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
4526072
label
Rubber Manufacturers Association, New York, NY, December 8, 1967
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526072
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Rubber Manufacturers Association, New York, NY, December 8, 1967
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Budget deficits
Federal budget
Inflation (Finance)
Taxation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526072
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1967-12-31
month
12
year
1967
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-12-01
month
12
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
54494444409559f8
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D23, folder "Rubber Manufacturers
Association, New York, NY, December 8, 1967" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Distribution: Full + 20 Mr. Ford
9:30 a. M. 12/8/67
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE IN FRIDAY PMs--
December 8, 1967
A Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., to be delivered at 12 noon Friday,
Dec. 8, before the Rubber Manufacturers Association in New York City.
Washington has become as famous for fiscal fog as London is for the kind
that creeps around on little cat's feet.
Recently London devalued the pound sterling by 14.3 per cent. This action
had at least one highly beneficial effect. It set in motion a wind which has
blown away some of the fog that has cloaked Johnson Administration budget
information. The result is we are much better able to see where we are and
where we are going.
Let me give you a sample of the fog.
Last January the President forecast an $8.1 billion deficit for fiscal 1968
and said he would ask Congress to approve a 6 per cent income tax surcharge.
On August 3 the President forecast a $29 billion deficit and asked Congress
for a 10 per cent income tax surcharge.
On Nov. 17 the President talked at a press conference about a possible
$35 billion deficit and caused shudders and a cold sweat to break out in the
financial capitals of Europe.
On Nov. 29, after the British had devalued the pound, Budget Bureau Director
Charles L. Schultze said the outlook was for a $22.4 billion deficit without a
10 per cent tax surcharge and without figuring in upcoming spending cuts.
This was a breath of fresh air--this honest appraisal of the budget deficit
at $22.4 billion without a tax increase or all possible reductions. The
Administration didn't volunteer the information. Rep. John W. Byrnes of Wisconsin,
ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, drew the figure out
of Schultze during reopened hearings on the President's tax proposal.
Let's take it from there and let's get something else straight. The deficit
is not going to be $22.4 billion regardless of whether Congress approves a tax
increase. Schultze has indicated it will be less than $20 billion. If House
Republicans have their way, spending will be cut deeply enough to reduce the
deficit to $18 billion, also without the President's tax increase.
Last January President Johnson brought in a $135 billion spending budget and
later upped it to $136.5 billion. Now Schultze has revealed that the Johnson
(more)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Digitized from Box D23 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
Administration is spending at a level of $140.3 billion.
House Republicans have been pressing all year for a spending limitation of
$131.5 billion--a cut of $8.8 billion--and the House voted it last Oct. 18. But
the Senate refused to go along. Now a vote is coming up, possibly Monday, on a
$4.1 billion reduction.
That's just not enough. Instead, Republicans propose to scale back the
Administration's spending plans this fiscal year by $5.8 billion.
Administration officials have offered to cut federal spending by $4.1
billion in hope of getting a tax increase. In putting this proposition before the
House Ways and Means Committee, they invited Congress to cut more deeply. House
Republicans are simply accepting that invitation.
President Johnson has called for Congress to demonstrate fiscal responsibility.
The best way for Congress to do that is to force the Johnson Administration to
adopt an austerity course, to slice away the fat in its guns-and-butter policy
and go on a wartime footing.
President Johnson at his Nov. 17 press conference expressed wonderment that
the American people are opposed to his tax increase. He also criticized Ways
and Means Chairman Wilbur Mills and me for opposing it and said we would "rue the
day" we decided to do SO.
Mr. Johnson noted that President Truman asked for a tax increase to pay for
the Korean War and the people supported it.
May I point out that President Truman declared a state of emergency over
the Korean War. He did not pretend we could do business as usual. He did not
pursue a guns-and-butter policy at a time of great danger for our Nation's
security.
Harry Truman was more forthright and had a better sense of timing. He asked
for a tax increase precisely when it was needed. I submit that President Johnson
sent his tax increase request to Congress more than a year and a half too late.
Let me round out the picture by saying that the only way Congress could
get the Johnson Administration to reduce non-Vietnam spending was to give the
President's tax increase proposal the cool treatment and write spending cuts into
law.
