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 contains material relating to Credibility Gap.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526094
label
"Tell It Like It Is" Symposium, Southwestern University, Memphis, TN, March 1, 1968
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526094
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
"Tell It Like It Is" Symposium, Southwestern University, Memphis, TN, March 1, 1968
description
This file contains material relating to Credibility Gap.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Civil disobedience
Inflation (Finance)
Poverty programs
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526094
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1968-03-31
month
3
year
1968
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1968-03-01
month
3
year
1968
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
7be757e676a84c60
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D24, folder ""Tell It Like It Is" Symposium,
Southwestern University, Memphis, TN, March 1, 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D24 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH,, BEFORE A "TELL IT LIKE IT IS" SYMPOSIUM
AT 8 P.M. FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1968, AT SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, MEMPHIS, TENN.
"Tell It Like It Is A Minority View"
office Copy
I am intrigued by the theme of this symposium--"Tell It Like It Is." I
find it especially interesting because of statements made a few days ago on
educational television by two former presidential press secretaries.
One was Pierre Salinger, who served both Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. The
other was Bill Moyers, who was associated only with President Johnson.
Salinger admitted that both of the administrations in which he had worked had
been less than candid on Vietnam, had tried to put the best possible face on all
of their actions when the facts showed otherwise, and both had issued statements
which later proved incorrect.
Moyers commented on the obvious breakdown in the public's confidence in the
present Administration. He said it was due to "judgments that turned out to be
not as successful as it was thought they would be." He blamed the public's
feeling of resentment regarding Vietnam on the fact that "we backed into the war,
the fourth bloodiest in our history." He said "the people suddenly felt cheated"
because "We were there before we knew where we were going or why."
I congratulate both Mr. Salinger and Mr. Moyers for their forthrightness now
that they no longer feel the need to be less than candid.
The sharp edge of truth cuts particularly deep in Mr. Moyers' admission that
the American people found themselves heavily enmeshed in Vietnam before they knew
where they were going or why.
You have heard much about the Credibility Gap in connection with the present
Administration. I assure you the Credibility Gap was not invented by the Loyal
Opposition. It arose within the present Administration due to Administration
actions and statements.
The word, "credible," means "capable of being believed." If the statements
made by the high officials of an Administration repeatedly prove to be false or
wrong, the people inevitably lose confidence in the Administration. They come to
feel that truth in government is lacking, that the Administration is not to be
believed.
The American people are a moral people. They want to be told how it is and
where we go from here. They become deeply disturbed when the truth is hidden
in a thicket of contradictions and misleading statements by Government spokesmen.
The start of the Administration's Credibility Gap goes back to the Vietnam
ORD
War.
GERALD
LIBRARY
-2-
The gap opened up when Lyndon Johnson campaigned as a peace candidate in 1964--
although it was not then readily visible. Now a book has been published which
documents the fact that on no less than five occasions during the 1964 campaign
President Johnson indicated he would never send large ground forces to Vietnam.
For instance, on August 29, 1964, he told the Nation: "Some others are
eager to enlarge the conflict. They call upon us to supply American boys to do
the job that Asian boys should do. They ask us to take reckless action which
might risk the lives of millions. We don't want our American boys to do the
fighting for Asian boys. We don't want to get involved in a nation with 700 million
people and get tied down in a land war in Asia."
President Johnson spoke those words a little more than three years ago.
Today we are tied down in a land war in Asia. And the end is nowhere in sight.
The basic reason the American people distrust the present Administration is
that they have been misled almost every step of the way on Vietnam.
When the Eisenhower Administration left office seven years ago, Vietnam had
a relatively stable and apparently established government. The late President
John F. Kennedy, writing in 1960 as a senator, said in his book "Strategy Of Peace"
that U.S. aid to South Vietnam under Eisenhower had proved "effective." He called
the results "a near miracle."
In 1960 there were fewer than 700 U.S. military personnel stationed in South
Vietnam, sent there to train South Vietnamese forces in the use of American
weapons and equipment. Today more than 525,000 U.S. military personnel have been
committed to a seemingly interminable land war in South Vietnam--and President
Johnson hints he will be sending many thousands more than that. Where will it all
end?
