Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1675757",
    "label": "Transcripts (1)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1675757"
}

{
    "id": "1675757",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1675757",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts (1)",
    "description": "This file includes transcripts of Ronald Reagan speeches and Meet the Press interviews.",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1675757",
    "collections": [
        "President Ford Committee Records",
        "Peter Kaye's Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Presidential campaign, 1976",
        "Speeches, addresses, etc."
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0034/610352/1675757.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0034/610352/1675757.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0034/610352/1675757.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1675757",
    "naId": 1675757,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-02-29",
        "month": 2,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-09-01",
        "month": 9,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0034/610352/1675757.pdf",
    "mediaId": "dfed215fa7cefd2e",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box G07, folder \"Transcripts (1)\" of the President\nFord Committee Campaign Records at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nLET THE PEOPLE RULE\n(Remarks by the Honorable Ronald Reagan, former\nGovernor of California, to the Executive Club of\nChicago, McConnick Place, Chicago, Illinois,\nFriday, September 25, 1975.)\nIn his first Inaugural, nearly a century and three-quarters ago,\nPresident Themas Jefferson defined the aims of his administration: \"A\nwise and frugal government\", he said, \"which shall restrain men from\ninjuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their\nown pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the\nmouth of labor the bread it has earned - - This is the sum of good\ngovernment.\n11\nJefferson believed the people were the best agents of their own\ndestinies, and that the task of government was not to direct the people\nbut to create an environment of ordered freedom in which the people could\npursue those destinies in their own way. But he also knew that from the\nvery beginning the tendency of government has been to become player as\nwell as umpire. \"What has destroyed liberty and the rights of men in\nevery government that has ever existed under the sun?\" Jefferson asked.\n\"The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body.\"\nIf Jefferson could return today, I doubt that he would be surprised\neither at what has happened in America, or at the result. When a nation\nloses its desire or ability to restrain the growth and concentration of\npower, the floodgates are open and the results are predictable.\nFiscal Year 1976 ends four days before our bicentennial. In this\nfiscal year, government at all levels will absorb 37 percent of the\nGross National Product and 44 percent of our total personal income. We\ndestroy the value of our pensions and savings with an inflation rate that\nsoars to 12 percent a year, at the same time we suffer unemployment rates\nof eight and nine percent.\nEvery minute I speak to you the Federal Government spends another\n$700,000. I'd stop talking if they'd stop spending, but Washington is\nspending a billion dollars every day and goes into debt a billion and a\nthird dollars every week. I don't think it would surprise Jefferson to\nlearn that real spendable weekly income of the average American worker is\nlower than it was a decade ago - - even though in these 10 years that\nsame worker has increased his productivity 23 percent. AS Jefferson said,\nthat is taking from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.\nIf government continues to take that bread for the next 25 years\nat\nthe same rate of increase it has in the last 40, the percent of GNP governe\nFORD\nment consumes will be 66 percent - - two-thirds of all our output - -\nby the and of this century. A single proposal now before Congress, Senator\nKennedy's national health insurance plan, would push the share of GNP\nLIBRARY\nconsumed by government from 37 to more than 45 percent, all by itself.\nThis absorption of revenue by all levels of government, the alarming\nrate of inflation, and the rising toll of unemployment all stem from a\nsingle source: The belief that government, particularly the Federal\nCovernment, has the answer to our ills, and that the proper method of\ndealing with social problems is to transfer power from the private to the\npublic sector, and within the public sector from state and local govern-\nments to the ultimate power center in Washington.\nThis collectivist, centralizing approach, whatever name or party\nlabel it wears, has created our economic problems. By taxing and consuming\nan over-greater share of the national wealth, it has imposed an intolerable\nburden of taxation on American citizens. By spending above and beyond\neven this level of taxation, it has created the horrendous inflation of\nthe past decade. And by saddling our economy with an ever-greater burden\nof controls and regulations, it has generated countless economic problems,\nfrom the raising of consumer prices to the destruction of jobs, to choking\noff vital supplies of food and energy.\nAs if that were not enough, the crushing weight of central government\nhas distorted our federal system and altered the relationship between the\nlevels of government, threatening the freedom of -individuals and families.\nThe states and local communities have been demeaned into little more than\nadministrative districts, bureaucratic subdivisions of Big Brother govern-\nment in Washington, with programs, spending priorities, and tax policies\nbadly warped or dictated by federal overseers. Thousands of towns and\nneighborhoods have seen their peace disturbed by bureaucrats and social\nplanners, through busing, questionable education programs, and attacks on\nfamily unity. Even SO liberal an observer as Richard Goodwin could identify\nwhat he correctly called \"the most troubling political fact of our age:\nthat the growth in central power has been accompanied by a swift and con-\ntinual diminution in the significance of the individual citizen, transform-\ning him from a wielder into an object of authority.\"\nIt isn't good enough to approach this tangle of confusion by saying\nwe will try to make it more efficient or \"responsive,\" or modify an aspect\nhere or there, or do a little less of all these objectionable things than\nwill the Washington bureaucrats and those who support them. This may have\nworked in the past, but not any longer. The problem must be attacked at\nits source. All Americans must be rallied to preserve the good things that\nremain in our society and to restore those good things that have been lost.\nWe can and we must reverse the flow of power to Washington; not\nsimply slow it, or paper over the problem with attractive phrases or cos-\nmetic tinkering. This would give the appearance of change but leave the\nbasic machinery untouched. In fact, it reminds me of a short fable of\nTolstoy's: \"I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me,\nand yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to\nlighten his load by all possible means - - except by getting off his back.\"\nWhat I propose is nothing less than a 'systematic transfer of author\nand resources to the states - - a program of creative federalism for\nAmerica's third century.\nGERALD\nLIBRAPA\n3\nFederal authority has clearly failed to do the job. Indeed, it has\ncreated more problems in welfare, education, housing, food stamps, Medicaid,\ncommunity and regional development, and revenue sharing, to name a few.\nThe sums involved and the potential savings to the taxpayer are large.\nTransfer of authority in whole or part in all these areas would reduce the\noutlay of the Federal Covernment by more than $90 billion, using the spend-\ning levels of Fiscal 1976.\nWith such a savings, it would be possible to balance the Federal\nbudget, make an initial five-billion-dollar payment on the national debt,\nand cut the Federal personal income tax burden of every American by an\naverage of 23 percent. By taking such a step we could quickly liberate.\nmuch of our economy and political system from the dead hand of Federal\ninterference, with beneficial impact on every aspect of our daily lives.\nNot included in such a transfer would be those functions of govern-\nment which are national rather than local in nature, and others which are\nhandled through trust arrangements outside the general revenue structure.\nIn addition to national defénse and space, some of these areas are Social\nSecurity, Medicare, and other old-age programs; enforcement of Federal law;\nveterans affairs; some aspects of agriculture, energy, transportation, and\nenvironment; TVA and other multi-state public-works projects; and certain\ntypes of research.\nFew would want to end the Federal Government's role as a setter of\nnational goals and standards. And no one would want to rule cut a role\nfor Washington in those few areas where its influence has been important\nand benign; crash efforts like the Manhattan and Apollo projects, and\nmassive self-liquidating programs like the Homestead Act and the land-grant\ncolleges Certainly the Federal Government must take an active role in\nassuring this nation an adequate supply of energy.\nTurning back these programs would not end the process of reform in\nWashington. In the immediate years ahead:\n--- In our regulatory agencies dealing with non-monopoly industries,\nwe must set a date certain for an end to Federal price fixing and\nan end to all Federal restrictions on entry.\n-- We must take steps to keep the spending and borrowing of off-\nbudget agencies under control.\n-- We must reform our major trust funds to ensure solvency and\naccountability. Particularly important is the need to save\nSocial Security from the colossal debt that threatens the\nfuture well-being of millions of Americans, even while it\novertaxes our workers at a growing and exorbitant rate.\n-- We must put a statutory limit on the growth of our money\nsupply, so that growth does not exceed the gain in productivity.\nOnly in this way can we be sure of returning to a strong dollar\nFORD\n-- And we must radically simplify our method of tax collection,\nso that every American can fill out his return in a matter of\nminutes without legal help. Genuine tax reform would also make\nGORALD\nLIBRARY\nit more rewarding to save than to borrow, and encourage a wider\ndiffusion of ownership to America's workers.\nIn the months ahead, T will say more on each of these-major areas of\ntransfer of Federal programs to the states would mean.\nIt would be a giant step toward solving the problem of inflation that\nis sapping the strength of our economy and cheating American wage-earners\nand pensioners. There is no mystery about inflation. It is caused by\nspending money that has not yet been earned. Without the enomous pressure\nof a 60-to-80-billion-dollar deficit, the Federal Reserve System would have\nno mandate to pump too many dollars into the economy - - which is the\nultimate cause of inflation. The Federal deficit provides the chief motive\nfor the debauching of our dollar.\nAdd to this the gain in purchasing power that will accrue to all\nAmericans from a sharp reduction in Federal income taxes - - the biggest\nspending burden the average family must absorb. Indeed, taxes of all kinds\nare a bigger family expense item than food, shelter and clothing combined.\nLast year, according to a study by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress,\nincome taxes at all levels rose by 26.5 percent -- the largest increase of\nany item in the family budget. By far the greatest part of this growing\nload of taxation is the Federal personal income tax, whose sharper\nas inflation pushes taxpayers into higher surtax brackets. Covernment\ndoesn't have to raise the tax rate to profit by inflation. The progressive\nincome tax is based on the number of dollars earned, not their purchasing\npower; thus a cost-of-living pay increase results in a tax increase.\nAn immediate tax cut, some of which might have to be balanced by\ntax rises in the states, would be only the beginning of the savings that\ncould be achieved. When we begin making payments on the national debt,\nwe will also begin making further reductions in the tax burden. American\ntaxpayers are currently being billed an average of one billion dollars\nevery ten days just to pay interest on the debt. As the debt is retired,\nwe can progressively reduce the level of taxation required for interest\npayments. Senator Hubert Humphrey, in excusing government spending, once\nsaid, \"A billion here and a billion there -- it adds up. Well, it can\nwork the other way 'round.\nWith the spending reduction I propose, the Federal Government will no\nlonger be crowding capital markets to finance its deficits. That will make\navailable billions in new capital for private investment, housing starts,\nand job creation -- and the interest rates will come down.