Let me go back to the point that the President's tax increase request is
tardy--much too late.
William McChesney Martin, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, urged
President Johnson in late 1965 to ask Congress for a tax increase.
(more)
-3-
It is reliably reported that the President's Council of Economic Advisers
recommended to the President in early 1966 that he seek a rise in taxes.
Other economists expressed similar opinions. Let me cite for you a survey
of the views of leading economists made in March 1966 by the Washington Post.
Of the 30 who replied, 22 favored an immediate tax increase.
The New York Times reported on March 13, 1966, that three out of four former
chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers favored a tax increase or reduced
spending. Those holding these views were Walter Heller, Arthur Burns and
Raymond Saulnier.
William McChesney Martin urged a tax increase late in 1965 because he saw
then that the economy was becoming dangerously overheated. When the President
refused to seek a tax increase, the Federal Reserve Board raised the Nation's
basic interest rate--and was promptly denounced by the President.
Leading Republicans in the House demanded a setting of national priorities
and a sharp cutback in non-Vietnam spending. Our position was that federal
spending should be reduced to cool off the economy and offset Vietnam War costs.
If that failed we were prepared to consider a tax increase.
President Johnson did neither in 1966. He neither curtailed federal
spending, nor did he seek a tax increase.
I am not going to examine the President's reasons for refusing to hold down
spending or to ask for a tax increase in 1966. But I suggest this was a major
mistake in fiscal policy which directly led to last year's upsurge in inflation,
the highest interest rates in 40 years and to inflationary wage settlements which
now further complicate the fiscal situation.
Let me interpret that phrase "inflationary wage settlements" for you. They
are inflationary in the sense that the cost of the total package exceeds gains in
productivity. It is difficult for a President to preach fiscal restraint if
he himself is not practicing it. I do not blame the rank and file union member
for what has transpired. In my view, the worker is reacting normally to the
impact of inflation. The Administration is the villain of the piece.
There are those among us who are impatient with a review of past mistakes.
But I believe we must examine what has gone before if we are to gauge properly
where the Nation stands now and what may lie ahead.
We currently are reaping the whirlwind that was sowed with policies of
excessive federal spending, business as usual in time of war, and lack of
restraint on the part of government and the private sector in a period of rising
inflationary pressures.
(more)
-4-
When are we going to face up to the fact that even the richest nation on
earth cannot solve all of its problems at once, that total government programs
are not the answer to our social ills, that the merits of a federal program
should not be measured in terms of the number of dollars pumped into it, that
the local communities could tackle their problems more efficiently than the
federal government and at less cost if only they had sufficient revenue to do
the job, that we cannot afford an unlimited outflow of federal dollars for
social experimentation and a crash trip to the moon while fighting a $25-billion-
a-year war?
We are suffering from a hangover. In 1965 and 1966 this Nation went on a
federal spending binge. President Johnson and the 89th Congress did the pouring.
Is this a partisan statement? Consider, if you will, the remarks made by
Appropriations Committee Chairman George Mahon, a Texas Democrat, on the floor
of the House roughly a month ago--on November 6th.
Mahon said at that time:
"In the last two years, for example, the defense buildup that began in
mid-1965, including the Southeast Asia war effort, the inauguration of many new
domestic programs, military and civilian pay increases, and increases generally
in the cost of Government programs, resulted in an increase in unexpended
carryovers between mid-1965 and mid-1967 of some $28 billion. In other words,
this buildup in unexpended carryovers to be spent in years following the
original appropriation results not from actions taken by the present Congress,
but rather from actions of the last two sessions of Congress. These higher
carryovers inevitably add to the level of spending in subsequent years, as is
true, for example, with the current fiscal year."
You remember the last Congress. It was made up of 294 Democrats and 139
Republicans. Lyndon Johnson called it "my Congress."
On Oct. 13, 1966, President Johnson accorded the highest praise to the
89th Congress. Returning from the political campaign trail, he said: "From
what I have seen in the country, I think we are going to have the best Congress
in the history of this Nation when we finish our record this session. The 89th
Congress, my prediction is, historians will record as the Great Congress."