Is the Administration now telling it like it is in Vietnam? It was not long
after Administration officials gave highly optimistic accounts of progress in
Vietnam and of seeing the light at the end of the tunnel that the Vietcong
launched their Jan. 30 offensive. Since then we have had the President say that
the South Vietnamese government and Army might well come out of the current
situation stronger than before. Meantime the Saigon government has arrested a
number of prominent South Vietnamese political figures. Is this telling it like
it is?
There is ample evidence that the pacification program in South Vietnam
virtually lies in ruins as a result of the Tet offensive. The only admission
we have had of a setback is Vice-President Humphrey's statement that the
FORD
LIBRARY
-3-
pacification program "did stop." Is this telling it like it is?
We have had a long series of Administration statements which repeatedly have
raised false hopes for an end to the Vietnam War. The American people feel con-
fused and let down.
Is the Administration telling it like it is at home?
The President talks in his 1968 Economic Report about 83 months of "uninter-
rupted prosperity."
He makes no reference to the fact that the high level of economic activity
feeds heavily on the Vietnam War.
He makes no mention of a Labor Department report flatly stating that inflation
has robbed the American worker of every so-called wage gain he made during the
past two years.
He overlooks the fact that the dollar that was worth a dollar in 1960 now is
worth only 87½ cents.
He makes no note of the cost-price squeeze that so grips the farmer that
parity--the relationship between what the farmer gets for his product and what
it costs him for supplies--has fallen to 73, the lowest point since the depression
year of 1933.
He ignores the fact that 1967 was a banner year for strikes.
Let's tell it like it is.
The housewife would say that the cost of living has gone up nearly 15 per cent
in the last seven years. It costs her $11.43 to buy what $10 would buy in 1960.
The American people find themselves plagued with cost inflation, price
inflation, massive federal deficits piled one on top of another, some of the
highest interest rates in a hundred years, a dangerously low gold supply, and
repeated attacks on the dollar.
Deficit spending--the spending of borrowed money--has added $70 billion to
the national debt since 1960, the last year the federal budget was balanced.
The present Administration is responsible for $60 billion of those accumulated
deficits and currently offers us the prospect of $20 billion deficits "back to
back" unless we raise income taxes.
The economists are largely agreed that the economy will turn soft in the
second half of 1968 and that a sizable increase in income taxes at that time might
be dangerous.
Meanwhile Social Security taxes have been raised and State and local taxes
are rising steadily--so that the combined federal, state and local tax burden
-4-
is the greatest in our history.
The economy has deteriorated to the point that the steadily rising cost of
production--and not excessive demand--is the primary push behind the steady rise
in the cost of living.
The inflation we now are experiencing is a direct result of Administration
failure to cool off the economy when it became overheated in 1966.
It is because the Administration failed to fight inflation in 1966 and left
that job to the Federal Reserve Board that we now are paying record-high interest
rates on all of our credit and mortgage purchases.
The Administration's proposal to fight inflation with an income tax increase
was not sent to the Congress until August 1967--after inflation caused by excessive
demand had changed to inflation caused by excessive production costs. It was too
late then and it is too late now, the wrong medicine in point of time.
The whole burden of the inflation pressing so heavily on the American people--
the demand-pull kind in 1966 and the cost-push kind in 1967 and 1968--rests on the
Administration and its failure to take timely action to halt the price-wage spiral
at its inception.
The burden also rests on the Administration for following a guns and butter
policy in time of war.
President Johnson recently cited his accomplishments in social welfare
fields. He measured those accomplishments not in terms of concrete results but in
terms of the billions of federal dollars thrown at problems which continue to con-
found federal planners.
He proudly states that while the Administration spent only $19 billion for
health, education and welfare in 1960, this was raised to $23 billion in 1964 and
bumped to $47 billion this year.
He notes that federal programs for the poor totalled only $9 billion in 1960,
climbed to $12 billion in 1964 and now total $28 billion.
He points with pride to the fact that Administration spending of $3 billion on
government training programs in 1960 rose to $4 billion in 1964 and now has climbed
to $12 billion.
I am just as eager as President Johnson to lick the ancient enemies of the
people--poverty, hunger and ignorance. But has massive federal spending restructured
American society? What are the results? Where are the benefits?
I would like to be able to say that all of these federal billions have remade
our cities.
-5-
But if we tell it like it is we find that 76 major riots have swept the
Nation since 1965, killing more than 100 persons and wounding nearly 2,500.
These civil explosions produced 7,985 cases of arson, 28,939 arrests, 5,434
convictions, $210 million in property damage, and $504 million in estimated
economic losses.