\nThe transfer I propose does not mean that the specific programs in\nquestion are not worthwhile. Many are, though in my opinion many others\nare not. But the point is that all these programs are losing effectiveness\nbecause of the Federal Government's pre-emption of levels of government\ncloser to the problems, coupled with Washington's ability to complicate\neverything it touches. The decision as to whether programs are or are not\nworthwhile -- and whether to continue or cancel -- will be placed where it\nrightfully belongs: with the people of our states.\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n5\nIt is theoretically possible that local governments will simply\nduplicate programs as they now exist, and if that is what the people in\nthe states desire, that is exactly what will and should occur. Certainly\nthe bureaucrats who run them now will be available, for they will have no\nfurther work in Washington.\nI think it likely, however, that some of the more worthwhile programs\nwill be retained essentially as they are, many will be dropped, and others\nmay be modified. But all the surviving programs will be run at much lower\ncost than is presently the case.\nThe present system is geared for maximum expenditure and minimum\nresponsibility. There is no better way to promote the lavish outlay of\ntax money than to transfer program and funding authority away from state\nand local governments to the Federal level. This ensures that recipients of\naid will have every reason to spend and none to conserve. They can get\npolitical credit for spending freely, but don't have to take the heat for\nimposing the taxes. The French economist Bastiat, 100 years ago, said,\n\"Public funds seemingly belong to no one and the temptation to-bestow them\non someone is irresistible.\n\"\nSo long as the system continues to function on this basis, we are going\nto see expenditures at every level of government soar out of sight. The\nobject is to reverse this: to tie spending and taxing functions together\nwherever feasible, SO that those who have the pleasure of giving away tax\ndollars will also have the pain of raising them. At the same time we can\nsort out which functions of government are best performed at each level.\nAnd that process, I hope, would be going on between each state and its local\ngovernments at the same time.\nThe transfer of spending authority to Washington blurs the difference\nbetween wasteful states and prudent ones and this too destroys incentives\ntoward economy. If a state spends itself into bankruptcy on welfare, under\nthe present system it is bailed out when Washington picks up the tab;\nindeed, many Federal programs are geared toward encouraging this kind of\nbehavior, bestowing greater aid in proportion to spending levels imposed by\nthe states. The way to get more is to spend more.\nBy the same token, efforts at state economy are punished under the\npresent system. A state that keeps its fiscal house in order and, for\nexample, prevents the welfare problem from getting out of hand will find it\nderives no benefits from its action. It will discover, as we did in\nCalifornia, that efforts to impose some common sense in welfare will run\nafoul of Federal bureaucrats and guidelines. Its citizens will be called\nupon to pay in Federal taxes and inflation for other states that don't\ncurb their spending.\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\n6\nAnother benefit of localizing these programs is that state and local\ngovernments are more accessible to the local citizen, and in most cases\nprevented by statute from going in debt. When tax increases are proposed\nin state assemblies and city councils, the average citizen is better able\nto resist and to make his influence felt. This, plus the ban on local\ndeficits, tends to put an effective lid on spending.\nFederal financing is the spenders' method of getting around these\nrestraints. Taxes are imposed at a level where the government is far away\nand inaccessible to the average citizen. The connection between big spending\nand high taxes is hidden, and the ability to run up deficits and print more\nmoney makes efforts to control the problem through the taxing side alone\nalmost meaningless.\nThe proposals I have outlined will bring howls of pain from those who\nare benefiting from the present system, and from many more who think they\nare. But as another Frenchman, Thiers, said, \"For those who govern, the\nfirst thing required is indifference to newspapers.\" We must turn a deaf\near to the screams of the outraged if this nation and this way of life are\nto survive. The simple fact is the producing class in this nation is being\ndrained of its substance by the non-producers --- the taxpayers are being\nvictimized by the tax consumers. We may be sure that those in Washington\nand elsewhere whose life style depends on consuming other people's earnings\nwhile working people struggle to make ends meet, will fight to the last\nlimousine and curpeted anteroom.\nBut if we ignore the taxers and the centralizers and do the things I\nknow we can do, we'll de more than survive: we will inaugurate a new era of\nAmerican diversity.\nTake education. The United States built the greatest system of public\neducation the world has ever known -- not at the Federal level, not even at\nthe state level, but at the level of the local school district. Until a\nfew years ago, the people had direct control over their schools -- how much\nto spend, what kind of courses to offer, whom to hire. Is it an accident\nthat as this local control gave way to funding and control at the Federal\nand state level, reading and other test scores have declined? It has\njust recently been announced that scores in college entrance exams have been\nnose-diving for 10 years and this year took the greatest plunge of all. And\nyet, spending on education in that same period has been sky-rocketing. The\ntruth is, a good education depends far more on local control than on the\namount of money spent.\nThere is no question but that under local agencies certain abuses took\nplace and certainly they needed to be cured --- sometimes by Federal inter-\nvention. This was certainly true of racial segregation in the South. But\nBERALD FORD LIBRAPT\nnow that according to some estimates the South is the most integrated area\nof the country -- now that there is an ongoing enforcement structure in\nthe Department of Justice --- is there any further reason to deny local\ncontrol and funding of our schools?\nOr take welfare. For years, the fashionable voices have been calling\nfor a Federal takeover of welfare. (Well, the old-age portions of welfare\nhave been taken over -- and in the first 18 months, more than a billion\ndollars have been paid out by mistake!) If there is one area of social\npolicy that should be at the most local level of government possible, it is\nwelfare. It should not be nationalized -- it should is localized. If\nJoe Doaks is using his welfare money to go down to the pool hall and drink\nbeer and gamble, and the people on his block are paying the bill, Joe is\napt to undergo a change in his life style. This is an example of why our\ntask force in California found that the smaller and more local government\nbecomes, the less it costs. The more government is localized, the less\nyou will see a situation like the one in Massachusetts, where a mother of\nsix was receiving, through cash and services, the equivalent of a $20,000\nearned income. That is twice the average family income of the state.\nThe truth is that people all over America have been thinking about all\nof these problems for years. This country is bursting with ideas and\ncreativity, but a government run by bureaucrats in Washington has no way to\nrespond. If we send the power back to the states and localities, we'll\nfind out how to improve education, because some districts are going to\nsucceed with same ideas and other districts are going to fail with others,\nand the word will spread like wildfire. The more we let the people decide,\nthe more we'll find out about what policies work and what policies don't\nwork. Successful programs and good local governments will attract bright\npeople like magnets, because the genius of federalism is that people can\nvote with their feet. If local or state governments grow tyrannical and\ncostly, the people will move. If the Federal Government is the villain, there\nis no escape.\nI am calling also for an end to giantism, for a return to the human scale --\nthe scale that human beings can understand and cope with; the scale of the\nlocal fraternal lodge, the church congregation, the block club, the farm\nbureau. It is the locally-owned factory, the small businessran who personally\ndeals with his customers and stands behind his product, the farm and consumer\ncooperative, the town or neighborhood bank that invests in the community,\nthe union local.\nIn government, the human scale is the town council, the board of select-\nmen, and the precinct captain.\nIt is this activity on a small, human scale that creates the fabric of\ncommunity, a framework for the creation of abundance and liberty. The human\nscale nurtures standards of right behavior, a prevailing ethic of what is\nright and what is wrong, acceptable and unacceptable.\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n8\nThree and a half centuries ago, peoples from across the sea began\nto cross to this great land, searching for freedom and a sense of\ncommunity they were losing at home. The trickle became a flood, and we\nspread across a vast, virtually unpeopled continent and caused it to bloom\nwith homesteads, villages, cities, great transportation systems, all the\nemblems of prosperity and success. And we did this without urban renewal\nor an area redevelopment plan. We became the most productive people in the\nhistory of the world.\nTwo hundred years ago, when this process was just beginning, we\nrebelled when, in our eyes, a mother country turned into a foreign power.\nWe rebelled not to overturn but to preserve what we had, and to keep alive\nthe chance of doing more. We established a republic, because the meaning\nof a republic is that real leadership comes not from the rulers but from\nthe people, that more happens in a state where people are the sculptors\nand not the clay.\nWe are losing that chance today, and we know we are losing it. Two\nhundred years ago it was London that turned into a foreign power, Today,\nand it is a sad thing to say, it is Washington. The coils woven in that\ncity are entrapping us all, and, as with the Gordian knot, we cannot untie\nit, we must cut it with one blow of the sword.\nIn one reference book, cutting the Gordian knot is defined as follows:\n\"to solve a perplexing problem by a single bold action.\" The Cordian knot\nof antiquity was in Phrygia, and it was Alexander the Great who cut it,\nthereby, according to the legend, assuring the conquest of Persia.\nToday, the Gordian knot is in Washington, and the stakes are even\nhigher. But this is a republic, and we have no king to cut it, only we\nthe people, and our sword has been beaten into ballot boxes. What applies\nto the role of government applies equally to the means of changing that\nrole: leadership is necessary, but even more necessary is popular choice.\nThe anonymous sage who defined leadership must have lived in a republic,\nfor he said, \"He is not the best statesman who is the greatest doer, but\nhe who sets others doing with the greatest success.\"\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nWestern States\nReston TAX\nCatter\nWe must reaffirm our major trust funds to insure solvency\nand the countability, particularly important is the need\nto save social security from the collossal debt that threatens\nthe future well being of millions of Americans, even while it\novertaxes our workers at a growing and exhorbitant rate. Today\nsocial security itself virtually bankrupt by any insurance\nstandards, is selling retirement and liability insurance\nfifth rate quality at three or four times the cost the\nindividual could buy it in the open market.\nWe must put a statutory limit on the growth of the money supply\nso that growth does not exceed the gain in productivity. Only\nin this way can we be sure to return to a strong dollar.\nWe must radically simplify our method of tax collection so that\nevery American can fill out his return in a matter of minutes\nwithout legal help.\nGeneral tax reform would make it gennrally more rewarding\nto save than to borrow. And encourage wider difusion of\nownership to American workers In the months ahead I will\nsay more on each one of these subjects including the fact\nthat I believe the Republican party should come out solidly\nfor a program which, from here on, there will be a permanent\nlimit on the percentage of the people's earnings that the\nGovernment can take without the consent of the people.\nFORD i LIBRARY 038870\nIntroduction-introducing young people attending\nWhat party can do and the state we find ourselves in.\nI've been getting around the country- let me say when I talk\nabout attacking the Washington beaurocracy, those that are\nhere- present company excluded.