It was the President's decision--that we could afford both the Vietnam War
and a multi-billion-dollar expansion of his Great Society programs-that pointed
the Congress and the Nation toward a sea of fiscal troubles.
Columnist Sylvia Porter summed up the present fiscal crisis most precisely
(more)
-5-
when she commented recently (Washington Evening Star, Nov. 17, 1967): "Last
year's policy failures laid the groundwork for 1967's problems and 1968's
threats."
Now the President is asking for a tax increase and is accusing the 90th
Congress of fiscal irresponsibility for refusing to give it to him. He talks
about "avoiding" inflation through an income tax increase although he is well
aware that consumer prices rose 3.3 per cent last year and now are rising at
a 4 per cent annual rate.
Treasury Secretary Henry H. Fowler talks about a "consensus" for a tax
increase.
The Administration, as everyone knows, has engaged in a campaign to line up
prominent businessmen behind a tax increase. The chairman of the board of one
of the largest companies in the rubber manufacturing industry rejected such
Administration efforts. I applaud such action. He feels, as I do, that the
best weapon against inflation and high interest rates is a cutback in federal
expenditures.
Those economists and business leaders who have endorsed the President's tax
increase proposal should be having second thoughts. I say this because there is
good reason to believe an income tax increase now could be more harmful than
helpful.
Some economists presently are arguing against a tax increase on the ground
it would be too damaging to the economy.
Economist Daniel B. Suits of the University of Michigan rejects the idea of
a 10 per cent income tax surcharge. He fed the tax increase into his computerized
version of the U.S. economy and came up with some startling answers: The tax
boost would slow inflation next year only slightly--from 4 per cent to 3.7 per
cent. But at the same time it would slow economic growth from a projected
5.3 per cent to 3.4 and would cause unemployment to rise to 4.7 per cent.
I think it would be accurate to predict that if a tax increase is approved
it would not complete its trip through the Congress until next March or April.
This prompts Alan Greenspan of Townsend-Greenspan & Co. to say that a tax increase
as late as April 1 would be "fiscal overkill." Tilford C. Gaines, vice-president
and economist at Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. believes a tax increase as late
as April would fail to ease price pressures but definitely would curtail
economic growth.
The Johnson Administration rushed to revive its tax increase proposal after
the British devalued the pound and the Federal Reserve Board raised the basic
(more)
-6-
interest rate in this country from 4 to 4½ per cent. In England the bank rate
is 8 per cent. That's a 3½ point spread.
The Federal Reserve Board may have to raise interest rates again to keep
short-term U.S. capital from flowing to England in pursuit of a higher return.
Interest rates may continue to rise regardless of whether there is a tax increase,
just as there will be more inflation, tax increase or not.
It can be argued, and quite persuasively, that a tax increase would have a
minimal effect on inflation but would be damaging to the American economy.
My thinking is based in part on indications that we now are experiencing
primarily cost-push inflation--increased production costs forcing business to
raise prices where possible to offset a squeeze on profits. This contrasts with
the situation in 1966 when we had basically a demand-pull kind of inflation--too
much money chasing too few goods.
It escapes me how we would be acting to hold down prices if we raised the
corporate income tax and thus added to the cost of doing business. As for the
consumer, he might simply react to a tax increase by putting less of his income
into savings and continuing to spend at virtually the same level. Thus consumer
demand would not be appreciably dampened.
It appears to me that government spending restraint is the best way to deal
with the present fiscal crisis. The Federal Government itself must set an example
for business and the consumer.
I also suggest that the less loose talk there is about huge government
deficits and runaway inflation the better. Such restraint in words and action
should start at the top.
It does the economy no good for the President to talk about a $35 billion
deficit when the outlook actually is for a deficit of less than $20 billion. As
Hobart Rowen, financial editor of the Washington Post put it in a commentary on
Dec. 3, "There is almost no description of the $35 billion estimate other than
'irresponsible. '''
Let us be reasonable and honest about the Nation's fiscal affairs.
Let Government treat labor and business impartially, not wait to criticize
an inflationary wage settlement until an opportunity arises to deplore an industry
price increase.
