Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
12130906
label
Ford Press Releases - Fiscal Policy, 1967
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
12130906
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Fiscal Policy, 1967
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Republican National Committee (U.S.)
House Republican Policy Committee (U.S.)
Economic stabilization
Economics
Federal budget
Inflation (Finance)
Legislation
Taxation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
12130906
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1967-12-31
month
12
year
1967
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
month
1
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
3750f25b7d4c3cda
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D7, folder "Ford Press Releases - Fiscal Policy,
1967" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R.
Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
goth congress
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JANUARY 10, 1967
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
President Johnson has now dropped into the lap of the 90th Congress the
fiscal mess he made in 1966.
Without blinking and with little apology, Mr. Johnson has projected
spending for fiscal 1968 at a level $12. 6 billion greater than that covered by
his revenue estimated based on the present tax structure. He then calmly asks
Congress to plug some of the holes in his leaky Ship of State by voting an
income tax increase.
Let the American people take note that the Johnson Administration proposes
to continue the spending policies that are producing a mountainous deficit of
at least $9.7 billion this fincal year.
The huge deficits projected For fisct years 1967 and 1968 are in prospect
solely because Mr. Johns nillast Bear played politics withoche federal budget and
with the economy. Having triggered inflation with excessively expansionary
policies, Mr. Johnson refused to take the obvieus step of cutting unnecessary
domestic spending.
Mr. Johnson is again offering the Nation a guns and butter course. The
tax increase he now proposes is a vehicle for greater domestic spending. If
a tax increase is imposed, the economy could be so severely staggered that the
result would be less revenue and not more.
Mr. Johnson's State of the Union message is studded with glittering
generalities. He holds out the promise of a life of ease and plenty for all
Americans, ignoring the resounding failures that have greeted his various Great
Society schemes. He is still trying to get started, but doesn't seem to know
where to go.
# # #
Digitized from Box D7 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JANUARY 10, 1967
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
President Johnson has now dropped into the lap of the 90th Congress the
fiscal mess he made in 1966.
Without blinking and with little apology, Mr. Johnson has projected
spending for fiscal 1968 at a level $12. 6 billion greater than that covered by
his revenue estimates based on the present tax structure. He then calmly asks
Congress to plug some of the holes in his leaky Ship of State by voting an
income tax increase.
Let the American people take note that the Johnson Administration proposes
to continue the spending policies that are producing a mountainous deficit of
at least $9.7 billion this fiscal year.
The huge deficits projected for fiscal years 1967 and 1968 are in prospect
solely because Mr. Johnson last year played politics with the federal budget and
with the economy. Having triggered inflation with excessively expansionary
policies, Mr. Johnson refused to take the obvious step of cutting unnecessary
domestic spending.
Mr. Johnson is again offering the Nation a guns and butter course. The
tax increase he now proposes is a vehicle for greater domestic spending. If
a tax increase is imposed, the economy could be so severely staggered that the
result would be less revenue and not more.
Mr. Johnson's State of the Union message is studded with glittering
generalities. He holds out the promise of a life of ease and plenty for all
Americans, ignoring the resounding failures that have greeted his various Great
Society schemes. He is still trying to get started, but doesn't seem to know
where to go.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
FEB. 8, 1967
House Republicans are seeking to amend the Administration bill to increase
the debt limit. Let me make clear our intentions so that our actions cannot be
misinterpreted.
indefinitely
We are not intent on blocking an increase in the debt ceiling/ That would be
completely unrealistic, The bills are there. The Johnson-Humphrey Administration
is guilty of excessive and unnecessary domestic spending. But the bills are there,
and they must be paid.
We do intend to force the Administration to manage the debt in the most
economical way possible. We will be offering amendments to the Administration bill.
They are economy amendments, We are intent on saving the taxpayer money. We intend
to see to it that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration pays out no more in interest
on the money it borrows than absolutely necessary.
Our amendments also will ecomplish anothe highlý desirable objective--to
ease pressure on the money market and ha lp bring down interest rates for the American
trying to get mortgage money at decent interest cost.
We know the Administration is going to be borrowing $8 billion during the
rest of this fiscal year. The plans are to sell $6 billion in regular short-term
securities and $2 billion participation certificates.
Republican mendments to be offered today in the only way open to us--a motion
to recommit with instructions--are aimed at getting the Administration to borrow at
least $6 billion of that projected debt money by selling low-interest long-term
securities.
We are trying to force the Administration to abandon the sale of high-interest
participation certificates and shift part of the public debt into low-interest long-
term obligations. To that end, we urge that long-term obligations be sold on the
same basis that short-term government bonds now are sold and that debt incurred by
selling participation certificates be counted as part of the national debt subject
to limitation under the Liberty Bond Act.
Summed up, our objectives are savings for the taxpayer, an easing of the
tight money market, better management of the public debt, and honesty in budgeting
and borrowing under the present Administration.
GERALD
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1967
STATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
I welcome the President's move to restore the 7 per cent investment tax
credit. It is tardy, of course. It was needed early this year, and that is
why I recommended reinstatement of the tax credit in my Republican State of
the Union Message last January 17.
It rather surprises me that the President still clings to his proposal
for a six per cent income tax surtar In the face) of adverse developments in
the economy. Mr. Johnson did not make a case for his tax increase proposal ii
January when he first advanced it, nd his case is even weaker now.
The cost-push inflation which can be expected in the months ahead due to
wage increases flowing in part from last year's demand-pull inflation will not
be choked off by an income tax increase. The tax increase would, however,
reduce workers' real spendable earnings.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1967
STATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
I welcome the President's move to restore the 7 per cent investment tax
credit. It is tardy, of course. It was needed early this year, and that is
why I recommended reinstatement of the tax credit in my Republican State of
the Union Message last January 17.
It rather surprises me that the President still clings to his proposal
for a six per cent income tax surtax in the face of adverse developments in
the economy. Mr. Johnson did not make a case for his tax increase proposal in
January when he first advanced it, and his case is even weaker now.
The cost-push inflation which can be expected in the months ahead due to
wage increases flowing in part from last year's demand-pull inflation will not
be choked off by an income tax increase. The tax increase would, however,
reduce workers' real spendable earnings.
###
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
of California
of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
William C. Cramer
of Florida
April 20, 1967
BY THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP OF THE CONGRESS
Less than an hour ago, as you know, Representative Widnall of
New Jersey and Senator Percy of Illinois held a press conference to
present their jointly sponsored housing bill, which will be filed
in the House and Senate today.
This bill, wholly Republican in origin, is co-sponsored by 50
Republican Representatives and 30 Republican Senators. It offers
an original and admirable approach to the solution of one of America's
most pressing problems -- that of fair, low-cost housing for both
urban and rural areas through the application of private enterprise
and government resources.
The principles represented by this measure have the full and
enthusiastic endorsement of the Republican Leadership of the Congress.
We urge the Democrat Leadership and its majorities in the House
and Senate to join us in pressing for the earliest possible
consideration and enactment of this vital housing program.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
Thomas H. Kuchel
of California
Leslie C. Arends
of Illinois
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
of Wisconsin
Margaret Chase Smith
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
of Arizona
George Murphy
of California
H. Allen Smith
of California
Milton R. Young
of North Dakota
Bob Wilson
of California
Hugh Scott
of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
William C. Cramer
Ray C. Bliss
of Florida
April 20, 1967
BY THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP OF THE CONGRESS
Less than an hour ago, as you know, Representative Widnall of
New Jersey and Senator Percy of Illinois held a press conference to
present their jointly sponsored housing bill, which will be filed
in the House and Senate today.
This bill, wholly Republican in origin, is co-sponsored by 50
Republican Representatives and 30 Republican Senators. It offers
an original and admirable approach to the solution of one of America's
most pressing problems that of fair, low-cost housing for both
urban and rural areas through the application of private enterprise
and government resources.
The principles represented by this measure have the full and
enthusiastic endorsement of the Re ublican Leadership of the Congress.