This country has experienced violence and lawlessness on a scale unprece-
dented in history. The widespread disregard for law and order we have witnessed
in the last several years is tantamount to a virtual breakdown of the rule of law.
Now there is an escalating arms race on both sides as police prepare for new
outbreaks of rioting in the summer of 1968 and Negro militants plan guerrilla
terrorist tactics.
There is no excuse for the conditions which breed riots, but neither is there
any excuse for riots or the criminal activity associated with them.
What progress have we made in the war against crime since 1960? In the last
seven years the national crime rate has jumped 88 per cent while the resident
population of this country has gone up 11 per cent. Think of it! The crime rate
has increased eight times as fast as the population.
Last year President Johnson sent Congress a law enforcement assistance bill
but did nothing to push a House-approved law enforcement aid bill through the
Senate. He vetoed a District of Columbia anti-crime bill and opposed a House
Republican anti-riot bill last year. This year he has signed a D.C. anti-crime
bill and has sent Congress his own anti-riot bill.
If we tell it like it is in America in this year 1968 we see many problems--
problems that threaten to tear us apart as a people, problems that demean us in
the eyes of the world, problems that threaten us with collapse as a nation.
This is a time of crisis. That is why we need more than ever before to tell
it like it is--to face up to the fact that the path we have followed in the last
few years has produced the threat of a war between the races at home, stalemate
in Vietnam, humiliation at the hands of North Korea, the distrust of the Israelis
and the Arabs due to our non-policy in the Middle East, a sundering of the once-
strong ties that bount NATO together, danger that the Soviet Union will upset the
balance of power throughout the world and surpass us in nuclear capability, a
weakening of the dollar both at home and abroad.
The times demand realism, and the American people want the truth. When they
get the truth, they are always equal to the challenge. I feel sure this will be
no less true in this moment of trial.
###
AN ADDRESS by REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH., BEFORE A "TELL IT LIKE IT IS" SYMPOSIUM
AT 8 P.M. FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1968, AT SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, MEMPHIS, TENN.
"Tell It Like It Is -- A Minority View"
I am intrigued by the theme of this symposium--"Tell It Like It Is." I
find it especially interesting because of statements made a few days ago on
educational television by two former presidential press secretaries.
One was Pierre Salinger, who served both Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. The
other was Bill Moyers, who was associated only with President Johnson.
Salinger admitted that both of the administrations in which he had worked had
been less than candid on Vietnam, had tried to put the best possible face on all
of their actions when the facts showed otherwise, and both had issued statements
which later proved incorrect.
Moyers commented on the obvieus breakdown in the public's confidence in the
present Administration. He said it was due to "judgments that turned out to be
not as successful as it was thought they would be." Be blamed the public's
feeling of resentment regarding Vietnam on the fact that "ve backed into the war,
the fourth bloodiest in our history." He said "the people suddenly felt cheated"
because "We were there before we knew where we were going or why."
I congratulate both Mr. Salinger and Mr. Moyers for their forthrightness now
that they no longer feel the need to be less than candid.
The sharp edge of truth cuts particularly deep in Mr. Moyers' admission that
the American people found themselves heavily enmeshed in Vietnam before they knew
where they were going or why.
You have heard much about the Credibility Gap in connection with the present
Administration. I assure you the Credibility Gap was not invented by the Loyal
Opposition. It arous within the present Administration due to Administration
actions and statements.
The word, "credible," means "capable of being believed." If the statements
made by the high officials of an Administration reportedly prove to be false or
wrong, the people inevitably lose confidence in the Administration. They come to
feel that truth in government is lacking, that the Administration is not to be
believed.
The American people are a moral people. They want to be told how it is and
where we go from here. They become deeply disturbed when the truth is hidden
FORD
in a thicket of contradictions and misleading statements by Government spokesmen.
The start of the Administration's Credibility Gap goes back to the Victnem
War.
The gap opened up when Lyndon Johnson campaigned as a peace candidate in 1964--
although it was not then readily visible. Now a book has been published which
documents the fact that on no less than five occasions during the 1964 campaign
President Johnson indicated he would never send large ground forces to Vietnom.
For instance, on August 29, 1964, he told the Nation: "Some others are
eager to enlarge the conflict. They call upon us to supply American boys to do
the job that Asian boys should do. They ask us to take reckless action which
might risk the lives of millions. We don't want our American boys to do the
fighting for Asian boys. We don't went to get involved in a nation with 700 million
people and get tied down in a land war in Asia."