Let the Federal Government curb its insatiable spending appetite instead of
seeking to thrust a greater tax load upon the already-overburdened taxpayer.
Let us turn to the road of fiscal restraint and responsibility, so that our
great private enterprise system may flourish and all Americans may share more
equitably in its fruits.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE IN FRIDAY PMs--
December 8, 1967
A Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., to be delivered at 12 noon Friday,
Dec. 8, before the Rubber Manufacturers Association in New York City.
Washington has become as famous for fiscal fog as London is for the kind
that creeps around on little cat's feet.
Recently London devalued the pound sterling by 14.3 per cent. This action
had at least one highly beneficial effect. It set In motion wind which has
blown away some of the fog that has cloaked Johnson Administration budget
information. The result is we are much better able to see where we are and
where we are going.
Let me give you a sample of the fog.
Last January the President forecast an $8.1 billion deficit for fiscal 1968
and said he would ask Congress to approve a 6 per cent income tax surcharge.
On August 3 the President forecast a $29 billion deficit and asked Congress
for a 10 per cent income tax surcharge.
On Nov. 17 the President talked at press conference about a possible
$35 billion deficit and caused shudders and a cold sweat to break out in the
financial capitals of Europe.
On Nov. 29, after the British had devalued the pound, Budget Bureau Director
Charles L. Schultze said the outlook was for a $22.4 billion deficit without a
10 per cent tax surcharge and without figuring in upcoming spending cuts.
This washa breath of fresh air--this honest appraisal of the budget deficit
at $22.4 billion without a tax increase or all possible reductions. The
Administration didn't volunteer the information. Rep. John W. Byrnes of Wisconsin,
ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, drew the figure out
of Schultze during reopened hearings on the President's tax proposal.
Let's take it from there and let's get something else straight. The deficit
is not going to be $22.4 billion regardless of whether Congress approves a tax
increase. Schultze has indicated it will be less than $20 billion. If House
Republicans have their way, spending will be cut deeply enough to reduce the
deficit to $18 billion, also without the President's tax increase.
Last January President Johnson brought in a $135 billion spending budget and
later upped it to $136.5 billion. Now Schultze has revealed that the Johnson
(more)
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
Administration is spending at a level of $140.3 billion.
House Republicans have been pressing all year for a spending limitation of
$131.5 billion--a cut of $8.8 billion--and the House voted it last Oct. 18. But
the Senate refused to go along. Now a vote is coming up, possibly Monday, on a
$4.1 billion reduction.
That's just not enough. Instead, Republicans propose to scale back the
Administration's spending plans this fiscal year by $5.8 billion.
Administration officials have offered to cut federal spending by $4.1
billion in hope of getting a tax increase. In putting this proposition before the
House Ways and Means Committee, they invited Congress to cut more deeply. House
Republicans are simply accepting that invitation.
President Johnson has called for Congress to demonstrate fiscal responsibility.
The best way for Congress to do that is to force the Johnson Administration to
adopt an austerity course, to slice away the fat in its guns-and-butter policy
and go on a wartime footing.
President Johnson at his Nov. 17 press conference expressed wonderment that
the American people are opposed to his tax increase. He also criticized Ways
and Means Chairman Wilbur Mills and me for opposing it and said we would "rue the
day" we decided to do SO.
Mr. Johnson noted that President Truman asked for a tax increase to pay for
the Korean War and the people supported it.
May I point out that President Truman declared a state of emergency over
the Korean War. He did not pretend we could do business as usual. He did not
pursue a guns-and-butter policy at a time of great danger for our Nation's
security.
Harry Truman was more forthright and had a better sense of timing. He asked
for a tax increase precisely when it was needed. I submit that President Johnson
sent his tax increase request to Congress more than a year and a half too late.
Let me round out the picture by saying that the only way Congress could
get the Johnson Administration to reduce non-Vietnam spending was to give the
President's tax increase proposal the cool treatment and write spending cuts into
law.
Let me go back to the point that the President's tax increase request is
tardy--much too late.
William McChesney Martin, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, urged
President Johnson in late 1965 to ask Congress for a tax increase.