\njoke-\nTalking to all groups on the state of the free enterprise system.\njoke-about government interference.\nImportant to change Congress- policies now affecting us are\nthe result of those in power.\nAn accounting firm has for the first time in our history\nat great cost they have created a balance sheet on the U.S.\nGovernment similiar to corporation. The total financial status\nshows we are bankrupt. Cannot continue. Reverse course.\nFitting national convention be held in N.Y.C.\nJefferson defined aims of his administeation- wise and frugal\ngovernment- which shall restrain men from injuring one another.\nTo leave them otherwise free to lead their own pursuit of\nindustry etc. abd improvement and shall not take from the\nmouths of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum\nof good government. etc. etc.\nGov't in 1976 will absorb 37% of the GNP\n34% of the total personalincome- 34c out of every dollar.\nAll figures on spending and inflation\nWashington spending one billion a day and going into debt\n1 1/3 billion every week. Real spendable weekly income is\nlower than it was 10 years ago even though in these 10 yrs\nhas increased his productivity by 23%\nOne single proposal now before Cong. is Senator Kennedy's\nHealth insurance would push the share of the GNP from 37% to more\nthan 45% all by itself. -more than we can afford.\nAll stems from the source that the belief is that our Federal\nGovernment has the answer to all our ills.\nTransfer the power from the private sector to the central power-\nThis collectivist central approach or whatever name or party label\nit wears has imposed an intolerable burden of taxation upon the\ncitizens. Created inflation. Saddling our economy with unprecented\ncontrols it has generated countless economic problems from raising\nconsumer prices and destruction of jobs to choking off surplus of\nfood and /or supplies of food and energy.\nThreatening us with freedom of individuals and families. State\nand local governments have been demeaned Beaucratic agencies\nset up in local cities Thousands of towns and neighborhoods\nhave seen their peace disturbed by beaucrats, social planners thru\nbusing, questionable educational prograams, tax on family unity.\nIt isn't good enough to say we will try to make this situation\nmore efficient or more responsive to the people or modify an aspect\nhere or there. Reverse the flow of power to Washington\nSystematic transfer of authority to states is what I propose.\nReduce outlay by gov't by more than $90 billion\nusing spending level of 1976. This would make it possible to balance\nbudget and make a $5,000,000 payment of the nat'l debt and\nreduce the tax burden of individuals by average of 23%.\nFORD\nWe can quickly then liberate much of our economy and political system\nfrom the dead hand of federal interference with beneficial impact\non every aspect of our daily lives\n2\nNot included in such transfer would be the functions of government\nwhich are national rather than local in nature. and others which\nare handled through trust arrangements, outside the general revenue\nstructure. In addition to the national defense, some of these\nareas are national security, medicare and other old age programs\nenforcement of federal law, veteran affairs, some aspects of energy,\nagriculture, transportation and environment. TVA and other\nmultistate projects and certain types of research - few would want\nto end the Federal government role in setting of national goals and\nstandards. and no one would want to rule out the role of the federal\ngovernment-crash programs like the Manhattan and the Apollo projects\nHome stead Acts and -energy In the immediate years ahead in our\nregulatory agencies dealing with non-monopoly iddustries set a date to\nEnd to price fixing.\nend to all federal restrictions on the entry of new industry and business\nin competition with others\nWe must take steps to keep the spending and borrowing of off-budget\nagencies under control.\nWe must reaffirm our major trust funds to insure solvency ****** and\nthe countability , particularly important is the need to save\nsocial security from the colassel debt that threatens the future\nwell being of the millions of Americans, even\nwhile it overtaxes the millions of workers at a growing and\nexhorbitant rate is costing thre e or four times the\nrate an individual could buy it in the open market.\nWe must put a statutory limit on the growth of the money supply so that\ngrowth does not exceed the gain in productivity\nOnly in this way can we be sure to return to a strong dollar.\nWe must radically simplify our method of tax collection so that\nevery American can fill out his return without legal help.\nGaneral tax reform would make it more rewarding to save rather than\nto borrow.\nRepublican party should come out with a definite policy on the\npercentage of income the government can take.\nInflation is caused by spending money not yet earned.\nIncome tax increases by 26%- progressive income tax based on numbers\nof dollars earned- gov't does not have to increase income taxes.\nImmediate tax cuts- some of which may have to be balanced by\ntax increases in the States= would be the beginning of the\nsavings that could be achieved. When we begin making payments\nin the national debt we will also start making a reduction in the\ntax burden. Govt would not crowd the money market-interest\nrates would come down\nPrograms may be good-some are and some are not- but the point\nis that they are losing their effectiveness because of the federal\ngovernment's preemption of local levels of government.\nDecision about whether to continue programs will be placed where\nit belongs-with the people of our states. If people want to\nduplicate existing programs-that is what the people want and that\nis fine. Surving programs would be run at lower cost.\n\"Public funds seem to belong to noone and the temptation to bestow\nthem upon someone is irristible.\nTo tie spending and taxing together so that those who spend tax\ndollars will also have the pain of raising them.\nIf states run themselves into bankruptcy under the present system-\nit is bailed out when Washington picks up the tab. Pray every\nnight \"please dont let the Federal government save N.Y.C.\"\nWhere states keep their spending under control- **************\nspedd citizens may have to pay more in taxes taxkeep for other GERALE\nstates that do not keep their spending under control\nLIBRARY\n2X\nThe Republican Party should come out solidly for a program\nin which from here on there will be a permanent limit on the\npercentage of the people's earnings that the government can take\nwithout the consent of the people.\nLet me tell you what I think the massive transfer of federal\nprograms to the states would mean. It would be a giant step\nof solving the problem of inflation, that is sapping our strength.\nof our economy, cheating American wage earners There is no\nmystery about inflation. Its caused by spending money that has not yet\nbeen earned. Without the enormous pressure of a 60 to 80 billion\ndollar deficit, the Federal Researve system would have no\nmandate to pump too many dollars into the economy which is the\nultimate cause of inflation. The Federal deficit provides the\nchief motive for devuching our dollar. Add to this the gain\nin purchasing power that will accrue to all Americans from a\nsharp reduction in Federal income taxes and the biggest spending\nburden the average citizenbears. Indeed taxes of all kinds are\nthe biggest family expense item today than food, shelter and\nclothing combined.\nLast year, according to a study made by the Joint Economic Comm.\nin the Congress , income tax at all levels rose by 26%1/2%\nThis did not require any change in the tax rates. The largest\nincrease of any item in the family budget- greater than any\nthing that we had to do with inflation- by far the greatest\npart of the growing load of taxation is the federal personal\nincome tax whose bite gets sharper as inflation pushes the tax\npayer automatically into higher surtax brackets. Govt\ndoes not have to raise the tax rate to profit by inflation-the\nincome tax rate is based on the number of dollars earned- not their\npurchasing power. Thus, a cost of living pay increase results\nin a tax increase. Immediate tax cuts, some of which might have\nto be balanced by tax increases in the States , would be only the\nbeginning in the savings that can be achieved. When we begin\nmaking payments in the national debt we will also begin making\na further reduction in the tax burden. The American taxpayers are\ncurrently being billed an average of one billion dollars every\nten days just to pay the interest on that debt. As the debt\nis retired we can progressively reduce the level of taxation\nthat required for those interest payments. Senator Hubert Humphrey\nin excusing government spending said defensively \"well-you know\na billion dollars here and there- it adds up-\nWell it can work the other way around. With a spending reduction\nI just proposed, the Federal government will no longer be crowding\nthe capital market to finance its deficits and will make available\nbillions of dollars of new capital forprivate investments , housing\nstarts and job creations. Interest rates will come down In the\nairplane a man was telling me- a businessman- that at a cost to\nno dividends to the stockholders they plowed $69,000,000 worth of\nearnings back into his own company and he can show you on paper by\nactual count those 69 million dollars created instantly 5,000 new\nsolid jobs with a future.\nNow the transfer that I propose does not mean that specific programs\nin question are not worthwhile. Many of them are although in my\nopinion many are not. But the point of all these programs- they\nare losing the effectiveness because of the federal government's\npre-emption of local levels of government. Closer to the problems\ncoupled with Washington's ability to complicate everything it\ntouches, One brief example of that kind of complication - there is\na door in the Nation's capital-on that door is printed General\nFORD\nServices, Administration- Region 3, Public Bldg. Service Bldg\nManagement, Division Utility Room , Custodian- It is the broom closet\nLIBRARY\nNow the decision as to whwhether the programs are or are not\n3x\nworthwhile and whether to continue or cancel them will be placed\nwhere they rightly belong - with the people of our states. It is\ntheoretically possible that local governments will simply duplicate\nthe existing programs and if that is what the people in that state\nwant that is exactly what should happen in that state.\nNow beaucrats in the Federal government in Washington - they will\nbe available for any such programs- therecertainly wont be any\nwork for them in Washington-\nSome more worthwhile programs will be retained essentially as\nthey are- others will be modified and many will be dropped. But\nall the surviving programs will be run at a much lower cost than\nis presently the case. The present system is geared to maximum\nexpenditure and minimum responsibility. There is no better way\nto promote a lavish outlay of tax money than to transfer program\nand funding authority away from the state and local government\ntto the Federal level. Insuring that the recipient of aid\nwill have every reason to spend and none to conserve.\nThey can get political credit for spending freely - they dont\nhave to take any heat for imposing the taxes. A French economist\nBastille (?) years ago said-\" Public funds seemingly belong to\nno one and the temptationto bestow them on someone is irresistable.\nSo long as the system continues on this basis, we are going to\nsee expenditures on every level of govt soar out of sight. The\nobject is to reverse this. To tie spending and taxing functions\ntogether wherever feasible SO that those who have the pleasure\nof giving away tax dollars will also have the pain of raising\nthem.\nAt the same time we can sort out which functions of government\nare best performed at each level and that process I hope will\nbe going on between each state at its local levels of govt at the\nsame time. A transfer of spending authority to Washington blows\nthe difference between wasteful states and prudent ones., and this\ntoo destroys incentives towzard economy. If a state spends itself\ninto bankruptcy under the present system, it is bailed out when\nWashington picks up the tab and in my evening prayers I ask\neach time - please dont let the Federal government try to save NYC\nThe trouble is that many federal governmentprograms are geared\ntoward encouraging this kind of behavor. The way to get more is\nto spend more. By the same token efforts of State economies are\npunished under the present system. A state that keeps its fiscal\nhouse in order, for example, prevents its welfare problem from\ngetting out of hand, will find it derives no benefits from its\nactivities, it will discover as we did in California that efforts\nto impose some common sense in welfare will run afoul of Federal\nbureaucrats and guidelines. Its citizens will be called upon\nto pay in Federal taxes and inflation for other states that dont\ncurb their spending. Benefit of localizing these programs is that\nstate and local governments are more accessible to the local citizen\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n3\nState and local governments are more accessible to the local\ncitizens and in most cases prevented by statute from going into\ndebt.