President Johnson spoke those words a little more than three years age.
Today we are tied down in a land war in Asia. And the end is nowhere in sight.
The basic reason the American people distrust the present Administration is
that they have been misled almost every step of the way on Vietnam.
When the Eisenhower Administration left office seven years ago, Vietnam had
a relatively stable and apparently established government. The late President
John F. Kennedy, writing in 1960 as a senstor, said in his book "Strategy Of Peace"
that U.S. aid to South Vietnam under Eisenhower had proved "effective." No called
the results "a near miracle."
In 1960 there were fewer than 700 U.S. military personnel stationed in South
Vietnam, sent there to train South Vietnamese forces in the use of American
weapons and equipment. Today more than 525,000 U.S. military personnel have been
committed to a seemingly interminable land war in South Vistnom--and President
Johnson hints he will be sending many thousands more than that. Where will it all
end?
Is the Administration now telling it like it is in Vietnam? It was not long
after Administration officials gave highly optimistic accounts of progress in
Vietnam and of seeing the light at the end of the tunnel that the Vietcong
Launched their Jan. 30 offensive. Since then we have had the President say that
the South Vietnamese government and Army might well come out of the current
situation strenger than before. Meantime the Saigon government has arrested a
number of preminent South Vietnamese political figures. Is this telling it like
it is?
There is ample evidence that the pacification program in South Vietnam
virtually lies in ruins as a result of the Tet offensive. The only admission
we have had of a setback is Vice-President Humphrey's statement that the
-3-
pacification program "did stop." Is this telling it like it is?
We have had a long series of Administration statements which repeatedly have
raised false hopes for an end to the Vietnam War. The American people feel con-
fused and let down.
Is the Administration telling it like it is at home?
The President talks in his 1968 Economic Report about 63 months of "uninter-
rupted prosperity."
He makes no reference to the fact that the high level of economic activity
feeds heavily on the Vietnam War.
He makes no mention of a Labor Department report flatly stating that inflation
has robbed the American worker of every so-called wage gain he made during the
past two years.
He overlooks the fact that the dollar that was worth a dollar in 1960 now is
worth only 874 cents,
He makes no note of the cost-price squeeze that so grips the farmer that
parity--the relationship between what the farmer gets for his product and what
it costs him for supplies--has fallen to 73, the lowest point since the depression
year of 1933.
He ignores the fact that 1967 was a banner year for strikes.
Let's tell it like it is.
The housewife would say that the cost of living has gone up nearly 15 per cent
in the last seven years. It costs her $11.43 to buy what $10 would buy in 1960.
The American people find themselves plagued with cost inflation, price
inflation, massive federal deficits piled one on top of another, some of the
highest interest rates in a hundred years, a dangerously low gold supply, and
repeated attacks on the dollar.
Deficit spending--the spending of borrowed money--has added $70 billion to
the national debt since 1960, the last year the federal budget was balanced.
The present Administration is responsible for $60 billion of those accumulated
deficits and currently offers us the prospect of $20 billion deficits "back to
back" unless we raise income taxes.
The economists are largely agreed that the economy will turn soft in the
second half of 1968 and that a sizable increase in income taxes at that time might
be dangerous.
Meanwhile Social Security taxes have been raised and State and local taxes
are rising steadily--se that the combined federal, state and local tax burden
i
is the greatest in our history.
The economy has deteriorated to the point that the steadily rising cost of
production--and not excessive demand--is the primary push behind the steady rise
in the cost of living.
The inflation we now are experiencing is a direct result of Administration
failure to cool off the economy when it became overheated in 1966.
It is because the Administration failed to fight inflation in 1966 and left
that job to the Federal Reserve Board that we now are paying record-high interest
rates on all of our credit and mortgage purchases.
The Administration's proposal to fight inflation with an income tax increase
was not sent to the Congress until August 1967-after inflation caused by excessive
dewand had changed to inflation caused by excessive production costs. It was too
late then and it is too late now, the wrong medicine in point of time.
The whole burden of the inflation pressing so heavily on the American people--
the demand-pull kind in 1966 and the cost-push kind in 1967 and 1968-rests on the
Administration and its failure to take timely action to halt the price-wage spiral
at its inception.
The burden also rests on the Administration for following a guns and butter
policy in time of war.