(more)
-3-
It is reliably reported that the President's Council of Economic Advisers
recommended to the President in early 1966 that he seek a rise in taxes.
Other economists expressed similar opinions. Let me cite for you a survey
of the views of leading economists made in March 1966 by the Washington Post.
Of the 30 who replied, 22 favored an immediate tax increase.
The New York Times reported on March 13, 1966, that three out of four former
chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers favored a tax increase or reduced
spending. Those holding these views were Walter Heller, Arthur Burns and
Raymond Saulnier.
William McChesney Martin urged a tax increase late in 1965 because he saw
then that the economy was becoming dangerously overheated. When the President
refused to seek a tax increase, the Federal Reserve Board raised the Nation's
basic interest rate--and was promptly denounced by the President.
Leading Republicans in the House demanded a setting of national priorities
and a sharp cutback in non-Vietnam spending. Our position was that federal
spending should be reduced to cool off the economy and offset Vietnam War costs.
If that failed we were prepared to consider a tax increase.
President Johnson did neither in 1966. He neither curtailed federal
spending, nor did he seek a tax increase.
I am not going to examine the President's reasons for refusing to hold down
spending or to ask for a tax increase in 1966. But I suggest this was a major
mistake in fiscal policy which directly led to last year's upsurge in inflation,
the highest interest rates in 40 years and to inflationary wage settlements which
now further complicate the fiscal situation.
Let me interpret that phrase "inflationary wage settlements" for you. They
are inflationary in the sense that the cost of the total package exceeds gains in
productivity. It is difficult for a President to preach fiscal restraint if
he himself is not practicing it. I do not blame the rank and file union member
for what has transpired. In my view, the worker is reacting normally to the
impact of inflation. The Administration is the villain of the piece.
There are those among us who are impatient with a review of past mistakes.
But I believe we must examine what has gone before if we are to gauge properly
where the Nation stands now and what may lie ahead.
We currently are reaping the whirlwind that was sowed with policies of
excessive federal spending, business as usual in time of war, and lack of
restraint on the part of government and the private sector in a period of rising
inflationary pressures.
(more)
-4-
When are we going to face up to the fact that even the richest nation on
earth cannot solve all of its problems at once, that total government programs
are not the answer to our social ills, that the merits of a federal program
should not be measured in terms of the number of dollars pumped into it, that
the local communities could tackle their problems more efficiently than the
federal government and at less cost if only they had sufficient revenue to do
the job, that we cannot afford an unlimited outflow of federal dollars for
social experimentation and a crash trip to the moon while fighting a $25-billion-
a-year war?
We are suffering from a hangover. In 1965 and 1966 this Nation went on a
federal spending binge. President Johnson and the 89th Congress did the pouring.
Is this a partisan statement? Consider, if you will, the remarks made by
Appropriations Committee Chairman George Mahon, a Texas Democrat, on the floor
of the House roughly a month ago--on November 6th.
Mahon said at that time:
"In the last two years, for example, the defense buildup that began in
mid-1965, including the Southeast Asia war effort, the inauguration of many new
domestic programs, military and civilian pay increases, and increases generally
in the cost of Government programs, resulted in an increase in unexpended
carryovers between mid-1965 and mid-1967 of some $28 billion. In other words,
this buildup in unexpended carryovers to be spent in years following the
original appropriation results not from actions taken by the present Congress,
but rather from actions of the last two sessions of Congress. These higher
carryovers inevitably add to the level of spending in subsequent years, as is
true, for example, with the current fiscal year."
You remember the last Congress. It was made up of 294 Democrats and 139
Republicans. Lyndon Johnson called it "my Congress."
On Oct. 13, 1966, President Johnson accorded the highest praise to the
89th Congress. Returning from the political campaign trail, he said: "From
what I have seen in the country, I think we are going to have the best Congress
in the history of this Nation when we finish our record this session. The 89th
Congress, my prediction is, historians will record as the Great Congress."
It was the President's decision--that we could afford both the Vietnam War
and a multi-billion-dollar expansion of his Great Society programs--that pointed
the Congress and the Nation toward a sea of fiscal troubles.