\nProposals I have outlined will bring howls of pain from those\nwho are benefitting and from many more who think they are.\nProducing class of this nation is being drained of its\nsubstance by the non-producing. The tax payers are being victimized\nbyxthextaxx by the tax consumers. 711/2 million of us being\nemployed in the private sector. Sum total from which govt\nmust get every dime, it needs. Today 80 million are receiving\nchecks from govt\nEducation- greatest system ever known-not at the state level\nor the federal level but at the level of the local school district\nUntil a few years ago the people had direct control over their\nschodls-how much to spend- what kind of courses to offer- who to\nhire. Is it an accident that at this level of control gave way\nto funding by state and federal level, test results have been\nnosediving- for ten years but this year the greatest plunge.\nSpending has during the same period- been sky rocketing. Good\neducation depends far more on local control than it does on the\namount of money spent. Certain abuses did need to be cured-\nintegrationg for instances-in the South- Now that these problems\nhave been relatively cured- is there any reason why we cant\ngo back to local control.\nWelfare- old age welfare has been taken over by Federal govt\nDuring the last 18 mo nearly one billion dollars has been paid out\nby mistake. This area definitely should be at the local level.\nThe more local control- the less the cost of programs\nGovt run by beaucrats in Washington has no way to respond to\nideas and creativity of its people. If we send the power back\nto the local level- WXX\nEnd to giantism. The locally owned factory-the small businessman\nReal leadership comes from the people.\nNeed to cut the cord from Washington. Leadership is necessary\nbut more necessary is popular choice.\nPeople want control of their destiny returned to them.\nOld rules of politics no longer acceptable to people. If we had\nthe courage to offer not a banday or a me-too-ism the drastic\nreversal of the suicidal course this nakuxe nation has beenon\nWe offer the way-open the door- to these people can make their\ndesires and dreams come true. We can give the majority once\nagain the opportunity to control their own destiny We\nstand for what they themselves farxwhatxthexx are hoping\nand praying for- we can restore the American dream.\nBERALD FORD LIBRAPA\nCitizens for Reagan\nFor President\nSen. Paul Laxalt\nCONTACT: LYN NOFZIGER\nEMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL\nChairman\n202-223-8560\n9:30 a.m., Nov. 20, 1975\nJohn P. Sears\nExec. Vice Ch.\nSTATEMENT BY THE HON. RONALD REAGAN\nGeorge Cook\nNOVEMBER 20, 1975\nH.R. Gross\nLouie B. Nunn\nThank you for coming.\nMrs. Stanhope C. Ring\nHenry Buchanan\nI have called this press conference to announce that I am a\nTreasurer\ncandidate for the Presidency and to ask for the support of all Americans who\nshare my belief that our nation needs to embark on a new, constructive course.\nI believe my candidacy will be healthy for the nation and my party.\nI am running because I have grown increasingly concerned about the course\nof events in the United States and in the world.\nIn just a few years, three vital measures of economic decay--inflation,\nunemployment, and interest rates--have more than doubled, at times reaching\n10 percent and even more.\nGovernment at all levels now absorbs more than 44 percent of our personal\nincome. It has become more intrusive, more coercive, more meddlesome and less\neffective.\nOur access to cheap and abundant energy has been interrupted, and our\ndependence on foreign sources is growing.\nA decade ago we had military superiority. Today we are in danger of being\nsurpassed by a nation that has never made any effort to hide its hostility to\neverything we stand for.\nThrough detente we have sought peace with our adversaries. We should\ncontinue to do so but must make it plain that we expect a stronger indication\nthat they also seek a lasting peace with us.\n(MORE)\nGERALD R. FORD LIBRARY\n2021 L St., N.W., Suite 340, Washington, D.C. 20036\nPhone: / 223-8560\npage 2\nIn my opinion, the root of these problems lies right here- in Washington, D.C.\nOur nation's capital has become the seat of a \"buddy\" system that functions for\nits own benefit- increasingly insensitive to the needs of the American worker\nwho supports it with his taxes.\nToday it is difficult to find leaders who are independent of the forces\nthat have brought us our problems- the Congress, the bureaucracy, the lobbyists,\nbig business and big labor.\nIf America is to survive and go forward, this must change. It will only\nchange when the American people vote for a leadership that listens to them,\nrelies on them and seeks to return government to them. We need a government\nthat is confident not of what it can do, but of what the people can do.\nFor eight years in California, we labored to make government responsive.\nWe worked against high odds--an opposition legislature for most of those years\nand an obstructive Washington bureaucracy for all of them. We did not always\nsucceed. Nevertheless, we found that fiscal responsibility is possible, that\nthe welfare rolls can come down, that social problems can be met below the\nFederal level.\nIn the coming months I will take this message to the American people. I\nwill talk in detail about responsible, responsive government. I will tell the\npeople it is they who should decide how much government they want.\nI don't believe for one moment that four more years of business-as-usual in\nWashington is the answer to our problems, and I don't think the American people\nbelieve it either.\nWe, as a people, aren't happy if we are not moving forward. A nation that\nis growing and thriving is one which will solve its problems. We must offer\nprogress instead of stagnation; the truth instead of promises; hope and faith\ninstead of defeatism and despair. Then, I am sure, the people will make those\ndecisions which will restore confidence in our way of life and release that\nenergy that is the American spirit.\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\n###\nPRESS CONFERENCE BY RONALD REAGAN\nANNOUNCEMENT OF CANDIDACY\nNovember 20, 1975\nTEXT OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS\nREAGAN: And now, for whatever questions you may have. Yes?\nQ: Governor Reagan, Senator Goldwater said here at the Press\nClub last week that he didn't think your policies would be\nmuch different than those of President Ford. I wonder what\nspecific differences you could cite there with Mr. Ford, and\nhow specifically you could do a better job than the President\nin translating your philosophies into action?\nREAGAN: I have already said, and have pledged to the people in my\nparty and to others, that I am going to abide by the \"11th\nCommandment\", which was given birth in California, and which\nsays, \"Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican\". I\nhave made no difference of, or list of the differences be-\ntween us. I'll campaign on what I think should be done, the\nproposals that I would make, what I believe the philosophy of\ngovernment should be; I'm sure the President will campaign\nin the same way, and then it will be up to you, and the American\npeople to draw the distinction where there are differences,\nand to make their decision.\nQ: Governor Reagan, would you accept the $40 billion deficit\nfor next year, and if not, what programs or what areas would\nyou cut?\nREAGAN: I believe that there are areas where the Federal government\nhas been involved where it should properly be returned to\nlocal governments and to the states. I think that this could\nreduce the Federal budget as some of those things are replaced\nand administered by the State, obviously would have to result in\nlocal increases in taxes, but I believe that it would be run more\neffectively, more economically at the local and State levels,\nin those particular areas, than the Federal government can\ndo it, and whatever the exact deficit might be or the attempt\nto change it, I believe that we have no choice. This govern-\nment must get back as quickly as possible to a balanced budget.\nWe're I think the only difference between the national\ngovernment at the moment and New York City is the national\ngovernment has a printing press.\n(more)\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n-2-\nQ: Governor, in light of your statement about fiscal responsi-\nbilities, I wonder whether it is true that during your term\nas Governor, the California State budget went up by a higher\npercentage than did the Federal government budget during the same\ntime period?\nREAGAN: The California budget did increase during the eight years that\nI was Governor. But I think you have to understand that\nevery State has its own system and its own way of doing things\nwith regard to budgeting. Some states don't show in their\nbudget the same things that others do. Now the truth of the\nmatter is, in California, I've heard this information around,\nthat California's budget increased in spite of all our talk\nof economy. It did increase, but a great part of California's\nbudget consists of money that must show in the budget as\nincome and outgo, because it is collected by the State. But\nit is then, this great coercion of the budget, returned direc-\ntly in subventions, to school districts, to local government.\nIn the case of California, when we began, nine years ago,\nonly half the California budget was in subvention to local\ngovernment. When we finished, more than two-thirds of the\nCalifornia budget was going back to local government and to\nthe school districts. The actual portion of the budget which\nruns the State of California, and over which we had adminis-\ntrative control or legislation control, for that matter, that\nportion of the budget over a period of eight years only in-\ncreased thirty percent. Inflation alone over that period was\n40%, and you add to that the fact that California was one of\nthe fastest-growing states in the Union, and you have the\nsituation that in constant dollars, the actual administration\nof the State of California was costing less at the end of\neight years than it did eight years before.\nQ: Governor, what makes you think that you could knock-off an\nincumbent President?\nREAGAN: Makes me think I could \"knock-off\" an incumbent President?\nWell, that's going to be something that the voters and our\nParty will decide after they've heard both of us and we\nhave run our campaign in a gentlemanly manner, and they will\nmake their decision as to who they think should carry the\nParty standard.\n(more)\nFORD LIBRARY\n-3-\nQ: Governor, supposing you do \"knock-off\" an incumbent President,\nsupposing you do defeat an incumbent President, isn't the\nParty going to be so badly divided because of the passions of\nthe supporters on each side, no matter what you say, that it's\ngoing to be very difficult for you, or the Republican nominee\nto win in November?\nREAGAN: Well, I think, Lou, that you have to face one thing, that even\nif the most united Republican Party that we can muster goes\nforward on the behalf of any candidate, you're talking about\n20% of the voters. And there's about 40% of the voters out\nthere of the other Party, many of them disaffected, but the\nkey to the election, and no Party is going to win without that\nother 40% of the voters that are now disenchanted with both\nParties and decline to state. And so I think what has to\nhappen, is the candidate has to offer a program that is going\nto bring back into the political process, those Americans who\nare disallusioned and who are not voting. Actually, there's\nno need for a Party to be divided. Practicing our \"11th Com-\nmandment\" in 1966 in California, we had a Republican Party that\nfor two years had been more divided than any Party has ever\nbeen anyplace in this country, and they came together, and the\nsimple idea is that you campaign on what you believe -- all the\ncandidates do -- and I'm not convinced that there will only be\ntwo candidates in this race in the Republican Party, and then\nyou all rally behind the choice of the Party, and go forward\nwith that choice.\nQ: Governor, you're asking your Party to choose between you and\nPresident Ford. Your \"11th Commandment\" aside, what's wrong\nwith President Ford?\nREAGAN: Well you have made the answer to your question impossible by\nyour one line, 'the \"11th Commandment\" aside.' I will not put\naside the \"11th Commandment\" for anyone.\nQ: Governor Reagan, in addition to your California delegation, one\nof the biggest of the Republican convention will be that from\nthe State of New York. Do you plan to make any determined ef-\nfort to pick up delegates in New York, particularly considering\nthat's it's the home state of the Vice President, who says he's\nsupporting Mr. Ford?