President Johnson recently cited his accomplishments in social welfare
fields. He measured those accomplishments not in terms of concrete results but in
terms of the billions of federal dollars thrown at problems which continue to con-
found federal planners.
He proudly states that while the Administration spent only $19 billion for
health, education and welfare in 1960, this was raised to $23 billion in 1964 and
humped to $47 billion this year.
He notes that federal programs for the poor totalled only $9 billion in 1960,
elimbed to $12 billion in 1964 and now total $28 billion.
He points with pride to the fact that Administration spending of $3 billion on
government training programs in 1960 rose to $4 billion in 1964 and now has climbed
to $12 billion.
I an just as eager as President Johnson to lick the ancient enemies of the
people--poverty, hunger and ignorance. But has massive federal spending restructured
American society? What are the results? Where are the benefits?
DR.FORD LIB
I would like to be able to say that all of these federal billions have remade
BER
our cities.
-5-
But if we tell it like it is we find that 76 major riots have swept the
Nation since 1965, killing more than 100 persons and wounding nearly 2,500.
These civil explosions produced 7,985 cases of arson, 28,939 arrests, 5,434
convictions, $210 million in property damage, and $504 million in estimated
economic leases.
This country has experienced violence and Lawlessness on a scale unprece-
dented in history. The widespread disregard for law and order we have witnessed
in the last several years is tantamount to a virtual breakdown of the rule of law.
Now there is an escalating arms race on both sides as police prepare for new
outbreaks of rioting in the summer of 1968 and Negro militants plan guerrilla
terrorist tactics.
There is no excuse for the conditions which breed riots, but neither is there
any excuse for riots or the criminal activity associated with them.
What progress have we made in the war against crime since 1960? In the last
seven years the national crime rate has jumped 88 per cent while the resident
population of this country has gone up 11 per cent. Think of it! The crime rate
has increased eight times as fast as the population.
Last year President Johnson sent Congress a law enforcement assistance bill
but did nothing to push a House-approved law enforcement aid bill through the
Senate. He vetood a District of Columbia anti-crime bill and opposed a House
Republican antioriot bill last year. This year he has signed a D.C. anti-erime
bill and has sent Congress his own anti-riot bill.
If we tell it like it is in America in this year 1968 we see many problems
problems that threaten to tear us apart as a people, problems that demean us in
the eyes of the world, problems that threaten us with collapse as a nation.
This is a time of erisis. That is why we need more than ever before to tell
it like it is--te face up to the fact that the path we have followed in the last
few years has produced the threat of a var between the races at home, stalemate
in Vietnam, humiliation at the hands of North Korea, the distruct of the Israelis
and the Arabs due to our non-policy in the Middle East, a sundering of the once-
strong ties that bound NATO together, danger that the Soviet Union will upset the
balance of power throughout the world and surpass us in nuclear capability, a
weakening of the dollar both at home and abroad.
The times demand realism, and the American people want the truth. When they
get the truth, they are always equal to the challenge. 1 feel sure this will be
no less true in this moment of trial.
# # #
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH., BEFORE A "TELL IT LIKE IT IS" SYMPOSIUM
AT 8 P.M. FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1968, AT SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, MEMPHIS, TENN.
Distribution ; None
ford
do
Copies
Mr.
"Tell It Like It Is -- A Minority View"
m Office Copy
I am intrigued by the theme of this symposium--"Tell It Like It Is." I
find it especially interesting because of statements made a few days ago on
educational television by two former presidential press secretaries.
One was Pierre Salinger, who served both Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. The
other was Bill Moyers, who was associated only with President Johnson.
Salinger admitted that both of the administrations in which he had worked had
been less than candid on Vietnam, had tried to put the best possible face on all
of their actions when the facts showed otherwise, and both had issued statements
which later proved incorrect.
Moyers commented on the obvious breakdown in the public's confidence in the
present Administration. He said it was due to "judgments that turned out to be
not as successful as it was thought they would be." He blamed the public's
feeling of resentment regarding Vietnam on the fact that "we backed into the war,
the fourth bloodiest in our history." He said "the people suddenly felt cheated"
because "We were there before we knew where we were going or why."
I congratulate both Mr. Salinger and Mr. Moyers for their forthrightness now
that they no longer feel the need to be less than candid.
The sharp edge of truth cuts particularly deep in Mr. Moyers' admission that
the American people found themselves heavily enmeshed in Vietnam before they knew
where they were going or why.