Columnist Sylvia Porter summed up the present fiscal crisis most precisely
(more)
-5-
when she commented recently (Washington Evening Star, Nov. 17, 1967): "Last
year's policy failures laid the groundwork for 1967's problems and 1968's
threats."
Now the President is asking for a tax increase and is accusing the 90th
Congress of fiscal irresponsibility for refusing to give it to him. He talks
about "avoiding" inflation through an income tax increase although he is well
aware that consumer prices rose 3.3 per cent last year and now are rising at
a 4 per cent annual rate.
Treasury Secretary Henry H. Fowler talks about a "consensus" for a tax
increase.
The Administration, as everyone knows, has engaged in a campaign to line up
prominent businessmen behind a tax increase. The chairman of the board of one
of the largest companies in the rubber manufacturing industry rejected such
Administration efforts. I applaud such action. He feels, as I do, that the
best weapon against inflation and high interest rates is a cutback in federal
expenditures.
Those economists and business leaders who have endorsed the President's tax
increase proposal should be having second thoughts. I say this because there is
good reason to believe an income tax increase now could be more harmful than
helpful.
Some economists presently are arguing against a tax increase on the ground
it would be too damaging to the economy.
Economist Daniel B. Suits of the University of Michigan rejects the idea of
a 10 per cent income tax surcharge. He fed the tax increase into his computerized
version of the U.S. economy and came up with some startling answers: The tax
boost would slow inflation next year only slightly--from 4 per cent to 3.7 per
cent. But at the same time it would slow economic growth from a projected
5.3 per cent to 3.4 and would cause unemployment to rise to 4.7 per cent.
I think it would be accurate to predict that if a tax increase is approved
it would not complete its trip through the Congress until next March or April.
This prompts Alan Greenspan of Townsend-Greenspan & Co. to say that a tax increase
as late as April 1 would be "fiscal overkill." Tilford C. Gaines, vice-president
and economist at Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. believes a tax increase as late
as April would fail to ease price pressures but definitely would curtail
economic growth.
The Johnson Administration rushed to revive its tax increase proposal after
the British devalued the pound and the Federal Reserve Board raised the basic
(more)
-6-
interest rate in this country from 4 to 4½ per cent. In England the bank rate
is 8 per cent. That's a 3½1/2 point spread.
The Federal Reserve Board may have to raise interest rates again to keep
short-term U.S. capital from flowing to England in pursuit of a higher return.
Interest rates may continue to rise regardless of whether there is a tax increase,
just as there will be more inflation, tax increase or not.
It can be argued, and quite persuasively, that a tax increase would have a
minimal effect on inflation but would be damaging to the American economy.
My thinking is based in part on indications that we now are experiencing
primarily cost-push inflation--increased production costs forcing business to
raise prices where possible to offset a squeeze on profits. This contrasts with
the situation in 1966 when we had basically a demand-pull kind of inflation--too
much money chasing too few goods.
It escapes me how we would be acting to hold down prices if we raised the
corporate income tax and thus added to the cost of doing business. As for the
consumer, he might simply react to a tax increase by putting less of his income
into savings and continuing to spend at virtually the same level. Thus consumer
demand would not be appreciably dampened.
It appears to me that government spending restraint is the best way to deal
with the present fiscal crisis. The Federal Government itself must set an example
for business and the consumer.
I also suggest that the less loose talk there is about huge government
deficits and runaway inflation the better. Such restraint in words and action
should start at the top.
It does the economy no good for the President to talk about a $35 billion
deficit when the outlook actually is for a deficit of less than $20 billion. As
Hobart Rowen, financial editor of the Washington Post put it in a commentary on
Dec. 3, "There is almost no description of the $35 billion estimate other than
'irresponsible. '''
Let us be reasonable and honest about the Nation's fiscal affairs.
Let Government treat labor and business impartially, not wait to criticize
an inflationary wage settlement until an opportunity arises to deplore an industry
price increase.
Let the Federal Government curb its insatiable spending appetite instead of
seeking to thrust a greater tax load upon the already-overburdened taxpayer.
Let us turn to the road of fiscal restraint and responsibility, so that our
great private enterprise system may flourish and all Americans may share more
equitably in its fruits.
# # #