We urge the Democrat Leadership and its majorities in the House
and Senate to join us in pressing for the earlies possible
consideration and enactment of this vital housing program.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
GERALD
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
Thomas H. Kuchel
of California
Leslie C. Arends
of Illinois
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
of Wisconsin
Margaret Chase Smith
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
of Arizona
George Murphy
of California
H. Allen Smith
of California
Milton R. Young
of North Dakota
Bob Wilson
of California
Hugh Scott
of Pennsylvania
Issued following a
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
Leadership Meeting
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Antil 20, 1967
Ray C. Bliss
William C. Cramer
of Florida
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The term "creative Federalism" was expressed in 1962 by a Repub-
lican governor, Nelson Rockefeller of New York. It was appropriated
by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and voiced by the President in
a speech at Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1964 -- the same speech in which
he first publicly uttered the impressive words, "Great Society". The
gap between the Democrat and Republican concepts of "creative Federal-
ism" is as wide as that between the poles.
It was another Democrat president, Woodrow Wilson, who wrote,
"The question of the relationship of the states to the Federal govern-
ment is the cardinal question of our constitutional system". It is
indeed:
Unless and until the people and the Congress are given more
practical and persuasive evidence of performance-in-partnership with
the states by the Federal government, they will continue to view the
Johnson-Humphrey concept of "creative Federalism" as nothing but
"words, words, words". In this, as in so much else that relates to
the credibility of this Administration, we are all from Missouri.
The main feature of this so-called "creative Federalism" appears
to be a determination to establish direct Federal-local programs, by-
passing the states and their governors and dealing, under Washington-
controlled terms, with local authorities. This is neither "creative"
nor is it "Federalism". It is instead cremative and is likely to
consume us all.
Unless and until the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is prepared
(more)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
SENATOR DIRKSEN
- 2 -
to prove the sincerity of its use of the word "partnership", we
will be skeptical.
Unless and until the Johnson-Humphrey Administration proves its
willingness to cut non-essential Federal spending drastically and so
to ease both the Federal and state tax burden on our people, we will
be doubtful.
Unless and until the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is prepared
to insist that its bureaucrats not only faithfully carry out the wishes
of the people's representatives in Congress but, in doing so, co-
operate fully and freely with State and local officials, credibility
will remain in short supply.
We ask, in short, that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration stop
voicing classic cliches. Instead, it should reduce spending. It
should share revenues equitably with state and local governments. It
should rein in its bureaucrats more tightly. It should release rigid,
unnecessary controls.
Instead of promoting the "more perfect Union", the Johnson-
Humphrey Administration's brand of "creative Federalism" will impair
and imperil the "more perfect Union".
(more)
REPRESENTATIVE FORD
April 20, 1967
Federal financial assistance to state and local governments has
more than doubled since 1960. It has risen from a total of nearly 7
billion dollars per year to nearly 15 billion dollars per year. The
end of this "creative Federalism" is not in sight. The President him-
self has unabashedly predicted an expansion to $60 billion in 5 years.
The ruthless extension of Federal authority, financing and con-
trol grows with every day that passes. With it grows the increased
and corrosive dependence of our people on Washington. With it comes
a corresponding shrinkage in their self-reliance, their freedom and
their funds. "Spend and spend, borrow and borrow, control and control"
appears to be a true definition of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's
"creative Federalism". As Senator Dirksen has said, this phrase is
nothing thus far but "words, words, words".
We would be in neglect of our duty as the loyal opposition, how-
ever, if we were not to admit that there are no rights without respon-
sibilities. This is true for a state and a community as for an
individual. The Republicans in Congress will continue to exert every
possible effort, despite the Democrat majorities here, to reduce non-
essential spending, promote a program of revenue sharing, tax credits,
or functional bloc grants to free the energies of state and local
governments, improve bureaucratic practices, eliminate unreasonable
Federal controls and restore to our people in their homes, their towns
and their cities the rights and the funds of which they are steadily
being deprived.
Responsive and responsible state governments are essential to the
working of a truly creative Federalism. From the 25 Republican governors
now in office wonderfully encouraging evidence of this can be seen. No
state, however, will deserve freedom from the Johnson-Humphrey Administra-
tion's cremative Federalism unless it provides the same proof of
performance.
We insist, in short, that "creative Federalism" be just that, where
Washington is concerned. We expect, at the same time, that our people at
home will re-assert their ability to take over in their own best interest.
The Republicans in the Congress will continue to set the pace.
Office Staff:
It is imperative that
the Member of Congress see
this promptly.
The Leadership
office
copy
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Issued following a
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
of California
of Pennsylvania
Leadership Meeting
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
April 20, 1967
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
William C. Cramer
of Florida
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The term "creative Federalism" was expressed in 1962 by a Repub-
lican governor, Nelson Rockefeller of New York. It was appropriated
by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and voiced by the President in
a speech at Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1964 -- the same speech in which
he first publicly uttered the impressive words, "Great Society". The
gap between the Democrat and Republican concepts of "creative Federal-
ism" is as wide as that between the poles.
It was another Democrat president, Woodrow Wilson, who wrote,
"The question of the relationship of the states to the Federal govern-
ment is the cardinal question of our constitutional system". It is
indeed!
Unless and until the people and the Congress are given more
practical and persuasive evidence of performance-in-partnership with
the states by the Federal government, they will continue to view the
Johnson-Humphrey concept of "creative Federalism" as nothing but
"words, words, words". In this, as in so much else that relates to
the credibility of this Administration, we are all from Missouri.
The main feature of this so-called "creative Federalism" appears
to be a determination to establish direct Federal-local programs, by-
passing the states and their governors and dealing, under Washington-
controlled terms, with local authorities. This is neither "creative"
nor is it "Federalism". It is instead cremative and is likely to
consume us all.
Unless and until the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is prepared
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
(more)
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
Senator Dirksen
- 2 -
to prove the sincerity of its use of the word "partnership", we
will be skeptical.
Unless and until the Johnson-Humphrey Administration proves its
willingness to cut non-essential Federal spending drastically and so
to ease both the Federal and state tax burden on our people, we will
be doubtful.
Unless and until the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is prepared
to insist that its bureaucrats not only faithfully carry out the wishes
of the people's representatives in Congress but, in doing so, co-
operate fully and freely with State and local officials, credibility
will remain in short supply.
We ask, in short, that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration stop
voicing classic cliches. Instead, it should reduce spending. It
should share revenues equitably with state and local governments. It
should rein in its bureaucrats more tightly. It should release rigiö,
unnecessary controls.
Instead of promoting the "more perfect Union", the Johnson-
Humphrey Administration's brand of "creative Federalism" will impair
and imperil the "more perfect Union".
(more)
REPRESENTATIVE FORD
April 20, 1967
Federal financial assistance to state and local governments has
more than doubled since 1960. It has risen from a total of nearly 7
billion dollars per year to nearly 15 billion dollars per year. The
end of this "creative Federalism" is not in sight. The President him-
self has unabashedly predicted an expansion to $60 billion in 5 years.
The ruthless extension of Federal authority, financing and con-
trol grows with every day that passes. With it growns the increased
and corrosive dependence of our people on Washington. With it comes
a corresponding shrinkage in their self-reliance, their freedom and
their funds. "Spend and spend, borrow and borrow, control and control"
appears to be a true definition of the Johnson-Humphrey Administrations
"creative Federalism". As Senator Dirksen has said, this phrase is
nothing thus far but "words, words, words".
We would be in neglect of our duty as the loyal opposition, how-
ever, if we were not to admit that there are no rights without respon-
sibilities. This is true for a state and a community as for an
individual. The Republicans in Congress will continue to exert every
possible effort, despite the Democrat majorities here, to reduce non-
essential spending, promote a program of revenue sharing, tax credits,
or functional bloc grants to free the energies of state and local
governments, improve bureaucratic practices, eliminate unreasonable
Federal controls and restore to our people in their homes, their towns
and their cities the rights and the funds of which they are steadily
being deprived.
Responsive and responsible state governments are essential to the
working of a truly creative Federalism. From the 25 Republican
governors now in office wonderfully encouraging evidence of this can
be seen. No state, however, will deserve freedom from the Johnson-
Humphrey Administration's cremative Federalism unless it provides the
same proof of performance.
We insist, in short, that "creative Federalism" be just that,
where Washington is concerned. We expect, at the same time, that our
people at home will re-assert their ability to take over in their own
best interest. The Republicans in the Congress will continue to set
the pace.