You have heard much about the Credibility Gap in connection with the present
Administration. I assure you the Credibility Gap was not invented by the Loyal
Opposition. It arose within the present Administration due to Administration
actions and statements.
The word, "credible," means "capable of being believed." If the statements
made by the high officials of an Administration repeatedly prove to be false or
wrong, the people inevitably lose confidence in the Administration. They come to
feel that truth in government is lacking, that the Administration is not to be
believed.
The American people are a moral people. They want to be told how it is and
where we go from here. They become deeply disturbed when the truth is hidden
in a thicket of contradictions and misleading statements by Government spokesmen.
The start of the Administration's Credibility Gap goes back to the Vietnam
War.
FORD LIBRAR & 938870
-2-
The gap opened up when Lyndon Johnson campaigned as a peace candidate in 1964--
although it was not then readily visible. Now a book has been published which
documents the fact that on no less than five occasions during the 1964 campaign
President Johnson indicated he would never send large ground forces to Vietnam.
For instance, on August 29, 1964, he told the Nation: "Some others are
eager to enlarge the conflict. They call upon us to supply American boys to do
the job that Asian boys should do. They ask us to take reckless action which
might risk the lives of millions. We don't want our American boys to do the
fighting for Asian boys. We don't want to get involved in a nation with 700 million
people and get tied down in a land war in Asia."
President Johnson spoke those words a little more than three years ago.
Today we are tied down in a land war in Asia. And the end is nowhere in sight.
The basic reason the American people distrust the present Administration is
that they have been misled almost every step of the way on Vietnam.
When the Eisenhower Administration left office seven years ago, Vietnam had
a relatively stable and apparently established government. The late President
John F. Kennedy, writing in 1960 as a senator, said in his book "Strategy Of Peace"
that U.S. aid to South Vietnam under Eisenhower had proved "effective." He called
the results "a near miracle."
In 1960 there were fewer than 700 U.S. military personnel stationed in South
Vietnam, sent there to train South Vietnamese forces in the use of American
weapons and equipment. Today more than 525,000 U.S. military personnel have been
committed to a seemingly interminable land war in South Vietnam--and President
Johnson hints he will be sending many thousands more than that. Where will it all
end?
Is the Administration now telling it like it is in Vietnam? It was not long
after Administration officials gave highly optimistic accounts of progress in
Vietnam and of seeing the light at the end of the tunnel that the Vietcong
launched their Jan. 30 offensive. Since then we have had the President say that
the South Vietnamese government and Army might well come out of the current
situation stronger than before. Meantime the Saigon government has arrested a
number of prominent South Vietnamese political figures. Is this telling it like
it is?
There is ample evidence that the pacification program in South Vietnam
virtually lies in ruins as a result of the Tet offensive. The only admission
we have had of a setback is Vice-President Humphrey's statement that the
-
-3-
pacification program "did stop." Is this telling it like it is?
We have had a long series of Administration statements which repeatedly have
raised false hopes for an end to the Vietnam War. The American people feel con-
fused and let down.
Is the Administration telling it like it is at home?
The President talks in his 1968 Economic Report about 83 months of "uninter-
rupted prosperity."
He makes no reference to the fact that the high level of economic activity
feeds heavily on the Vietnam War.
He makes no mention of a Labor Department report flatly stating that inflation
has robbed the American worker of every so-called wage gain he made during the
past two years.
He overlooks the fact that the dollar that was worth a dollar in 1960 now is
worth only 87½ cents.
He makes no note of the cost-price squeeze that so grips the farmer that
parity--the relationship between what the farmer gets for his product and what
it costs him for supplies--has fallen to 73, the lowest point since the depression
year of 1933.
He ignores the fact that 1967 was a banner year for strikes.
Let's tell it like it is.
The housewife would say that the cost of living has gone up nearly 15 per cent
in the last seven years. It costs her $11.43 to buy what $10 would buy in 1960.
The American people find themselves plagued with cost inflation, price
inflation, massive federal deficits piled one on top of another, some of the
highest interest rates in a hundred years, a dangerously low gold supply, and
repeated attacks on the dollar.
Deficit spending--the spending of borrowed money--has added $70 billion to
the national debt since 1960, the last year the federal budget was balanced.