\n(more)\nFORD i GERALD LIBRARY\n-4-\nREAGAN: Well, I'm sure that I will be represented, and whether I\nactively campaign or not in all of them, or whether anyone\ncould actively campaign in all of the primaries, I'm sure\nthat I will be represented in all of them, and I'm going to\ntry to take my message as far and wide as I can, and appeal\nto as many people as possible.\nQ: Governor Reagan, the President will soon have on his desk\nlegislation which would, on this energy bill, which would\nroll back domestic oil prices, and also, common situs picket\nlegislation. Would you sign either of these bills, putting\nyourself in office a little bit early?\nREAGAN: I hope the President will veto both of them. I believe the\nenergy bill goes backwards as to what we should be doing; it\nnot only discourages conservation of scarce energy supplies,\nit makes it less advantageous for anyone to try and find\nnew energy supplies, it increases our dependency. on outside\nsources, rather than domestic. And the common situs bill,\nI think is nothing more than the United States Government\nputting itself in the position of forcing compulsory unionism\nin an entire industry.\nQ: Governor, I hope as a Veteran leader, that you never, that\nyou don't intend to vote against tax and increases for the\nVeterans of the United States, do you?\nREAGAN: Well, you're asking about something that I haven't had an\nopportunity to look into at all, so I can't answer your question\nas yet.\nQ: Governor Reagan, Sir, how do you think you can capture the\n40% of the people that were dissatisfied to vote Party, given\nthe fact that some of them have traditions that are considerably\nto the left of yours?\nREAGAN: Well, some of them may be considerably to the left -- I, as\nyou know, have never really believed in that \"left\" or \"right\"\ndistinction. I have to believe that, and from going around\nthe country as much as I have in the last ten months, that the\nAmerican people are in a time of discontent. They believe that\ngovernment is too big and too intrusive in their lives. They\nbelieve it's too costly, they finally have discovered who is\npaying for all of the Federal programs, or all of the govern-\nment programs for that matter, and I think the people are waiting\nfor some of the things and willing to go forward with some of\nthe things that will reduce that power and size of government\n(more)\nBERALD FORD LIBRAP.\n-5-\nand make it more responsive to them, and if the polls are\nany indication, the people believe the government should\nbe returned, in a greater extent, to the local level. They\nhave a greater faith in government at the local level than\nthey do at the national level.\nQ: Governor, when did you finally decide to run?\nREAGAN: Well, to put my finger on the exact moment would be rather\ndifficult, but I can tell you, not very long ago. I haven't\nbeen playing any games; it is a decision that, as I've said\nso many times, to so many of you, not an easy decision to\nmake, not a decision that the average person thinks he would\never be called upon to make. I wanted all the information\nI could get -- I wanted to be as sure as I possibly could be,\nand answers to a number of questions, and it has only been\nextremely recently that, in my own mind, I felt that I was coming\nto this particular moment.\nQ: Governor, do you respond to President Ford's challenge and\nenter all the primaries?\nREAGAN: Well, as I say, I will be represented in all of them. Yes?\nQ: Governor, if you can win the New Hampshire primary, will you\nsatisfied to come close to President Ford?\nREAGAN: Whatever primary I enter, and that decision has been made,\nI will enter and campaign in the New Hampshire primary and in\nthe Florida primary, the first two primaries, and in the\nNew Hampshire primary, I'm just going to do my best to win.\nQ: Governor, Senator Percy doesn't seem to have heard about the\n\"11th Commandment\". He's put out a press release that says\nthat your nomination would be \"foolhardy\", and lead to a\ncrushing defeat for the Republicans, just as George McGovern's\nnomination was disastrous for the Democrats. Do you have --\nhe also says you're too far out of the centrist mainstream.\nDo you have a reaction to Senator Percy's remarks?\nREAGAN: Well, yes, and, I also have his personal assurance that he too\nwill abide by the \"11th Commandment\" while he is not in support\nof my candidacy, he will campaign in the same way.\nQ: Does this then, comply with the \"11th Commandment\"?\nREAGAN: Well, I don't know which came first, his pledge to me, or that.\nMaybe he's reformed. I will say this, however. When he says\nthat I'm not in the centrist position in the Party, I do have\na record, for anyone's inspection, of what we did in the State\nof California, and anyone who could point to that record and\n(more)\nLIBRARY GERALD R. FORD\n-6-\nsuggest that there was anything extreme about any of the posi-\ntions that we took, I'm very proud of the record, and will hold\nit up for inspection for anyone that wants to see, and I think\nit will indicate that it is pretty much in the mainstream of\nthe thinking of the people of this country, because it was\napproved heartily by a State in which Republicans are out-\nnumbered three-two by Democrats.\nQ: Governor Reagan, what are you going to do for Women?\nREAGAN: Well, I'm going to continue to support Nancy to the best of\nmy ability -- I believe I think I understand the point of your\nquestion. You know Will Rogers once said, and I have to do\nthis, I have to quote him, Will Rogers once said that women\nwere going to try to become more and more equal to men until\npretty soon, they weren't going to know any more than the men\ndo. And, I believe that if there are any injustices, if there\nare still any inequities with regard to difference in treatment\nof men and women, they should be corrected by statute. I think\nthat they have a place in government, I think they can make a\ngreat contribution to government.\nQ: Governor Reagan, your opening remarks in regard to reduction in\nFederal spending in every area except military. Yesterday,\nthe Senate passed a military spending bill of $90 billion.\nHow much is enough in your view -- are you calling for a massive\nincrease to achieve what you call the military superiority over\nthe Soviets?\nREAGAN: Well, I think when you get to the defense budget, you have\nsomething different than you have with most other areas of\ngovernment. It isn't a case of what you decide to spend in\nmilitary. That is based on what you have to spend -- what is\nnecessary if you are to remain equal in power to any potential\nenemies in the world. An so, military spending is virtually\nforced on you as a necessity. Now, this does not mean that\nwe should not continue to look at the military budget, not from\nthe standpoint of whether we need or do not need the weapons, but\nmainly from the standpoint of are we running it efficiently, and\ngetting the best buys for our dollars. And I think any adminis-\ntration should continue to do that. But the military budget as\nI say, is forced upon us. It is not something in which you can\njust decide whether you want to spend it or not.\n(more)\nGERALD FORD LIBRANA\n-7-\nQ: Mr. Reagan, $150 billion, $200 billion, what do you want\nto spend?\nREAGAN: I didn't say what I wanted to spend. There you have me\nin a position in which the answer is very difficult. Because\nI think only when you are in that position of command, do you\nhave access to all the information that is necessary for making\nthat decision, and obviously, I'm not in that position, and do\nnot have that information at this moment.\nQ: Governor, how do you stand on gun control?\nREAGAN: On gun control, I am against the kind of gun control that is\nbeing proposed so much in Congress, that would make it dif-\nficult for the legitimate citizen to own a gun and that which\nI feel would do nothing whatsoever to take the gun away from\nthe criminal. I think that we embarked on a program in Cali-\nfornia that is the proper kind of gun control. It has nothing\nto do with taking the weapons away from legitimate citizens.\nWhat we did do, is pass a law for one thing that any criminal\nconvicted of committing a crime, who had a gun in his possession\ncarried with him at the time of the crime, whether he used it\nor not, add five to fifteen years to the sentence. We now have\na law also in California, that says that no judge can take a\ncriminal convicted of a crime and turn him out on probation\nif he carried a gun in connection with the crime, he must go\nto prison -- he must serve a mandatory prison sentence. I\nthink these are the kind of gun controls that we need. It is\nnaive and foolish to believe that there is anything you could\ndo in the nature of gun control that would prevent the criminal\nfrom having a weapon. He would simply disarm the citizenry.\nQ: Governor Reagan, if the choice were yours to make, whom would\nyou name to replace Justice Douglas on the Supreme Court, and\nalso would you tell us what kind of a judicial philosophy you\nmight have in naming Justices to the Supreme Court? Do you\nshare former President Nixon's view that so-called \"strict\nconstructionists\" should be named to the court?\nREAGAN: I don't have any name in mind, at the moment, because it's not\nmy decision to make, with regard to the appointment that is now\nopen in the Supreme Court. I do believe that yes, you should\nhave someone who is a constitutionalist, whose philosophy and\nbelief is to interpret the Constitution, and not to legislate.\nI think there has been too much legislation by the courts, not\nonly there, but in other areas of the country and in other levels\n(more)\nGERALD R. FORD LIBRAPI\n-8-\nof the court, but I would look for the best person I could\nfind with understanding of the Constitution, and as I say, who\nwould interpret that Constitution.\nQ: Governor, what is your stand on the Equal Rights Amendment?\nREAGAN: On the Equal Rights Amendment. I should have quit with the\nfirst answer over there. I originally started out, it sounded\nlike a very simple thing, and why not? I have to say that as\nwe progressed, and as I found myself with a position where I\nhad to know more about it than that, like many others, I do\nnot believe that a simple amendment, the Equal Rights Amend-\nment, is the answer to the problem. I think that it opens a\nPandora's Box, and could in fact militate against the very\nthings that women are asking for. I believe the answer is\nby statute, that the Constitutional amendment, once in the\nConstitution, can be by strict interpretation, used to deny\nwomen many of the advantages they now have. I would prefer\nto resolve things by statute.\nQ: What advantages?\nREAGAN: Well, I think you open up the question then of special pro-\nvisions in say factory work, industrial work, for employees\nthat take cognizance of the fact that there are physical\ndifferences between men and women; I think you open up the\nwhole role of individuals in time of emergency being able to\nchallenge their own call to duty on the basis that now it\nwas their Constitutional rights that were being denied be-\nothers were not being called, and I don't care how some women\nmay feel about it, but I would hate to see a nation that's\ngoing to rely on women in the combat forces.\nQ: Governor Reagan, do you see in the anti-bus movement a special\nconstituency for yourself?\nREAGAN: See in what?\nQ: Anti-bus -- school busing of children, forced school busing\nof children, a special constituency for yourself?\nREAGAN: No, but I have to say this, that I think forced busing has\nfailed signally in its purpose; it has added to the bitterness\nthat it was supposed to cure, and has solved none of the prob-\nlems of prejudice or bigotry, and when you find that evidently\nCoretta King and I are on the same side, that she too is op-\nposed to busing, I think we find that it must be pretty wide-\nspread among the people -- their objection to it. I think\n(more)\nGERALD R. FORD LIBRAPT\n-9-\nthe greatest definition that I've heard of the evil of forced\nbusing was made by the very highly respected Superintendent\nof Education of the State of California, Wilson Riles, who\nhimself is black, and Wilson Riles said that he considered\nit insulting and demeaning, and I do also, to tell a Negro\nchild that the only way he can learn something is if you put\nhim in school between two white kids.\nQ: Governor, if the President next week should decide to support\na policy of some aid to New York City, of any kind, would that\nbecome an issue between you and him and the campaign?\nREAGAN: This would depend on what kind of program we're talking about.\nI don't think anyone wants to see the people, the hard-working,\ntax-paying people of New York, who have been victimized by\ntheir own political leaders, back over the years, in a way\nthat lead to this situation, to see them penalized. But any\nsituation for help to New York must be predicated on a reorgan-\nization that stops the process that has lead to this situation.