7 June 1967
IIIII
IIIIIII
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON PUBLIC DEBT CEILING - H.R. 10328
We are opposed to the Administration requested $29 billion increase in the
Debt Ceiling. This increase, in addition to the $6 billion increase that was enacted
less than three months ago, is the largest since World War II. It would establish a
debt authorization of $365 billion.
Since 1961 the Democratic Administrations have embraced the philosophy of
unlimited government spending and budget deficits. Budget subterfuge and gimmickery
financing have become the trademark of the Great Society. Notwithstanding repeated
and ever more urgent danger signals, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has refused
to place its fiscal house in order. It has consistently underestimated the cost of
the war to avoid a cutback in nonessential spending.
In January 1966, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration submitted a $112.8
billion budget that proposed defense expenditures of only $60.5 billion. Immediately
it became apparent that this was a totally unrealistic figure in view of the massive
federal spending, the Administration continued to adhere to its original Budget. In
fact, on September 8, 1966, the President not only reaffirmed the earlier Budget
figure but assured the American people that total expenditures would be cut back by
at least $3 billion. It was not until after the November elections that the American
people were finally told the truth. In January 1967, when the Administration sub-
mitted its Budget for fiscal 1968, the Administration disclosed that fiscal 1967
expenditures would amount to $126.7 billion and not the $112.8 billion previously
reported.
Incredible as it may seem, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is again re-
peating the same misleading budgetary tactics. Last January, a deficit of $8.7
billion was forecast. Now the Treasury officially estimates that the deficit for
fiscal 1968 will be $11 billion. However, the Administration is seeking borrowing
authority to accommodate a deficit of $29 billion. Significantly the difference
between the $11 billion estimated deficit and the $29 billion request is accounted
for by the Secretary of Treasury in the following manner.
"But as I have mentioned, the deficit in 1968 is vulnerable to greater
than usual uncertainties, and we must take account of these in deter-
mining a prospectively secure debt limit level to carry through fiscal
year 1969.
One contingency is that Vietnam spending could bulge well above the
current estimate.
(over)
Another is the timing of the passage of the tax surcharge.
And still another is the possibility that corporate tax receipts would
fall short of estimates.
It is more than mere coincidence that the "contingencies" alluded to by the
Secretary of Treasury add up to $29 billion if the Administration is also unable to
borrow an additional $5 billion through the sale of participation certificates.
Although the Administration is attempting to justify the fiscal plight of
this country on the basis that the Vietnam War is a "costly war," the facts do not
bear out this contention. The level of domestic spending in the administrative but-
get alone -- wholly apart from our defense requirements in the war in Vietnam -- has
increased from about $46 billion for fiscal 1965 to approximately $66 billion for
fiscal 1968. Two-thirds of the $28.3 billion increase in Federal expenditures from
calendar 1963 through 1966 -- as measured in the National income accounts -- is
accounted for by non-defense spending. Moreover, as projected in the January 1967
budget message, over half of the proposed $37 billion increase in outlays from fiscal
1966 through fiscal 1968 is to be in non-defense programs.
Alarmed by the fact that "red ink" in the federal Budget could "burst all
bounds," the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has stated:
"
We must continually re-evaluate existing expenditure programs
in the light of a very objective measurement of the benefits which
they convey and the costs which they will impose. Every new program
should be viewed not in terms of its first year cost alone, but in
terms of what its cost will be five years from now, ten years from
now or perhaps fifteen years from now
The Republican Members of Congress and the Republican Policy Committee have
repeatedly called for a cutback in nonessential spending and for honest reporting of
anticipated government expenditures. We have opposed increases in the Debt Limit
that did not provide basic budgetary reforms. In March of this year, a Republican
Resolution was introduced which would return the Budget to the President and request
that he indicate the places and amounts where he believes that reductions can be
made. It was noted that the passage of a similar Resolution during the 85th Congress
resulted in recommended reductions of $1.342 billion in a Budget of $73.3 billion.
Unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled Congress in 1967 has refused to grant this
Resolution any consideration whatsoever.
It is important that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration cut nonessential
spending and place before this Congress an accurate estimate of projected defense
costs. In addition, the Administration and the Congress may have to find additional
sources of revenue. that will cut the deficit to a manageable level. A deficit of
the magnitude that is now contemplated is intolerable. It would further escalate
prices and interest rates in what is already a seriously strained domestic economy.
In April, the cost of living increased 0.3%. Another period of "tight money" similar
to that experienced last Fall when interest rates soared to new heights is a grave
possibility.
The ducking and dodging of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration which is
typified by the vague and evasive testimony of the Secretary of Treasury must stop.
Hard facts and realistic projections of future spending must be made available. If
we are to avoid a runaway economy that may lead to governmental control of wages,
prices and credit as well as further increases in taxes, there must be restraint
in federal spending and an immediate implementation of expenditure priorities.
7 June 1967
IIIIIII
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN I. RHODES (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON PUBLIC DEBT CEILING - H.R. 10328
We are opposed to the Administration requested $29 billion increase in the
Debt Ceiling. This increase, in addition to the $6 billion increase that was enacted
less than three months ago, is the largest since World War II. It would establish a
debt authorization of $365 billion.
Since 1961 the Democratic Administrations have embraced the philosophy of
unlimited government spending and budget deficits. Budget subterfuge and gimmickery
financing have become the trademark of the Great Society. Notwithstanding repeated
and ever more urgent danger signals, the Johnson-Rumphrey Administration has refused
to place its fiscal house in order. It has consistently underestimated the cost of
the war to avoid a cutback in nonessential spending.
In January 1966, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration submitted a $112.8
billion budget that proposed defense expenditures of only $60.5 billion. Immediately
it became apparent that this was a totally unrealistic figure in view of the massive
federal spending, the Administration continued to adhere to its original Budget. In
fact, on September 8, 1966, the President not only reaffirmed the earlier Budget
figure but assured the American people that total expenditures would be cut back by
at least $3 billion. It was not until after the November elections that the American
people were finally told the truth. In January 1967, when the Administration sub-
mitted its Budget for fiscal 1968, the Administration disclosed that fiscal 1967
expenditures would amount to $126.7 billion and not the $112.8 billion previously
reported.
Incredible as it may seem, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is again re-
peating the same misleading budgetary tactics. Last January, a deficit of $8.7
billion was forecast. Now the Treasury officially estimates that the deficit for
fiscal 1968 will be $11 billion. However, the Administration is seeking borrowing
authority to accommodate a deficit of $29 billion. Significantly the difference
between the $11 billion estimated deficit and the $29 billion request is accounted
for by the Secretary of Treasury in the following manner.
"But as I have mentioned, the deficit in 1968 is vulnerable to greater
than usual uncertainties, and we must take account of these in deter-
mining a prospectively secure debt limit level to carry through fiscal
year 1969.
One contingency is that Vietnam spending could bulge well above the
current estimate.
(over)
Another is the timing of the passage of the tax surcharge.
And still another is the possibility that corporate tax receipts would
fall short of estimates.
It is more than mere coincidence that the "contingencies" alluded to by the
Secretary of Treasury add up to $29 billion if the Administration is also unable to
borrow an additional $5 billion through the sale of participation certificates.
Although the Administration is attempting to justify the fiscal plight of
this country on the basis that the Vietnam War is a "costly war," the facts do not
bear out this contention. The level of domestic spending in the administrative but-
get alone -- wholly apart from our defense requirements in the war in Vietnam --- has
increased from about $46 billion for fiscal 1965 to approximately $66 billion for
fiscal 1968. Two-thirds of the $28.3 billion increase in Federal expenditures from
calendar 1963 through 1966 -- as measured in the National income accounts -- is
accounted for by non-defense spending. Moreover, as projected in the January 1967
budget message, over half of the proposed $37 billion increase in outlays from fiscal
1966 through fiscal 1968 is to be in non-defense programs.
