicated to that great man of peace, Lyndon B. Johnson. It
reads: "The search for peace requires the utmost intelligence, the clearest
vision, and a strong sense of reality." I personally might add that you can't
be a Nervous Nellie and have peace, either.
The peace plank in the 1964 Democratic platform continues: "Because for
four years our Nation has patiently demonstrated these qualities and has
persistently used them, the world is closer to peace today than it was in 1960. "
We Republicans, if elected, will build the peace the Democrats promised
in 1964.
Republicans also pledge to promote a prosperity built not on the sands of
inflation but on a sound dollar, a prosperity based not on taking from one man
to give to another but on making every man a proud and productive citizen able
to make his own way.
The Democrats pledged prosperity in 1964 and in doing 80 stressed the
importance of "low interest rates."
That was before Lyndon Johnson hit on the idea of pooling government loans
and selling $5,000 shares in them to big-wheel operators who will get juicy
returns from the government for the use of their money.
That was before it occurred to Mr. Johnson that if you sell a piece of the
action to the big boys you can use their cash to hold down the federal deficit.
That was before Mr. Johnson decided that it was smarter to drive up interest
rates for the little guy than to cut back on non-defense spending.
That was before Mr. Johnson figured it was better to charge the taxpayers
more interest money to pick up this outside capital than it was to post a
$6 billion deficit.
In 1964 the Democrats said they were interested in economy and in using
wisely every dollar of the taxpayer's money--so they said.
* *
(MORE)
-2-
SPEECH EXCERPTS
We Republicans herewith renew our continuing pledge to treat every dollar
of tax money as though it were our own. If we were presently in power, we
could use the words the Democrats have forgotten when they promised in 1964 to
"continue a frugal government, getting a dollar's value for a dollar spent."
Of course, the war on poverty as developed by Lyndon Johnson, Sargent Shriver
and Adam Clayton Powell had not been conceived at that time, and the Democratic
Platform writers of nearly two years ago had no idea that $1.75 billion would be
spent so economically on the War on Poverty that there would be very little to
show for it.
We Republicans would like to take over the job of fighting poverty, since
the Democratic warriors obviously are bobbling it and falling far short of their
pledge to use the taxpayers' dollars wisely.
We promise, if elected, to launch an Opportunity Crusade that will cost the
federal government hundreds of millions of dollars less but accomplish far more.
We promise, if elected, to enter into an anti-poverty war alliance with
the states and private enterprise that will muster more than an additional half
billion dollars annually for the assualt on poverty while costing the taxpayers
far less.
***
What about prices? How did the Democrats phrase their price stability pledge
in 1964? They said: "Our enviable record of price stability must be maintained.
Stability is essential to protect our -particularly the retired and
handicapped--from the ravages of inflation."
What a shame that the 1957-59 dollar now is worth only about 86 cents! The
Democrats are going to have a hard time convincing the old folks that they're
being protected from the ravages of inflation.
***
The Democrats in 1964 said they were dedicated to "the goals of higher incomes
to the farm and ranch, particularly the family-sized farm, lower prices for the
consumer, and lower costs to the government." That sounds a little ridiculous
now, doesn't it?
It so happens that prices on the farm are six per cent lower than they were
in 1951. And the prices paid by the irate housewife are 16 per cent higher at
the supermarket.
What have the Democrats done to achieve their 1964 Platform goals?
To appease the housewife angered by high retail food prices, the Democrats
beat down farm prices. And to lower costs to the government, the Democrats
substituted margarine for butter in all the food walfare programs and the menus
of the Army, Marines and Air Force.
###
RE: DEMO, PLATFORM
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE AT 8 P.M. (EDT)
SATURDAY, JUNE 18, 1966
SPEECH EXCERPTS--WISCONSIN GOP FINANCE COMMITTEE DINNER, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN.
What has happened to the promises made by the Democrats in their 1964
Platform? They got in on them but they have run out on them.
One plank was dedicated to that great man of peace, Lyndon B. Johnson. It
reads: "The search for peace requires the utmost intelligence, the clearest
vision, and a strong sense of reality." I personally might add that you can't
be a Nervous Nellie and have peace, either.
The peace plank in the 1964 Democratic platform continues: "Because for
four years our Nation has patiently demonstrated these qualities and has
persistently used them, the world is closer to peace today than it was in 1960."
We Republicans, if elected, will build the peace the Democrats promised
in 1964.
Republicans also ledge to promote a prosperity built not out the sands of
inflation but on a sound dollar, a prosperity based not on taking from one man
to give to another but on making every man a proud and productive citizen able
to make his own way.
The Democrats pledged prosperity in 1964 and in doing so stressed the
importance of "low interest rates."
That was before Lyndon Johnson hit on the idea of pooling government loans
and selling $5,000 shares in them to big-wheel operators who will get juicy
returns from the government for the use of their money.
That was before it occurred to Mr. Johnson that if you sell a piece of the
action to the big boys you can use their cash to hold down the federal deficit.
That was before Mr. Johnson decided that it was smarter to drive up interest
rates for the little guy than to cut back on non-defense spending.
That was before Mr. Johnson figured it was better to charge the taxpayers
more interest money to pick up this outside capital than it was to post a
$6 billion deficit.
In 1964 the Democrats said they were interested in economy and in using
wisely every dollar of the taxpayer's money--so they said.
FORD
***
LIBRARY
(MORE)
-2-
SPEECH EXCERPTS
We Republicans herewith renew our continuing pledge to treat every dollar
of tax money as though it were our own. If we were presently in power, we
could use the words the Democrats have forgotten when they promised in 1964 to
"continue a frugal government, getting a dollar's value for a dollar spent."
Of course, the war on poverty as developed by Lyndon Johnson, Sargent Shriver
and Adam Clayton Powell had not been conceived at that time, and the Democratic
Platform writers of nearly two years ago had no idea that $1.75 billion would be
spent so economically on the War on Poverty that there would be very little to
show for it.
We Republicans would like to take over the job of fighting poverty, since
the Democratic warriors obviously are bobbling it and falling far short of their
pledge to use the taxpayers' dollars wisely.
We promise, if elected, to launch an Opportunity Crusade that will cost the
federal government hundreds of millions of dollars less but accomplish far more.
We promise, if elected, to enter into an anti-poverty war alliance with
the states and private enterprise that will muster more than an additional half
billion dollars annually for the assualt on poverty while costing the taxpayers
far less.
***
What about prices? How did the Democrats phrase their price stability pledge
in 1964? They said: "Our enviable record of price stability must be maintained.
Stability is essential to protect our citizens--particularly the retired and
handicapped--from the ravages of inflation."
What a shame that the 1957-59 dollar now is worth only about 86 cents! The
Democrats are going to have a hard time convincing the old folks that they're
being protected from the ravages of inflation.
* *
The Democrats in 1964 said they were dedicated to "the goals of higher incomes
to the farm and ranch, particularly the family-sized farm, lower prices for the
consumer, and lower costs to the government." That sounds a little ridiculous
now, doesn't it?
It so happens that prices on the farm are six per cent lower than they were
in 1951. And the prices paid by the irate housewife are 16 per cent higher at
the supermarket.
What have the Democrats done to achieve their 1964 Platform goals?
To appease the housewife angered by high retail food prices, the Democrats
beat down farm prices. And to lower costs to the government, the Democrats
substituted margarine for butter in all the food walfare programs and the menus
of the Army, Marines and Air Force.
# # #