\nWe see in New York a very simple situation, that for many years\nback, politicians wanting to never say no, but always say yes\nto everyone, have been increasing spending in New York City\nalmost twice as much as the increase in their revenues each\nyear. They have been creating independent authorities with\nbonding power, in which they did not have to ask the consent\nof the voters, but then the bonding power was distorted and\nabused in that bonds sold to create one-time capital improve-\nments, the borrowed money was used instead on top of the tax reve-\nnue to pay for ongoing government expenses. And so we find that\nNew York City today, in providing the basic services, has a\nper capita. cost of $1446, all the other major cities in the\nUnited States of a million population or over average less than\nhalf of that -- $670. That has to be corrected as a premise\nfor any program for helping the New York citizens.\nQ: If you should bomb-out in the early primaries, contrary to\nyour plans, would you withdraw?\nREAGAN: If I should \"bomb-out\" in the early primaries, that's a\nhypothetical question, and it's a hypothesis that very frankly\nI ruled out in my own mind before I ever stood up here, and\nI don't bother to think about that.\n(more)\nFORD ORRALD LIBRARY GERALD\n-10-\nQ: If we can go back to the New York City question -- what\nspecific plan do you advocate concerning the New York City\nfiscal problem, at what point would you recommend federal\nassistance, and in what form?\nREAGAN: Well, I can't answer that again, because I have to say that\nthis is a little bit like the defense question, that until\nyou have access to all of the information, which I don't\nhave, I don't think that you can come up with a specific plan.\nAll I can give you is the generalization, that you do not want\nto see distress imposed upon the hard-working people of New York\nCity who are not to blame for this, but you do want to see that\nbefore anything else is done, that New York City has adopted\na plan that they will not find themselves down the road doing\nthe same thing over again.\nQ: Mindful of the generalization again, what you're saying is that\nif New York City did meet these requirements, move toward a\nbalanced budget, whatever the requirements are, that federal\ndollars moving into help New York City would then be alright?\nAs far as you know?\nREAGAN: It may not necessarily be Federal dollars. As I understand\nit, there's consideration of nothing but assurance and a\nbacking by the Federal government of loans that might be made\nwhatever the solution is, but I would want to look at that\nvery carefully, and I don't have one in mind myself right now.\nQ: Governor, you said that this issue was difficult and compared\nit to the defense budget. But certainly nothing about New York\nCity's finances is very, has a classification stamp on it. You're\nrunning for President, this is a large national issue, why don't\nyou have the specifics and the details at your command?\nREAGAN: Well, because, I don't think that when you are not a candidate\nand you're as busy as I have been going around the country,\nyou have an opportunity to get as deeply into every single\nsubject that might confront you in the days ahead as you'd\nlike. And I don't have that answer.\nQ: Governor, on the same point, do you intend to go through the\nwhole primary campaign taking the position that you cannot\nmake recommendations on the defense budget because you don't\nhave access to information?\nREAGAN: Well, now wait a minute. When you specify defense, let me say\nI will have positions, of course, and will be speaking in detail\non those in the months ahead. I must say, however, in that\nparticular area, one always has to face the fact that there are\nfacts not known to you and which cannot be known to you because\n(more)\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n-11-\nof classification, and this is always, must be kept in mind as\na reservation about any opinion that you might render. No,\nI will be taking positions. First of all, as I've said before,\nI'll take one flat position -- I don't believe that the United\nStates can afford to be second to anyone in the world militarily.\nThere is no such thing as second -- if you're second, you're\nlast.\nQ: Governor, you say \"second, you're last\" -- would this also\napply to you if you took the Vice Presidential slot?\nREAGAN: I have given no consideration to that -- I'm not interested\nin that.\nQ: Governor, will you support whoever the Party's nominee is,\nand if your candidacy is as healthy as you say, would it also\nbe healthy if some other people would enter the primaries\nagainst President Ford?\nREAGAN: Well, as I said, I would not be surprised if others did, now\nthat someone has broken the ice. This is a part of the \"11th\nCommandment\", that you submit yourself to your Party's voters\nand then you'll abide by their decision and rally behind the\nwinner.\nQ: Governor, what is your reaction to the recent disclosures that\nthe FBI (tape ran out)\nREAGAN:\nis news, the paper in the news this morning, and I've had\nno opportunity to read the paper as yet, all I saw was the\nheadline, and haven't had a paper in my hand to find out\nwhat those revelations or what that story is\nQ: Now you have said that there will probably be other Presidential\ncandidates\nREAGAN: No\nQ:\nbesides Nelson Rockefeller, who do you think it will be?\nREAGAN: Well now, I didn't say besides him, and I didn't say probably.\nI said that possibly, and I would not be surprised if there\nwere others. I don't know that there are going to be others,\nI don't know whether it's going to be probable, and I'm going\nto make no speculation as to who they might be.\nQ: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.\nREAGAN: Gentlemen, the time is up.\n#####\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nCitizens for Reagan\nFor President\nSen. Paul Laxalt\nChairman\nJohn P. Sears\nExec. Vice Ch.\nGeorge Cook\nH.R. Gross\nCONTACT: LYN NOFZIGER\nFOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY\n202-223-8560\nLouie B. Nunn\nMrs. Stanhope C. Ring\nHenry Buchanan\nTreasurer\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESS:\nGovernor Reagan will vary the attached speech slightly\nat each stop to meet the local situation.\nattachment\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\n2021 L St., N.W., Suite 340, Washington, D.C. 20036\nPhone: 202/223-8560\nSPEECH BY RONALD REAGAN, NOV. 20-21, 1975\nThere's a passage in the Bible that says, \"If the trumpet gives an uncertain\nsound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?\"\nWell, just to make sure no one mistook the sound of the trumpet, I took it\nto Washington this morning to announce my candidacy for the Presidency.\nI chose Washington because it is such an intimate part of our troubles:\ninflation, recession, unemployment, bureaucracy and centralized power.\nThere are times in a nation's history when the people become aware that only\na new and constructive course can solve the problems besetting them. America is\nin such a time now.\nIronically, it was in another troubled time more than four decades ago that\nwe set in motion some of the forces which have brought us to this present time\nof decision.\nBack in the Depression years there were those who promised to overcome hard\ntimes. Franklin Delano Roosevelt embarked on a course that made bold use of\ngovernment to ease the pain of those times. Although some of his measures seemed\nto work, he was soon moved to sound a warning. He said, \" we have built new\ninstruments of public power in the hands of the people's government but in the\nhands of political puppets of an economic autocracy, such power would provide\nshackles for the liberties of our people.\"\nUnfortunately, that warning went unheeded. Today, there is an economic\nautocracy, born of government's growing interference in our lives. Yet Washington,\nfor all its power, seems powerless to solve problems any more.\nI am running because I have grown increasingly concerned about the course of\nevents in the United States and in the world.\nIn just a few years, three vital measures of economic decay--inflation,\nunemployment, and interest rates--have more than doubled, at times reaching\n10 percent and even more.\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n(MORE)\npage 2\nGovernment at all levels now absorbs more than 44 percent of our personal\nincome. It has become more intrusive, more coercive, more meddlesome and less\neffective.\nOur access to cheap and abundant energy has been interrupted, and our\ndependence on foreign sources is growing.\nA decade ago we had military superiority. Today we are in danger of being\nsurpassed by a nation that has never made any effort to hide its hostility to\neverything we stand for.\nThrough detente we have sought peace with our adversaries. We should\ncontinue to do so but must make it plain that we expect a stronger indication\nthat they also seek a lasting peace with us.\nIn my opinion, the root of these problems lies right here- in Washington, D.C.\nOur nation's capital has become the seat of a \"buddy\" system that functions for\nits own benefit increasingly insensitive to the needs of the American worker who\nsupports it with his taxes.\nToday it is difficult to find leaders who are independent of the forces\nthat have brought us our problems- the Congress, the bureaucracy, the lobbyists,\nbig business and big labor.\nIf America is to survive and go forward, this must change. It will only\nchange when the American people vote for a leadership that listens to them,\nrelies on them, and seeks to return government to them. We need a government\nthat is confident not of what it can do, but of what the people can do.\nFor eight years in California, we labored to make government responsive.\nWe worked against high odds- an opposition legislature for most of those years and\nan obstructive Washington bureaucracy for all of them. We did not always succeed.\nNevertheless, we found that fiscal responsibility is possible, that the welfare\nrolls can come down, that social problems can be met below the Federal level.\n(MORE)\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\npage 3\nI am convinced that under the layer of self-doubt that seems to have settled\nlike a fog on our country, the true, strong spirit of the American people still\nglows, ready to be reignited so that we can once again have a sense of mission;\na pride in our capacity to perform great deeds.\nWashington seems to have lost track of the American Dream. But you and\nmillions more like you across this land have not. You are determined to be free\nand independent, to solve your own problems and to help your neighbors solve\ntheirs. Over the last ten months, visiting nearly every corner of America and\nmeeting many thousands of people, I have seen this determination in their faces\nand I have heard it in their voices.\nI have become a candidate because I believe strongly in this American spirit\nto move forward; to try the untried; to dream the new dream--knowing that our\nenergy and our ingenuity can turn them into realities.\nIn the coming months I will take this message to the American people. I will\ntalk in detail about responsible, responsive government. I will tell the people\nit is they who should decide how much government they want.\nI don't believe for one moment that four more years of business-as-usual in\nWashington is the answer to our problems, and I don't think the American people\nbelieve it either.\nI am here to tell you that I shall be running in your primary. Not just\nrunning, but putting all my energy into it. I cannot reach the goal alone. I\nneed your help. Together, we can reach it.\nWe, as a people, aren't happy if we are not moving forward. A nation that\nis growing and thriving is one which will solve its problems. As we work toward\nour goal, we must offer progress instead of stagnation; the truth instead of\npromises; hope and faith instead of defeatism and despair. Then I am sure the\npeople will make those decisions which will restore confidence in our way of\nlife and release that energy that is the American spirit.\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n###\nPLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS ABC NEWS RADIO\nAND TELEVISION PROGRAM TO \"ABC NEWS' ISSUES AND ANSWERS. 11\nISSUESANDANSWERS\nSUNDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1975\nGUEST:\nRONALD REAGAN - Former Governor of California\nand Candidate for the Presidency\nINTERVIEWED BY:\nBOB CLARK - ABC News Issuea and Answers\nChief Correspondent\nFRANDK reynolds - ABC News Correspondent\n-\n- -\nThis is a rush transcript for\nthe press. Any questions re-\ngarding accuracy should be re-\nferred to ISSUES AND ANSWERS\n-\nFORD & LIBRARY 038470\n2\n1\nANNOUNCER: Former Governor of California and candidate\n2\nfor the Republican Presidential nomination, here are the\n8\nissues:\n4\nWill your challenge to President Ford destroy Republican\n5\nchances of holding on to the White House?\n6\nHow do you propose to reduce the power of the federal\n7\ngovernment without substantially increasing local and state\nB\ntaxes?\n9\nIf you were President, would you go to China to advance\n10\ndetente?