Alarmed by the fact that "red ink" in the federal Budget could "burst all
bounds," the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has stated:
"
We must continually re-evaluate existing expenditure programs
in the light of a very objective measurement of the benefits which
they convey and the costs which they will impose. Every new program
should be viewed not in terms of its first year cost alone, but in
terms of what its cost will be five years from now, ten years from
now or perhaps fifteen years from now
The Republican Members of Congress and the Republican Policy Committee have
repeatedly called for a cutback in nonessential spending and for honest reporting of
anticipated government expenditures. We have opposed increases in the Debt Limit
that did not provide basic budgetary reforms. In March of this year, a Republican
Resolution was introduced which would return the Budget to the President and request
that he indicate the places and amounts where he believes that reductions can be
made. It was noted that the passage of a similar Resolution during the 85th Congress
resulted in recommended reductions of $1.342 billion in a Budget of $73.3 billion.
Unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled Congress in 1967 has refused to grant this
Resolution any consideration whatsoever.
It is important that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration cut nonessential
spending and place before this Congress an accurate estimate of projected defense
costs. In addition, the Administration and the Congress may have to find additional
sources of revenue that will cut the deficit to a manageable level. A deficit of
the magnitude that is now contemplated is intolerable. It would further escalate
prices and interest rates in what is already a seriously strained domestic economy.
In April, the cost of living increased 0.3%. Another period of "tight money" similar
to that experienced last Fall when interest rates soared to new heights is a grave
possibility.
The ducking and dodging of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration which is
typified by the vague and evasive testimony of the Secretary of Treasury must stop.
Hard facts and realistic projections of future spending must be made available. If
we are to avoid a runaway economy that may lead to governmental control of wages,
prices and credit as well as further increases in taxes, there must be restraint
in federal spending and an immediate implementation of expenditure priorities.
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
Tuesday, June 13, 1967
The following is the text of a letter sent to the Chairman of the House Rules
Committee asking for an immediate hearing on House Resolution 505, introduced
June 8 by House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich.) and Rep. John J. Rhodes,
(R-Ariz.), Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee:
12 June 1967
Honorable William M. Colmer
Chairman, Committee on Rules
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed is a copy of H. Res. 505 which calls for the immediate
Floor consideration of H. Res. 406 which we introduced on March 22, 1967.
H. Res. 406 (copy enclosed) respectfully requested the President
to reconsider his fiscal 1968 Budget and to indicate where substantial re-
ductions in spending could best be made. This Resolution was referred to the
Committee on Appropriations on March 22, 1967. Since that time the Committee
has taken no action upon this Resolution.
In the meantime, the Administration's own estimates of the probable
deficit under the 1968 Budget have increased from $8.7 to $11 billion. More-
over, the Administration recently sought borrowing authority to accommodate a
deficit of $29 billion. However, on June 7, 1967 the House of Representatives
by a vote of 210 to 197 rejected the Administration's request to raise the
National Debt Ceiling to a record $365 billion. This vote emphatically reflected
the strong sentiment of the American people that ever-rising deficits and runaway
spending must be curbed in this period of international and fiscal crisis.
Under the present circumstances, it is even more imperative that H. Res.
406 receives the earliest possible Floor consideration. In order that this may
be accomplished, we have introduced H. Res. 505 which under Rule 27, Section 4
of the Rules of the House of Representatives calls for immediate consideration
of our earlier proposal which has remained in the Appropriations Committee for
more than 30 days without action.
We respectfully request an immediate hearing on H. Res. 505.
Sincerely,
/s/ Gerald R. Ford
/s/ John J. Rhodes
Gerald R. Ford, M. C.
John J. Rhodes, M. C.
Minority Leader
Chairman
(The background of House Resolution 505 and House Resolution 406 is contained
in the earlier news release attached. The procedure is intended to bring to the
Rules Committee for hearings, and hopefully to the House Floor for debate and
action, the Republican proposal to return the fiscal 1968 Federal Budget to the
President for revision downward.)
###
GERALD LIBRARY
For Release Friday A.M.s
June 9, 1967
JOINT STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVES
GERALD R. FORD (R-MICH.) HOUSE MINORITY LEADER, AND
JOHN J. RHODES (R-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
On March 22, 1967, we introduced identical House Resolutions, (H. Res. 406
and H. Res. 407) respectfully requesting the President to reconsider his fiscal
1968 budget and to indicate where substantial reductions in spending could best
be made. (See text.)
These resolutions were referred to the Committee on Appropriations which
has taken no action upon them. Meanwhile the Administration's own estimates of
the probable deficit under the 1968 budget have increased and the House of
Representatives, by yesterday's vote of 210 to 197 rejecting the Administration's
request to raise the national debt ceiling to a record $365 billion, has emphatie
cally reflected the strong sentiment of the American people that ever-rising
deficits and runaway spending must be curbed in this time of international and
fiscal crisis.
We are therefore today introducing a Special House Resolution under Rule 27,
Section 4 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, calling for immediate
floor consideration of our earlier proposal to send the budget back to President
Johnson for revision downward. Under this rule, when a public bill or resolution
has remained in a standing committee 30 days or more without action, members may
file a special resolution with the Rules Committee to bring the bill or resolu-
tion up for immediate consideration by the Committee of the Whole House. (See
text.)
* * *
SPECIAL RESOLUTION
That upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall immediately resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of H. Res. 406, requesting the President to submit to the House of
Representatives recommendations for budget reductions. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the resolution and shall continue not to exceed 3 hours,
to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Appropriations, the resolution shall be read for amendment
under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the resolu-
tion for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be con-
sidered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
* * *
H. RES. 406
Whereas the House of Representatives must, in the public interest, make
substantial reductions in the President's budget for the fiscal year 1968: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the President be respectfully requested to indicate the
places and amounts in his budget for the fiscal year 1968 where he
thinks substantial reductions may be made.
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be submitted to the President.
REPUBLICAN
REpublicAN NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
CONAL JONAL COMMITTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
IMMEDIATE
July 24, 1967
The following statement was approved today by the Republican Coordinating
Committee, meeting in Washington, D. C.:
THE JOHNSON-HUMPHREY ADMINISTRATION AND YOU:
HIGHER PRICES, MORE TAXES, GREATER DEFICITS
Spokesmen for the Democratic Administration have confirmed our prediction
of April 3rd that the Federal Government's deficit for fiscal 1968 could run
"from $25 billion to $30 billion or more." We repeat that "present fiscal
policies are creating a time-bomb that can lead to serious economic trouble
for the nation."
The central cause of the troubles is the massive annual increases in Federal
Government spending. Although we are today engaged in the third largest war in
the nation's history, thus increasing defense expenditures by 68 percent, non-
defense spending is up since 1960 by 97 percent and is, therefore, a major reason
for the ballooning of the Federal budget. Non-defense spending has risen more
than defense spending, and constitutes a larger proportion of the whole.
This spending has not achieved the results intended in terms of reducing
poverty and unemployment and in fact has, through high costs of living, contributed
further to the hardship of many of our citizens. Comparison of the Democratic
record since 1961 with the Republican record of 1953-1960 shows that the number of
families living in poverty has been decreasing at the same rate, average annual
unemployment is higher and the average annual increase in the Consumer Price
Index is greater.*
FORD LIDRARY
-MORE-
*See Appendix 3
-2-
In so doing, they have been creating and stockpiling economic problems,
the consequences of which are just beginning to be apparent.
As a by-product of the massive spending increases, the Government has run
a budget deficit every year since 1961.
By July 1st, 1968, these deficits will have totalled over $60 billion. Actual
developments have already shown the projected deficits have been underestimated;
worse is to be expected. They have required the ceiling on the National Debt to
be raised 14 times in this period and increased the interest costs of the Government
from $9.2 billion to $14.2 billion, an increase of 50 percent over the period, and
an increase of 20 percent in just the last three years. Interest on the debt is
the second largest category of Government expense, after Defense, and accounts for
ten cents out of every dollar of government expenditures.
The deficit of $1.8 billion originally projected for 1967 now is some $10 billion,
the second largest since World War II.
The 1968 deficit, originally estimated at $8.1 billion, it now appears will
definitely be over $20 billion. Treasury Secretary Fowler had admitted it may go
as high as $24 billion; House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Wilbur Mills
estimates it could exceed $29 billion. In its latest request for lifting of the
debt ceiling, the Administration asked for a $29 billion increase, thereby
revealing its considered judgment as to how much leeway is needed.