The present Administration is responsible for $60 billion of those accumulated
deficits and currently offers us the prospect of $20 billion deficits "back to
back" unless we raise income taxes.
The economists are largely agreed that the economy will turn soft in the
second half of 1968 and that a sizable increase in income taxes at that time might
be dangerous.
Meanwhile Social Security taxes have been raised and State and local taxes
are rising steadily--so that the combined federal, state and local tax burden
GERATO, FORD VIBRAR
-4-
is the greatest in our history.
The economy has deteriorated to the point that the steadily rising cost of
production--and not excessive demand--is the primary push behind the steady rise
in the cost of living.
The inflation we now are experiencing is a direct result of Administration
failure to cool off the economy when it became overheated in 1966.
It is because the Administration failed to fight inflation in 1966 and left
that job to the Federal Reserve Board that we now are paying record-high interest
rates on all of our credit and mortgage purchases.
The Administration's proposal to fight inflation with an income tax increase
was not sent to the Congress until August 1967--after inflation caused by excessive
demand had changed to inflation caused by excessive production costs. It was too
late then and it is too late now, the wrong medicine in point of time.
The whole burden of the inflation pressing so heavily on the American people--
the demand-pull kind in 1966 and the cost-push kind in 1967 and 1968--rests on the
Administration and its failure to take timely action to halt the price-wage spiral
at its inception.
The burden also rests on the Administration for following a guns and butter
policy in time of war.
President Johnson recently cited his accomplishments in social welfare
fields. He measured those accomplishments not in terms of concrete results but in
terms of the billions of federal dollars thrown at problems which continue to con-
found federal planners.
He proudly states that while the Administration spent only $19 billion for
health, education and welfare in 1960, this was raised to $23 billion in 1964 and
bumped to $47 billion this year.
He notes that federal programs for the poor totalled only $9 billion in 1960,
climbed to $12 billion in 1964 and now total $28 billion.
He points with pride to the fact that Administration spending of $3 billion on
government training programs in 1960 rose to $4 billion in 1964 and now has climbed
to $12 billion.
I am just as eager as President Johnson to lick the ancient enemies of the
people--poverty, hunger and ignorance. But has massive federal spending restructured
American society? What are the results? Where are the benefits?
I would like to be able to say that all of these federal billions have remade
our cities.
⑉5⑉
But if we tell it like it is we find that 76 major riots have swept the
Nation since 1965, killing more than 100 persons and wounding nearly 2,500.
These civil explosions produced 7,985 cases of arson, 28,939 arrests, 5,434
convictions, $210 million in property damage, and $504 million in estimated
economic losses.
This country has experienced violence and lawlessness on a scale unprece-
dented in history. The widespread disregard for law and order we have witnessed
in the last several years is tantamount to a virtual breakdown of the rule of law.
Now there is an escalating arms race on both sides as police prepare for new
outbreaks of rioting in the summer of 1968 and Negro militants plan guerrilla
terrorist tactics.
There is no excuse for the conditions which breed riots, but neither is there
any excuse for riots or the criminal activity associated with them.
What progress have we made in the war against crime since 1960? In the last
seven years the national crime rate has jumped 88 per cent while the resident
population of this country has gone up 11 per cent. Think of it! The crime rate
has increased eight times as fast as the population.
Last year President Johnson sent Congress a law enforcement assistance bill
but did nothing to push a House-approved law enforcement aid bill through the
Senate. He vetoed a District of Columbia anti-crime bill and opposed a House
Republican anti-riot bill last year. This year he has signed a D.C. anti-crime
bill and has sent Congress his own anti-riot bill.
If we tell it like it is in America in this year 1968 we see many problems--
problems that threaten to tear us apart as a people, problems that demean us in
the eyes of the world, problems that threaten us with collapse as a nation.
This is a time of crisis. That is why we need more than ever before to tell
it like it is--to face up to the fact that the path we have followed in the last
few years has produced the threat of a war between the races at home, stalemate
in Vietnam, humiliation at the hands of North Korea, the distrust of the Israelis
and the Arabs due to our non-policy in the Middle East, a sundering of the once-
strong ties that bound NATO together, danger that the Soviet Union will upset the
balance of power throughout the world and surpass us in nuclear capability, a
weakening of the dollar both at home and abroad.
The times demand realism, and the American people want the truth. When they
get the truth, they are always equal to the challenge. I feel sure this will be
no less true in this moment of trial.
###
FORD LIBRARY