\n11\n* *\n12\nMR. CLARK: Governor, your challenge to President Ford\n13\nhas been greeted with alarm by some liberals and moderates\n14\nwithin your party. Senator Percy says your nomination would\n15\nwreck the party, and Senator Mathias is talking about starting\n16\na third party.\n17\nDo you have a plan to make peace with the liberals, to\n18\nkeep them under the Republican banner and under your banner\n19\nif you win the nomination?\n20\nMR. MEAGAN: Well, Bob, I have always disagreed with\n21\nthose Republicans or those outside of the party who insist\n22\non hyphenating Republicans, giving them saliva tests and\n28\nclassifying them into narrow brackets as to where they stand\n24\nphilosophically. I think all of us must have certain basic\n25\nagreements or we wouldn't be in the Republican Party\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\n3\n1\nI think they are wrong, and I think what they are ignoring\nis & record of eight years that stands up there for anyone\n3\nto look at, the record of my administration in Sacramento,\nCalifornia.\n5\nThey can look at that record, and I doubt if they can\n6\nclassify that into the narrow categories that they are viewing\n7\nwith alarm. So I hope that by our practice of the 11th\n8\nCommandment, which was given birth in California, that their\n9\nfears will be easad.\n10\nMR. CLARK: Do you mean by this, Governor, that you\ndon't think it is necessary for you to offer any special olive\n11\nbranch to the liberals? You think they simply have to look\n12\n13\nat your record? Is that your view?\n14\nMR. REAGAN: I think they barked rather early, and maybe\n15\nif they will sit down in good faith and have a discussion\n16\nwhich I would be very happy to have with them -- they would\nfind out that their fears are groundless.\n17\nMR. REYNOLDS: Governor, one of the reasons, I suppose\n18\nthe major reason why liberals express misgivings about you\n19\nis because of some of the things that you have said\n20\nand the programs you have offered.\n21\nFor example, your proposal to cut federal spending by\n22\nconsequent\n$90 billion, with a / reduction in federal incone taxes\n23\nof about 23 percent, that you propose to give so many of\n24\nthese programs now funded in part or in whole by the\n25\nFORD LIBRARY\n4\n1\nfederal government back to the states. Is there anybody\n2\nelse that you can think of in the Republican Party that really\n3\nbelieves that kind of a program?\nA\nMR. REAGAN: Well, yes, as a matter of fact, it has been\nB\nRepublican philosophy for quite some years, and many times in\nG\nthe platform, that there was an overcentralization of govern-\n7\nment under Democratic regimes and over these last 40 years\n8\nof Democratic control of the House and Senate, and that the\n9\nRepublican Party was pledged to government at the levels near-\n10\nest the people. I think that is standard Republican philosophy.\n11\nNow, my so-called cut of $90 billion with the total based\n12\non the '76 budget projection, it was based on the amount of\n13\nmoney that is invested in programs that properly, regardless\n14\nof the money, properly belong at the state and local level,\n15\nAnd my own experience in California indicates that this is\n16\nso, and I think that most people today believe that. I think\n17\nmany of our ills would disappear if some program such as welfare\n18\nand education were turned back to the states where they properly\n19\nbelong.\n20\nMR. REYNOLDS: What would that do to the states them-\n21\nselves in terms of their own financing? For example, take\n22\nthe state of New Hampshire. You will be interested in New\n23\nHampshire before very long. New Hampshire now gets, or the\n24\nsubject of welfare you would propose to return all welfare\nFORD\n25\nobligations back to the states. Well, the federal\nGERALE cover ment EBRART\n5\nI\npays 62 percent of the New Hampshire's total welfare expendi-\n2\ntures. That means New Hampshire has to either assume that or\n3\ncut it down.\nMR. REAGAN: This is true, and I made the point this\n5\nwould not be a net gain, but if these programs were turned\n0\nback - let me say, also, not an instantaneous\n7\ncancellation of Federal government, and hopefully somebody\n8\npicks it up. I think you would have to have an orderly phas-\n9\ning of these programs to local government or state government.\n10\nI think state governments at the same time when this happens\nshould be reviewing whether they should indeed pass the\n11\n12\nprogram on to their local communities. Then I think that\n13\nyou would have to have taxes increased at state and local\n14\nlevels to offset this, or to maintain some of these programs.\n15\nSome programs undoubtedly would be dropped, because the federal\n16\ngovernment has many programs. You know there is nothing that\n17\nis closer to eternal life than a government program once started\nat the federal level. But the thing is, what we learned in\n18\nCalifornia with our own welfare reforms is, not only can they\n19\nbe better administered, they can be more economically adminis-\n20\ntered. Now, if the federal government stopped preempting so\n21\nmuch of the tax dollar, taking all the sources of taxation\n22\nat the federal level, leaving local and state governments\n23\n24\nstrapped as to where they are to get the money they need,\n25\nif this was reduced at the federal level there would be Leeway\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\n5\nfor the states and local governments to take these over.\nThey would also be run at 3 much lower cost. The administra-\n3\ntive overhead of running any program at the federal level is\nmuch greater than it is at any other level of government.\n5\nMP. CLARK: Governor Reagan, as 1 am sure you are aware,\nNew Hampshire is quite proud of the fact it is the only state\n7\nin the country that has neither state sales mr state income\ntaxes. Campaigning in New Hampshire on a program to turn\nback responsibility for numerous federal programs to the\n19\nstate, in candor wouldn't you have to tell the people of New\n11\nHampshire that you are going to have to increase your tax bur-\n12\nden and that probably means either a sales tax or 7 state\n18\nincome tax?\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\npm\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\n6\n1\nfor the states and local governments to take these over.\n2\nThey would also be run at a much lower cost. The administra-\n3\ntive overhead of running any program at the federal level is\n4\nmuch greater than it is at any other level of government.\n5\nMR. CLARK: Governor Reagan, as I am sure you are aware,\n6\nNew Hampshire is quite proud of the fact it is the only state\n7\nin the country that has neither state sales mr state income\n3\ntaxes. Campaigning in New Hampshire on a program to turn\n9\nback responsibility for numerous federal programs to the\n10\nstate, in candor wouldn't you have to tell the people of New\n11\nHampshire that you are going to have to increase your tax bur-\n12\nden and that probably means either a sales tax or a state\n13\nincome tax?\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nFORD & LIBRARY 938670\n7\nMR. REAGAN: But isn't this a proper decision for the\npeople of the state to make?\n3\nMR. CLARK: But isn't this going to be forced on them if\nthey are forced to take back these federal responsibilities?\nMR. REAGAN: Yes, how they were to administer them, whether\nthey would administer them is properly a decision to be made\n7\nat the state level in these particular programs.\n0\nLet's emphasize I made it very plain in the same address\n9\nin which I outlined this overall plan, I made it very plain\n10\nthat there are functions that are properly federal, properly\n11\nbelong to the national government and should stay there. \"This\n12\ndoesn't mean they can't be improved. It doesn't mean they can'\n13\nbe made more efficient. I am sure they can be.\n14\nBut, as you have just said, the federal government is ---\n15\nyour situation with regard to states - now, in California we\n18\nhave an income tax too, but we realize we are limited in that\n17\nincome tax because the federal government is in there first\n18\nand that is the most elastic tax, that is the one that\n19\ngrows with the economy the most, and the federal government has\n20\npre-empted it to such an extent that local and state governments\n21\nare hard put to find legitimate sources for taxation.\n22\nMR. CLARK: Governor, that raises an interesting point.\n29\nYou have lost a celebrated item here in California, proposition\n24\none where you attempted to put a limit on the amount of state\n25\ntaxes that should be collected and paid the taxes to the todal\nGERALD\n8\n2\n1\npersonal income in the state.\n2\nIf you become President, would you try to do the same\na\nthing with federal taxes? Would you think of some outer\nlimit that might be placed on federal income taxes?\n5\nMR. REAGAN: As a matter of fact, it is not just income\ntaxes; it is all taxes. The permantage of the earned dollar\n6\n7\nthat government takes is too high. That all governments take\nis too high.\n8\n9\nIt is one of the things that is holding down our economy.\nWe lost in California on that. We would take more than a\nso\nhalf hour if I tried to explain it in full. Frankly, we. were\n11\njust out-muscled. The big lie defeated us and we didn't have\n12\nthe muscle to overcome it, but 69 per cent of the people who\n13\n14\nvoted against that program had been deceived into believing\nthey were voting against a tax increase.\n15\nMR. CLARK: If you become President, might you think in\n16\nterms of a proposition one on the federal level?\n17\nMR. REAGAN: Well, you take your prdiem to Congress\n16\nbut that is already there. There is legislation that has been\n19\nintroduced in Congress by a group of congressmen who saw this\n20\nCalifornia experiment and believed ---\n21\nMR. CLARK: Would you support it, though?\n22\n23\nMR. REAGAN: 1 certainly would.\n24\nMR. REYNOLDS: Governor, before we leave this whole area,\n25\nBULIBRARY\n9\nwhat would your program, if fully implemented, do to the\n2\npoorer states?\n3\nAll states are not equal. California seems to be in pretty\n4\ngood shape, but what about Arkansas and Mississippi and some\nof these other states who don't have ---\n5\nMR. REAGAN: It is true, there are states that get more\nC\nfrom the federal government than they return to the federal\n7\ngovernment. They are low-taxed states. They are not burdened\n8\nwith heavy taxation, but let me ask you something: One of\n9\nthose high tax-paying states, so-called wealthy states, is New\n10\nYork.\n11\nIs New York, today, in a position to solve its own prob-\n12\nlems and at the same time send money to some other states?\n13\nMR. REYNOLDS: Is New York in a position to assume all\n14\nof the programs that you would give back to New York, all\n15\nWelfare costs, all aid to education and everything else?\n16\nMR. REAGAN: Yes, because many of these programs, you see,\n17\nare -- the manner in which the federal government insists on\n10\ntheir implementation is excessive, and the rules and regula-\n18\ntions force upon states and cities like New York things that\n20\nadministratively they would not do if they had the leeway to\n21\ndo it.\n22\nNow, let's point out another thing. If Welfare were\n23\nreturned to the state level, a state could have a limitation,\n24\nor a residency requirement in order to get welfare,\n25\nwhichothey GERALD CIBREES\n10\n1\nalways had, until the federal government was involved to such\n2\nan extent that the Supreme Court ruled that, no, you could\n3\nmove anywhere in the United States you wanted and instantly be\nA\neligible for Welfare in whatever state you chose.\n5\nNow, states like New York and California that have tried\n6\nto do more than other states, that had higher Welfare payments,\n7\nfound themselves with an in-migration from these other states.\n8\nBut if you returned this to the states and the federal govern-\n$\nment was not involved, a state like New York that was burdened\nID\nwith this great in-migration could have had a rule that said\n11\n\"Oh, no, you have to live here a year before you are eligible\n12\nfor Welfare.\"\n13\nMR. REYNOLDS: Now that you have raised the topic, suppose\n14\nwe ask you, what do you think of the way the President has\n15\nhandled the New York situation? Are you in agreement with him\n16\nas far as New York's finances are concerned?\n17\nMR. REAGAN: I am worried about a precedent being establisht-\ned that might be passed on, or that might lead to other cities\n10\nsaying, \"Well, we can be careless with our bonding and we can\n19\nfloat more bonds than our credit requires and count on the\n20\nfederal government to bail us out.\"\n21\nI do recognize that the President has placed this on\n22\n23\nNew York, reversing the trend that led to their problem.\n24\nThere is no question but that the victims in New York are the\n25\nthree million working tax-paying citizens, working in the private\nsector who must put up all the money that pays for everything\n11\n:\nelse; who for some 20-odd years have had their political\n2\nleaders deceive them as to the practices they were following to\n3\nthe place that New York now has aper capita dost for basic\nservices that is more than twice that of all the other big\ncities in the United States.