And these deficits do matter. To go into debt means to borrow. When the
government borrows by selling debt paper to the Federal Reserve and commercial
banks it adds to the money supply, inflating it and causing pressure to increase
prices. When it borrows in the private financial markets, it competes with
business for investment funds, decreasing the amount of risk capital available
for economic growth and job creation. At the same time this competition for
funds drives up interest rates.
-MORE-
-3-
Also, savings eroded at the rapid rate of 4.2% last year.
As a result, under the Johnson Administration, the American people can
look forward with dismay and apprehension to:
Renewed inflationary pressures
Higher interest rates and tight money
A record budget deficit
A tax increase substantial enough to reduce people's ability to pay
higher prices, but not effective in preventing a monumental deficit,
or in stemming inflation
A gold crisis requiring further reduction, if not complete withdrawal,
of the gold backing of our currency
A period of profitless prosperity risking a recession severe in
proportion to the extent of the impending inflation
Further deterioration of our position of world leadership as the
economic base on which our diplomatic and military strength depend
is increasingly eroded
The alarming prospects may not be obvious to the citizen who is hard put
trying to make ends meet. But it is the role of political leadership to exercise
vision in the conduct of public affairs and to shape policy to avoid the pitfalls
ahead rather than offer glib explanations for failure afterward.
The course clearly called for, and repeatedly urged by the Republican Party,
is one of restraining the growth of government spending to a sustainable level.
This is the course of prudent progress. The record shows it produces better
results at less risk for the individual and the nation.
THE REPUBLICAN REMEDIES
Our Task Force on Federal Fiscal and Monetary Policies has clearly set forth
the Republican Recommendations for a safe and sane set of economic policies designed
to achieve all the valid goals of economic policy at a sustainable rate with minimum
risk. They are available in these publications:
-MORE-
-4-
The Balance of Payments, The Gold Drain and Your Dollar, August 1965
The Rising Costs of Living, April 1966
A Call for New Fiscal Policies, April 1967
What the recommendations add up to is that America must live within its
means. It must hold government spending in check. Even the richest nation
cannot reach all its goals all at once without courting economic, social and
political disaster.
WE, THEREFORE, CALL ON THE ADMINISTRATION TO SUBMIT A NEW BUDGET FOR
1968 WHICH REFLECTS A NEW POLICY OF POSTPONING AND RESTRAINING THE GROWTH OF
NON-DEFENSE EXPENDITURES, IN PREFERENCE TO RAISING TAXES OR ALLOWING THE HIDDEN
TAX OF INFLATION TO FINANCE ITS EXPENDITURES.
We believe moderation and restraint are a small price to pay to avoid
such an awful risk.
7/24/67
Appendix 1
FACTS ON GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Government Spending Increases
The following table is from our April Report "A Call for New Fiscal Policies. "
A fourth column estimating 1968 expenditures based on current estimates has been
added.
Expenditures of the Federal Government for 1960,
1965, and 1968 Showing Percentage Increases
(Billions of Dollars)
1960
1965
1968
1968
(actual)
(actual)
(budget) (current estimates)
Administrative Budget
$76.5
$96.5
$135.0
$142.0
$ Increase over 1960
--
$20.0
$ 58.5
$ 65.6
% Increase over 1960
--
26.1%
76.5%
85.6%
$ Increase over 1965
--
--
$ 38.5
$ 45.5
% Increase over 1965
--
--
39.9%
47.2%
Cash Budget
$94.3
$122.4
$172.4
$179.4
$ Increase over 1960
--
$28.1
$ 78.1
$ 85.1
% Increase over 1960
--
29.8%
82.8%
90.2%
$ Increase over 1965
--
--
$ 50.0
$ 57.0
% Increase over 1965
--
--
40.8%
46.6%
SOURCE: Calculated from figures in the Budget of the United States Government.
Current 1968 estimates from National Industrial Conference Board figures.
It should be noted that the average annual increases in government spending
since 1965 have been more than three times the average annual increase of the
of the preceding ten years.
Appendix 2
DEFENSE VERSUS NON-DEFENSE SPENDING
The following table shows clearly that non-defense spending has risen more
than defense spending, and constitutes a larger proportion of the whole.
Defense vs. Non-Defense Spending as Proportions
of Total Federal Government Spending 1960-1968
(Billions of Dollars)
Fiscal
Percentage
Percentage
Year
Defense
Non-Defense
Total
Defense
Non-Defense
1960
$45.7
$48.6
$94.3
48.5%
51.5%
1961
47.5
52.0
99.5
47.7
52.3
1962
51.4
56.3
107.7
47.7
52.3
1963
53.4
60.4
113.8
46.9
53.1
1964
54.5
65.8
120.3
45.3
54.7
1965
53.4
69.0
122.4
43.6
56.4
1966
58.5
79.3
137.8
42.5
57.5
1967 (est.)
71.3
89.6
160.9
44.3
55.7
1968 (est.)
76.8
95.6
172.4
44.5
55.5
% increase
% increase
% increase
1960-68: 68%
1960-68: 97%
1960-68: 83%
1965-68: 44%
1965-68: 39%
1965-68: 41%
SOURCE: The Budget of the United States Government
Appendix 3
DECLINING PROPORTION OF FAMILIES LIVING ON $3000 PER YEAR OR LESS
1953-60
Average Annual Reduction:
.75 percentage points.
1961-1965*
Average Annual Reduction:
.76 percentage points.
ANNUAL INCREASE IN LIVING COSTS AS MEASURED BY THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
(1957-1959 = 100)
1953-1960
1961-1966
Average Annual Increase: 1.4%
Average Annual Increase: 1.9%
AVERAGE ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT AS A PERCENT OF THE WORK FORCE
1953-1960
1961-1966
4.9%
5.3%
Source: Economic Report of The President, 1967.
*Latest figures available.
REPUBLICAN
REpublicAN NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
COMMITTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
IMMEDIATE
July 24, 1967
The following statement was approved today by the Republican Coordinating
Committee, meeting in Washington, D. C.:
THE JOHNSON-HUMPHREY ADMINISTRATION AND YOU:
HIGHER PRICES, MORE TAXES, GREATER DEFICITS
Spokesmen for the Democratic Administration have confirmed our prediction
of April 3rd that the Federal Government's deficit for fiscal 1968 could run
"from $25 billion to $30 billion or more." We repeat that "present fiscal
policies are creating a time-bomb that can lead to serious economic trouble
for the nation,
eu
The central cause of the troubles is the massive annual increases in Federal
Government spending. Although we are today engaged in the third largest war in
the nation's history, thus increasing defense expenditures by 68 percent, non-
defense spending is up since 1960 by 97 percent and is, therefore, a major reason
for the ballooning of the Federal budget. Non-defense spending has risen more
than defense spending, and constitutes a larger roportion of the whole.
This spending has not achieved the results in ended in terms of reducing
poverty and unemployment and in fact has. through high costs of living, contributed
further to the hardship of many of our citizens. Comparison of the Democratic
record since 1961 with the Republican record of 1953-1960 shows that the number of
families living in poverty has been decreasing at the same rate, average annual
unemployment is higher and the average annual increase in the Consumer Price
GERALD FORD
Index is greater.*
-MORE-
*See Appendix 3
-2-
In so doing, they have been creating and stockpiling economic problems,
the consequences of which are just beginning to be apparent.
As a by-product of the massive spending increases, the Government has run
a budget deficit every year since 1961.
By July 1st, 1968, these deficits will have totalled over $60 billion. Actual
developments have already shown the projected deficits have been underestimated;
worse is to be expected. They have required the ceiling on the National Debt to
be raised 14 times in this period and increased the interest costs of the Government
from $9.2 billion to $14.2 billion, an increase of 50 percent over the period, and
an increase of 20 percent in just the last three years. Interest on the debt is
the second largest category of Government expense, after Defense, and accounts for
ten cents out of every dollar of government expenditures.
The deficit of $1.8 billion originally projected for 1967 now is some $10 billion,
the second largest since World War II.
The 1968 deficit, originally estimated at $8.1 billion, it now appears will
definitely be over $20 billion. Treasury Secretary Fowler had admitted it may go
as high as $24 billion; House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Wilbur Mills
estimates it could exceed $29 billion. In its latest request for lifting of the
debt ceiling, the Administration asked for a $29 billion increase, thereby
revealing its considered judgment as to how much leeway is needed.
And these deficits do matter. To go into debt means to borrow. When the
government borrows by selling debt paper to the Federal Reserve and commercial
banks it adds to the money supply, inflating it and causing pressure to increase
prices. When it borrows in the private financial markets, it competes with
business for investment funds, decreasing the amount of risk capital available
for economic growth and job creation. At the same time this competition for
funds drives up interest rates.
-MORE-
-3-
Also, savings eroded at the rapid rate of 4.2% last year.
As a result, under the Johnson Administration, the American people can
look forward with dismay and apprehension to:
Renewed inflationary pressures
Higher interest rates and tight money
A record budget deficit
A tax increase substantial enough to reduce people's ability to pay
higher prices, but not effective in preventing a monumental deficit,
or in stemming inflation
A gold crisis requiring further reduction, if not complete withdrawal,
of the gold backing of our currency
A period of profitless prosperity risking a recession severe in
proportion to the extent of the impending inflation
Further deterioration of our position of world leadership as the
economic base on which our diplomatic and military strength depend
is increasingly eroded
The alarming prospects may not be obvious to the citizen who is hard put
trying to make ends meet. But it is the role of political leadership to exercise
vision in the conduct of public affairs and to shape policy to avoid the pitfalls
ahead rather than offer glib explanations for failure afterward.
The course clearly called for, and repeatedly urged by the Republican Party,
is one of restraining the growth of government spending to a sustainable level.
This is the course of prudent progress. The record shows it produces better
results at less risk for the individual and the nation.
THE REPUBLICAN REMEDIES
Our Task Force on Federal Fiscal and Monetary Policies has clearly set forth
the Republican Recommendations for a safe and sane set of economic policies designed
to achieve all the valid goals of economic policy at a sustainable rate with minimum
risk. They are available in these publications:
-MORE-
-4-
The Balance of Payments, The Gold Drain and Your Dollar, August 1965
The Rising Costs of Living, April 1966
A Call for New Fiscal Policies, April 1967
What the recommendations add up to is that America must live within its
means. It must hold government spending in check. Even the richest nation
cannot reach all its goals all at once without courting economic, social and
political disaster.
WE, THEREFORE, CALL ON THE ADMINISTRATION TO SUBMIT A NEW BUDGET FOR
1968 WHICH REFLECTS A NEW POLICY OF POSTPONING AND RESTRAINING THE GROWTH OF
NON-DEFENSE EXPENDITURES, IN PREFERENCE TO RAISING TAXES OR ALLOWING THE HIDDEN
TAX OF INFLATION TO FINANCE ITS EXPENDITURES.
We believe moderation and restraint are a small price to pay to avoid
such an awful risk.
7/24/67
Appendix 1
FACTS ON GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Government Spending Increases
The following table is from our April Report "A Call for New Fiscal Policies. "
A fourth column estimating 1968 expenditures based on current estimates has been
added.
Expenditures of the Federal Government for 1960,
1965, and 1968 Showing Percentage Increases
(Billions of Dollars)
1960
1965
1968
1968
(actual)
(actual)
(budget) (current estimates)
Administrative Budget
$76.5
$96.5
$135.0
$142.0
$ Increase over 1960
--
$20.0
$ 58.5
$ 65.6
% Increase over 1960
--
26.1%
76.5%
85.6%
$ Increase over 1965
--
--
$ 38.5
$ 45.5
% Increase over 1965
--
--
39.9%
47.2%
Cash Budget
$94.3
$122.4
$172.4
$179.4
$ Increase over 1960
--
$28.1
$ 78.1
$ 85.1
% Increase over 1960
:
29.8%
82.8%
90.2%
$ Increase over 1965
--
--
$ 50.0
$ 57.0
% Increase over 1965
--
--
40.8%
46.6%
SOURCE: Calculated from figures in the Budget of the United States Government.
Current 1968 estimates from National Industrial Conference Board figures.
It should be noted that the average annual increases in government spending
since 1965 have been more than three times the average annual increase of the
of the preceding ten years.
Appendix 2
DEFENSE VERSUS NON-DEFENSE SPENDING
The following table shows clearly that non-defense spending has risen more
than defense spending, and constitutes a larger proportion of the whole.
Defense vs. Non-Defense Spending as Proportions
of Total Federal Government Spending 1960-1968
(Billions of Dollars)
Fiscal
Percentage
Percentage
Year
Defense
Non-Defense
Total
Defense
Non-Defense
1960
$45.7
$48.6
$94.3
48.5%
51.5%
1961
47.5
52.0
99.5
47.7
52.3
1962
51.4
56.3
107.7
47.7
52.3
1963
53.4
60.4
113.8
46.9
53.1
1964
54.5
65.8
120.3
45.3
54.7
1965
53.4
69.0
122.4
43.6
56.4
1966
58.5
79.3
137.8
42.5
57.5
1967 (est.)
71.3
89.6
160.9
44.3
55.7
1968 (est.)
76.8
95.6
172.4
44.5
55.5
% increase
% increase
% increase
1960-68: 68%
1960-68: 97%
1960-68: 83%
1965-68: 44%
1965-68: 39%
1965-68: 41%
SOURCE: The Budget of the United States Government
Appendix 3
DECLINING PROPORTION OF FAMILIES LIVING ON $3000 PER YEAR OR LESS
1953-60
Average Annual Reduction:
.75 percentage points.
1961-1965*
Average Annual Reduction:
.76 percentage points.
ANNUAL INCREASE IN LIVING COSTS AS MEASURED BY THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
(1957-1959 = 100)
1953-1960
1961-1966
Average Annual Increase: 1.4%
Average Annual Increase: 1.9%
AVERAGE ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT AS A PERCENT OF THE WORK FORCE
1953-1960
1961-1966
4.9%
5.3%
Source: Economic Report of The President, 1967.
*Latest figures available.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
OF THE CONGRESS
Thomas H. Kuchel
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
Issued following a
of California
of Pennsylvania
Leadership Meeting
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
September 21, 1967
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
William C. Cramer
of Florida
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
How strange - how very strange it is -- that as the cost of food
goes up and up, the prices the farmers receive go down and down -- to
a near-all-time low -- 6% lower, in fact, that just a year ago!
From among the nation's headlines over the past year-and-a-half:
1966
March 28 "How Big the Price Rise? Is Lid Off?" (U.S. News &
World Report)
May 31 -- Food Surveys Show Prices Up Nearly 7% Washington Star)
August 15 -- Food Prices Anger Housewive (New NORK Times)
1967
May 15 "U.S. Predicts 2-3% Rise in Food Prices" (Wash. Star)
May
"Living Costs Keep Climbing" (Christain Science Monitor)
June $ -- DElation on the March" (Newsweek)
July 23 -- "Still Higher Food Prices Likely, Freeman Says"
(Washington Star)
August 8 -- Higher Food Prices Ahead?" (Washington Daily News)
August 17 -- "Living Costs Climbing at 3 Per Cent Rate" (Wash. Post)
August 28 -- "Purchasing Power Lags in U.S. as Costs Rime"
(Christian Science Monitor)
September 3 "Price Rises on Basic Goods Becoming Daily Diet"
(New York Times
September 11 "Where the cost of Living LS Heading" (U.S. News &
World Report)
September 18 -- "Housing Shortage Grows in Suburbs, Raising
Prices" (New York Times
And so it goes on and on and on --with no real effort being made
by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration to stop this rising cost of living.
Sugar is up -- household appliances are up -- carpeting is up --
automobiles are up -- clothing is up and there is no end in sight!
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
(con't)
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
-2-
Is there an answer? There is, indeed! But that answer is not, at
present, the massive tax increase proposed by this Administration. If,
to be sure, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is unwilling or unable
to apply the powerful means it does have at hand -- the elimination of
non-essential Federal spending -- then the American people may have
forced upon them by this Administration a crushing tax increase. But
the President has not made a convincing case for the tax increase he
seeks. We shall continue our demand for the elimination of non-essential
spending.