\nMR. CLARK: We would like to get a specific answer on\n7\nNew York. If you were President do you think you would have\nmade the offer that President Ford has made to make direct\n8\nfederal loans to New York City to help get it out of its\n8\nfinancial crisis?\n10\nMR. REAGAN: I wish I could give you an answer to that.\n11\nAS I say, I am worried about the precedent.\n12\nan the other hand, I don't want to see those three million\n13\nworking citizens I have mentioned victimized with creditors\n14\nholding the bag and with bondholders in the same position.\n15\nI haven't had an opportunity to study all the ramifica-\n16\ntions. I heard the President make his statement. It sounded\n17\nlike a practical plan. I have the concern that I have\n18\nmentioned. I frankly want to give this more study before I\n19\ntell you that is the solution that I would pick.\n20\n******\n21\nMR. CLARK: Governor, as you know, Vice President\n22\nRockefeller hasn't quite taken himself out of the 1976 picture\n23\nHe has declined to say flatly thathe will not be a candidate\n24\nfor the Republican nomination.\n25\nGERALD R. FORD LIBRIES\n12\n2\nDo you view him as a rival for the nomination?\n2\nMR. REAGAN: No. I am aware of his position and it is\n8\nsimilar to a position he has taken in previous national\n4\nelections and that is a decision for him to make.\n5\nI have said that I will not be surprised if, now that I\n6\nhave declared, if others do not follow suit and get into the\n7\nrace.\n(2)\nMR. REYNOLDS: Do you expect John Connally to come in?\nD\nMR. REAGAIN: I don't know. I think that John Connally\n10\ncertainly is available and would not refuse if there was an\n11\nindication from enough people that they thought he should make\n12\na run for it.\n13\nMR. REYNOLDS: Governor, what is your strategy, to knock\n14\nthe President out in the early primaries, force him to withdraw?\nMR. REAGAN: My strategy is a little more\n15\nnaive than that. My strategy is to take my case to'the people\n16\nas to what I believe should be done with regard to the problems\n17\nand what I think the solutions are, what the policy should be,\nis\nand let the people decide.\n18\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nFORD i LIBRA CERALD\n1\n1\nMR. REYNOLDS: The President has indicated no great wil-\n2\nlingness to debate you. Would you like to debate Mr. Ford,\n3\nsay up there in Manchester?\n4\nMR. REAGAN: Well, I have to say this. I know that\n5\nthe challenge and the rejection of debate is kind of a campaign\n6\ntactic that is used both ways, in politics. I have to say\n7\nthat I believe the people can find out what you believe, what\n8\nyour principles are, without the two of you appearing simul-\n9\ntaneously.\n10\nMR. REYNOLDS: You don't think it is easier to choose\n11\nbetween the two of you, if they could see you side by side\n12\ndiscussing these issues, having a free and frank exchange of\n13\nviews?\n14\nMR. REAGAN: Well, is it any different than seeing each\n15\ncandidate frankly express his views and then someone else\n16\nand you gentlemen of the press make no -- you leave no stone\n17\nunturned to pin each one of us down on what the other one\nhas done and what you would do likewise. I am not sure\n18\nthat it is beneficial.\n19\nMR. CLARK: Governor, one more question about Vice Presi-\n20\ndent Rockefeller. He has refused to say that if you win the\n21\nnomination he would support you. If by some chance he be-\n22\n23\ncame the Republican nominee, would you support him?\n24\nMR. REAGAN: Well, he is not even a candidate yet.\nI will wait and answer that when he becomes a candidate\n25\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n14\n2\n1\nI think I would be surprised and disappointed if Vice President\n2\nRockefeller took that attitude with regard to a Republican\n8\nnominee. I would be surprised, myself. I believe in the\n4\nphilosophy of the Republican Party. I know that the Vice\n5\nPresident and I differ philosophically on a number of points.\n6\nAt the same time, we have a most friendly and cordial rela-\n7\ntionship.\n8\nMR. CLARK: Governor, would you say ---- this is a way out\n9\nof the dilemma we put politicians in on this - would you simply\n10\nsay you would support the nominee\nof the Republican Convention, whoever he may be?\n11\nMR. REAGAN: Well, now, that is a hypothetical question.\n12\nMR. CLARK: Is that hypothetical? There aren't very many\n13\n14\ncandidates.\nMR. REAGAN: Wait a minute. You can get into all sorts\n15\n16\nof things. Would I, when I was a Democrat, would I have\nstayed with my party in '72 when they chose a man who I thought\n17\nwas so far afield from what the American people wanted, then\n18\nthe answer would be no. So you can't rule that that can't\n19\nhappen to any party as it did to that one. I don't think it\n20\ncould happen to the Republican Party, but you can't make\n21\na flat assertion that it won't.\n22\nMR. REYNOLDS: You are well on your way right now to\n23\nreviving talk about\na third party with you heading a\n24\n25\nthird party possibly?\nFORD & ERALO IBR:\nGIE\n1\nMR. REAGAN: No, J rule that out.\n2\nMR. CLARK: Neither you nor Vice President Rockefeller\n3\nwill say they will support the nominee of the party. Doesn'\n4\nthis inspire the sort of divisiveness that Republican leaders\n5\nin both the left and right wings, the liberal and conservative\n6\nwings, are trying to avoid?\n7\nMR. REAGAN: No. There are two candidates at the moment\n8\nfor the nomination of the Republican Party - myself and Presi-\n9\ndent Ford. If President Ford wins, I will support him.\n10\nMR. CLARK: There have been reports when you telephoned\n11\nPresident Ford to tell him you were going to challenge him\n12\nfor the nomination he told you, as the report read, that this\n13\nwould cause bitterness and divisiveness within the party and\n14\nweaken its chances of defeating the Democrats next year. Did\n15\nthe President say this to you?\n16\nMR. REAGAN: The President expressed a concern. I made\n17\nmy pledge to him about doing nothing divisive. He made the\nIS\nsame pledge to me. He did express a concern that in spite\n19\nof this, the other people who are involved in campaigns, that\n20\nthe danger was there. Well, I have the experience of a '66\n21\ncampaign in California in which we all did observe the 11th\n22\nCommandment, and we put the Republican Party back together in\n23\nthis state for the first time in 50 years, that it had been\n24\na united party.\n25\nLIBRARY GERALD R. FORD\n16\n8\nMR. REYNOLDS: Governor, do you believe the President's\n2.\ncurrent trip to China -- he is on his way there today -- is\n3\nworthwhile?\n#\nMR. REAGAN: Well, he expressed the hope it was to improve\n5\nchances for peace. In that regard I hope it is successful.\n6\nFrankly, I have to wonder if it isn't time for China to come\n7\nvisit us.\n8\nMR. CLARK: Governor, one of the questions that is still\n9\nh anging over our relations with China is whether we should\n10\nupgrade our diplomatic relations with China and establish an\n11\nembassy in Peking. Now, the one could be that this would mean\n12\nabandoning Taiwan. If you were President, would you take that fux\n13\nther step toward closer relationships to China?\n14\nMR. REAGAN: Not if it in any way reduced our relation-\n15\nships with Taiwan. Taiwan is an ally. We have a treaty\n16\nwith Taiwan. I believe Taiwan as a trade partner is an\n17\neconomic force in the world far in excess of Mainland China. But\n18\nwhile I want better relations on an honest basis with Red\n10\nChina,\nas I am sure everyone else does, that this country\n20\nnot, if it means sacrificing our relationship with Taiwan.\n21\nMR. CLARK: Would you, as President, place conditions\nover further moves toward detente\n22\nwith the Russians? Would you want specific\n23\nfor instance, on the subject of further talks toward mutual\n24\nreductions of nuclear arms?\n25\nMR. REAGAN: I have criticized detente because\nLERALE don FORD\n1.7\n1\nthink detente is as much of a two-way street as it was set\n2\nout to be, and as it is supposed to be. I believe Russia is\nspirit, the\n3\nviolating certainly the/intent of detente, with its help to\n4\nthe rebels in Angola and its involvement in the civil war in\n15\nAngola. I think that the Soviet Union with its out-spending\n6\nus in both nuclear and conventional weapons, its rapid build-\n7\nup trying to atain a superiority, none of this is in the spirit\na\nof detente, and I think detente, B worthy idea --- none of\n9\nus wants confrontation, we want a world that can find areas\n10\nwhere we can discuss our problems and talk about them ---- I\n11\nbelieve the United States, however, should insist that we not\n12\ngive more than we are getting.\n13\nMR. REYNOLDS: Is that what has happened, Governor? Have\n14\nwe given more than we have been getting?\n15\nMR. REAGAN: I think we have. As I say, we are not in-\n16\nvolved in Angola, we are not involved in Portugal as the Soviet\n17\nU nion is. We have just had the Congress of the United States\n18\nI think dangerously reduce our defense budget, but we know\n19\nthat the Russians are outspending us, 60 percent in nuclear\n20\nweapons, 25 percent in conventional weapons They have added\n21\n2,000 pieces of artillery and 1,000 tanks to the forces in\n22\nEastern Europe that are opposed to the NATO line. We have added\n23\nnone. I think this is not detente, as I view it.\n24\n25\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\n18\nMR. REYNOLDS: You have said that you believed the\nVladivostok Agreement should be zenegotiated. How would you\npersuade the Russians to do this?\nMR. REAGAN: I think we gave away too much in Vladivostok.\nSALT I started out on a basis of equality. This is all actually\nformer Secretary Schlesinger was aiming at with the budget he\nsubmitted. It was not a superiority but an equality of arms.\nTo maintain a status quo. What was left out in Viadivostok\nwas throw weight. We counted numbers of missiles. Well, if\n70\nwe are going to have \"x\" number of little rocks and you are\ngoing to have \"x\" number of great big rocks, it is not going\n12\nto be an even contest if we have to start throwing them at each\nother.\n13\n14\nMR. CLARK: Governor, we wanted to ask you a couple of,\nspecific questions.\n15\nPresident Ford is under pressure from conservatives and\n15\nthe oil industry to veto the compromise oil energy package\n17\nfinally being worked out by Congress. If you were President,\n18\nwould you veto this compromise bill?\n19\nMR. REAGAN: Yes. In two ways it violates to me everything\n20\nthat we need to do. First of all, it wtakes away any stimulant\n21\nfor the production of new sources of energy in this country,\n22\nand, second of all, it does away with one important factor in\n23\nattempting conservation.\n24\n&\nFORD\nNow, there is a need for conservation on the part\nGERALD\nof\nthe\n25\n19\n2\n1\npeople, but, reducing the price of gasoline, happy as it would\nmake all of us that have to drive into the gas station\n3\nand fill up the tank, at the same time we have to recognize it\n4\nis going to encourage further use of petroleum sources.\n5\nMR. CLARK: And, Governor, another specific question:\nDo you favor a constitutional amendment to prohibit courts\n6\nfrom ordering school busing to achieve racial balance or inte-\n7\ngration?\n8\nMR. REAGAN: Well, before we\nturn to a constitutional\n9\namendment - I know it is awful easy to look at that as a\n10\nsimple answer to many things, and I don't think the Constitu-\n11\ntion should deteriorate into involving itself in what should\n12\nbe done by statute and legislation. If that is a last resort,\n13\nyes, because I am unalterably opposed to forced busing. I\n14\ndon't think it has solved the problem: It has added to the\n15\nbitterness we were trying to alleviate.\n16\nI believe here,\nin what we talked about earlier,\n17\neducation is one of the areas where I think the federal govern-\n18\nment should get its nose out. Again, if control of schools\n19\nwas turned back to the local level, then those decisions would\n20\nbe made by the people at the local level in the local school\n21\ndistricts and forced busing usually has come from decisions\n22\nat the federal level.\n28\nMR. REYNOLDS: What is your alternative to busing,\n24\nGovernor?\n25\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n3\n20\n1\nMR. REAGAN: I think there are a number of alternatives.\n2\nI think, for one thing, you start out, if there are schools of\n3\nunequal quality, if you have schools in a metropolitan area\n4\nlike New York and Los Angeles, where in certain areas they are\nE\ninferior\nin facilities and teaching quality to others, you\nE\nupgrade that. But I think there are things that you can do --\n7\nMR. CLARK: Governor, I hate to interrupt you in the\n6\nmiddle of an answer as complicated as this one, but we are out\n9\nof time. Thank you very much for being with us on ISSUES AND\n10\nANSWERS.\n11\nMR. REAGAN: Thank you.\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD"
}