We have, however, done far more than just demanded -- and this over
a period of many months. The Republicans in Congress, with the aid of
some enlightened, disenchanted Democrats have already achieved, in the
House, a reduction of some 4 billions of dollars in non-essential appro-
priations. That record is crystal-clear. But more, much more, is
required. It will not result, however, until this Administration, with
its Democratic majorities in the Congress, responds to the American
people's demand that this dreadful pressure of the ever-rising cost of
living be removed.
As to where such spending cuts have been made and can be made, I
point to the Summary of Action on Budget Estimates by the House of Repre-
sentatives in this 90th Congress -- 4 billion dollars woth of largely
Republican reductions in the Johnson-Humphrey budget.
Beyond this we insist that the Administration come clean on the real
cost of the war in Viet Nam. Until this happens, the American people
can have no faith whatever in this Administration nor in their future.
They insist, therefore, upon an end to all non-essential spending. This
done, they will respond, as always, to what is best and necessary for our
nation's safety and well-being.
Therefore, our Question-of-the-Week:
Mr. President: The Cost of Living:
How Much Higher -- How Much Longer?
SENATOR DIRKSEN
September 21, 1967
Just a year ago this month we were told by the Johnson-Humphrey
Administration that what America needed was "a strong dose of self-
discipline". To this we replied, as we do now, "Physican, heal
thyself". We believed then, as we do now, that to ask self-discipline
of labor, to ask self-discipline of management, to ask self-discipline
of the farmer, to ask self-discipline of the Congress, to ask self-
discipline of the housewife and the consumer was pious and pointless,
as it is now -- until the President asks self-discipline of his Adminis-
tration and his own Democratic majorities in the Congress. We were
not impressed then. We are not impressed now.
To describe the nation's present economic trend as nightmarish,
as several have done, is an understatement. The impact of Federal,
state and local taxes has rarely been so great. Interest rates and
growing curbs on available credit have seldom been as high or as
strong. The jobless rate among the unskilled and minority group
workers is dangerously high. The Federal budget deficit anticipated
is astronomical. The nation's balance of payments and our growing
weakness in the world market-place are ominous. This Administration's
fiscal and monetary policies require drastic overhauling. We
Republicans in Congress will do everything in our power to bring
it about.
As always, the people who are hurt the most by this sky-rocketing
cost of living and economic mismanagement are those who can stand it
least -- the housewife, the wage-earner, the pensioner, the poor.
To the extent that the Republican minority in Congress can do so,
we shall put a stop to it.
We are fighting a war on two fronts -- one in Viet Nam and one
here at home. Both have become critical. The Johnson-Humphrey
Administration has regularly lambasted those "tired people" who
(con't)
Senator Dirksen
oppose the so-called "Great Society's" multi-billion dollar programs,
insisting that we can fight and win the war in Viet Nam while at the
same time we spend even more billions for "Great Society" programs
and experiments. We cannot. And if to our voices others are needed
to swell the chorus of protest, add that of the respected Democratic
Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Mills, who insists,
with us, that we cannot have both guns and butter.
To those who believe that "Federal money" will solve all our
problems, this reminder: there is no such thing as "Federal money".
It is your money, no one else's. And if you don't believe that,
take another look at your last income tax payment. It is the
American people's money, siphoned from every home and hearth, that
is being spent for the national security -- which is right! It is
more and more of this same money that is being spent for these
"Great Society" experiments and adventures -- too many of which are
wrong!
A New Direction is called for, as it has been for many long
months -- toward common sense, prudent management, and a decent
respect for the opinions and the dollars of the American people.
Dr. Johnson, Dr. Humphrey -- a new examination, a new diagnosis
of the nation's economic ills are called for. A strong prescription
of economy and truth is needed -- now.
Therefore, our Question-of-the-Week:
Mr. President: The Cost of Living:
How Much Higher -- How Much Longer?
Key Economy Votes-GOP Tops Demos by Big Margin
Is THERE a difference between
VOTES ON ECONOMY ISSUES-HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-1967
the political parties?
% GOP
% Democratic
Vote for
Vote for
You bet there is, says Rep.
Economy
Economy
Jack Edwards of Alabama, espe-
February 8-To increase the temporary national debt limit
ceiling from $330 billion to $336 billion: the ninth increase
cially when it comes to spending
during the LBJ and Kennedy Administrations
99.0
11.0
taxpayers' money-and he has
March 22-Amendment to eliminate 15 new executive
put together a comparison to
level jobs the Administration requested in the Treasury
prove his point.
Department
91.5
25.6
Taking 23 key
March 22-Move to limit spending under Treasury and
House votes this
Post Office Appropriations bill to 95% of budget estimates
89.5
7.0
year on the issue of
April 27-Move to limit spending under Interior Appropria-
Federal pending,
tions bill to 95% of budget estimates
77.5
11.0
the Longressman
May 11-Increase in telephone allowance for each mem-
found that 85 per-
ber of Congress
67.0
27.
cent of the Republi-
May 17-Amendment to cut $10 million from the rent
cons supported a Edwards
supplement program
93.5
364
eduction in spending while only
May 17-Move to cut $225 million from the Demonstration
17 percent of the Democrats sup-
Cities program
80.0
22
ported this position.
May 31-Amendment to limit the amount of Federal sub-
Edwards said the voting pat-
sidy in the sale of SBA participation certificates
100.0
20.
tern shows that if more Demo-
May 31-Move to limit spending under State, Justice,
crats had chosen to side with their
Commerce, and the Judiciary Appropriations bill (excluding
Republican colleagues in support
FBI) to 95% of budget estimates
92.0
20.0
of responsible spending cuts the
June 6-Move to limit spending under Agriculture Appro
fiscal situation now would be far
priation bill (excluding school lunch and special mil
stronger because the budget
programs) to 95% of budget estimates
86.0
11.6
deficit would be far smaller.
June 7-To increase the temporary national debt lim
"The major reason why the
ceiling from $336 billion to $365 billion
100.0
15.0
deficit is rising virtually out of
June 21-To increase the permanent national debt linst
control is that the Presiden has
ceiling to $365 billion but do it over a two-year period
100.0
5
used this Democration arty ma-
July 18-Move to limit spending under Transportation
jority control in agress
Appropriations bill to 95% of budget estimates.
96.5
17.6
throughout his term of fice to
July 25-To cut funds for the Dickey-Lincoln public power
introduce vastly wasteful and
project in Maine
99.2
25.5
non-essential domettic spending
July 25-Move to reduce appropriations for Public Works
programs," he said.
and AEC by 5%
82.0
8.0
"All during this period Re
July 26-To cut the increase in U.S. contribution to Inter-
publicans in Cangress have
American Development Bank as requested by the Admin-
warned of the danger of the very
istration
88.0
14.4
same fiscal crisis which Adminis
August 24-Motion to reduce authorization for foreign
tration people are now finally
aid
87.0
36.6
admitting is upon US, he added.
September 14-Amendment to cut $50 million from total
authorized for Appalachian area projects
91.5
26.5
THE OP LEGISLATOR noted
September 27-Motion to recommit continuing appropria-
the 23 économy votes show
tion resolution in an effort to bring about $5 billion cut
consistent and overwhelming Re-
in Federal spending
100.0
publican support for spending
October 3-Vote on previous question on continuing ap-
limitations.
propriation resolution in an effort to make it in order to
consider spending reduction amendments. A "yes" vote
On all he same issues, large
would prohibit offering amendments
100.0
10.3
jorities of Democratic Con-
October 4-Move to make cuts in appropriation for De-
gressmen voted in opposition to
partments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare.
the economizing efforts. How-
(Conference Report)
87.0
31.4
ever, on 11 of the 23 votes
October 17-Move to make cuts in appropriation for De-
enough Democrats voted with the
partment of Transportation. (Conference Report)
65.5
5.0
GOP position to carry the vote in
October 18-Move to limit overall Federal spending to
favor of economy and against
about $141.5 billion
95.0
30.0
the Administration position.
LBJ Ignored GOP Advice on How to Forestall Fiscal Mess
IF THE JOHNSON-HUMPHREY
for our currency or to withdraw
really want a tax increase, but
Administration had heeded ear-
it altogether," the committee
warned that spending cuts must
lier Republican storm warnings,
said.
precede a tax increase.
it could have avoided the desper-
APRIL-Bow promised to in-
OCTOBER-Administration
ate scramble now underway to
troduce his amendment requir-
Democrats continued to reject the
protect the dollar against as-
saults resulting from devaluation
ing an across-the-board five per-
Bow amendments to appropria-
of the British pound.
cent cut in appropriation bills as
tions bills. At the same time,
a first step toward fiscal stability.
Congressman Curtis asserted that
That's the view of the ranking
He estimated total savings could
President Johnson's refusal to cut
GOP member of the House Ap-
amount to $5 billion.
spending showed he did not
propriations Committee, Rep.
Frank T. Bow of Ohio, who point-
AUGUST - Chairman Melvin
rather a "scapegoat" to blame
for inflation and high interest
ed out that Congressional Repub-
R. Laird of the House Republican
rates.
licans on dozens of occasions
this year warned that the dollar
OCTOBER-Congressman Ford
was in danger and offered spe-
warned again that "our economy
cific reforms-all of which Presi-
is in trouble solely because a
dent Johnson ignored.
Democratic President and a Dem-
"I hate to say 'we told you so,
ocratic Congress have launched
Mr. President'," Bow said, "but
this country on a reckless spend-
the fact is we did." He cited these
ing spree which threatens to
GOP warnings:
bankrupt the Nation."
JANUARYHouse Republican
GRAVE
NOVEMBER-The Newsletter
Leader Gerald R. Ford, in a
(November 6) carried a warning
Newsletter interview, said non-
FINANCE
by Maurice H. Stans, President
defense spending should and
Eisenhower's budget director,
could be cut to the point where
that the U.S. is threatened by a
a tax increase (then proposed as
"nuclear-sized spending explo-
six percent) was unnecessary.
Follow the leader
sion." He said unfunded govern-
FEBRUARY-Republican mem-
Conference called on the Presi-
ment commitments to pay future
bers of the Joint Economic Com-
dent to provide Congress with ac-
retirement benefits, Social Secur-
mittee called for "a complete
curate figures on Federal spend-
ity, veterans pensions, completion
turnabout" in economic policy "to
ing to enable the lawmakers to
of public works, subsidies and
avoid the near crisis conditions
act responsibly on tax increase
many other items now total about
the Administration imposed on
legislation. Laird said the 1966,
$1,000 billion and are growing
the economy in 1966." At the
1967 and 1968 cash budgets
each year-and that there is an
same time, Rep. Thomas B. Cur-
contained "incredible mistakes"
annual built-in growth in the cost
tis, ranking Republican on the
underestimating both spending
of present Federal programs of
committee, urged the Administra-
and revenue.
about $5 billion a year.
tion to recall its budget for a
SEPTEMBER-Congressmen
NOVEMBER-The Newsletter
complete overhaul.
Ford and Senate Republican
carried statements by five emi-
APRIL-The Republican Coor-
Leader Everett M. Dirksen, de-
nent economists "that unless
dinating Committee, noting the
crying mounting inflation, warned
spending cuts are made we are
continued imbalance of payments
that the United States cannot af-
headed for serious fiscal and
($1.4 billion in 1966) over a nine-
ford a guns-and-butter policy.
monetary trouble."
year period, called for a new
They promised Republicans
Although the above warnings
fiscal policy based on 14 specific
would "do everything in their
are far from a complete list,
proposals. "Unless there is a
power" to cut non-defense spend-
Congressman Bow noted, they
change in policies, it is only a
ing. Congressman Byrnes also
are typical of those brought to
matter of time before the Admin-
the attention of the Administra-
istration will have to ask Con-
Reprinted from
tion this year. "But we couldn't
gress to reduce the amount of
Republican Congressional Committee
Newsletter, December 4, 1967.
get them to listen," Bow noted
gold held as a reserve backing
sadly last week.
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
November 17, 1967
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich.
It is natural that a man about to go into bankruptcy blames everybody but
himself.
President Johnson will rue the day that he promoted a $30 to $35 billion
deficit for fiscal 1968 and four previous deficits totalling nearly $24 billion
in fiscal years 1964 through 1967. These Johnson-Humphrey Administration deficits,
it should be noted, total nearly $60 billion.
President Johnson continues to play the game of switch--trying to shift
the blame for his own mistakes and shortcomings to the 90th Congress and par-
ticularly the House. The House is close to the people and responsive to their
wishes. I'll take my chances with the people anytime. They know that President
Johnson has repeatedly ignored Republican pleas that he set priorities on
federal non-defense spending at a time when this Nation is fighting a costly
war halfway around the world. I trust the judgment of the American people.
They have said overwhelmingly that they prefer spending cuts to a tax increase
as a means of fighting inflation.
I find it interesting that the President now talks of a possible $35 billion
deficit for fiscal 1968. This is the first time he or any Administration official
has admitted the deficit figure may be that astronomical.
This proves that the President has not been acting with any urgency to hold
down non-essential federal spending. And it underscores the need for Congress
to insist on the Republican-sponsored, House-approved spending ceiling of
$131.5 billion. This is $5 billion under the President's spending requests,
GERA and R.FORD LIBRARY
$5 billion higher than fiscal 1967.
####
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
-FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
November 17, 1967
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich.
It is natural that a man about to go into bankruptcy blames everybody but
himself.
President Johnson will rue the day that he promoted a $30 to $35 billion
deficit for fiscal 1968 and four previous deficits totalling nearly $24 billion
in fiscal years 1964 through 1967. These Johnson-Humphrey Administration deficits,
it should be noted, total nearly $60 billion.
President Johnson continues to play the game of switch--trying to shift
the blame for his own mistakes and shortcomings to the 90th Congress and par-
ticularly the House. The House is close to the people and responsive to their
wishes. I'll take my chances with the people anytime. They know that President
Johnson has repeatedly ignored Republi can pleas that he set priorities on
federal non-defense spending at a time when this Nation is fighting a costly
war halfway around the world. I trust the judgment of the American people.
They have said overwhelmingly that they prefer spending outs to a tax increase
as a means of fighting inflation.
I find it interesting that the President now talks of a possible $35 billion
deficit for fiscal 1968. This is the first time the or any iministration official
has admitted the deficit figure may be that astronomical.
This proves that the President has not been acting with any urgency to hold
down non-essential federal spending. And it underscores the need for Congress
to insist on the Republican-smonsored, House-approved spending ceiling of
$131.5 billion. This is $5 billion under the President's spending requests, and
$5 billion higher man fiscal 1967.
####
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
November 30, 1967
JOINT STATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD FORD
AND REP. WILLIAM B. WIDNALL, RANKING MINORITY MEMBER
OF THE HOUSE BANKING COMMITTEE ON HIGH INTEREST RATES
We share the concern expressed in the joint statement of
November 28th by twenty-seven of our Democratic colleagues in calling
this afternoon's emergency meeting on the so-called "interest rate
crisis."
At the outset, we commend our colleagues for their candor in
admitting that interest rates are at their hionest levels of this
century. We agree that the hurden of high interest rates falls unevenly
on the economy, in that such credit-sensitive industries as homebuilding
suffer far more than others.
We wish to declare in no uncertain terms, however, that reckless
and wild talk such as that offered by our Democratic colleagues and the
Johnson Administration can do nothing except add further pressures to
the economy.
Such needless panic terms as "monetary crisis" and "monetary
disaster" serve no useful purpose other than to disturb confidence in
our economy both at home and abroad. Panic talk only rewards the
speculators and those who, like President DeGaulle, wish to impose
either devaluation or a severe economic recession on our economy.
Moreover, those who today are ungand action to lower interest
rates are the very same individuals who ignored or turned aside practi-
cally every attempt during the 89th nd 90th Concresses to recognize
the dangers of inflationary fiscal policies while a major war was being
fought. For instance, of the twenty seven members calling today's
meeting, an overwhelming majority voted for the Participation Sales
Act of 1966, an act which only this week enabled Treasury guaranteed
credit to be sold at a record 6.4 percent interest rate in an effort
to conceal from the public additional billions in inflationary Federal
spending.
We also deplore a similar tendency on the part of Treasury
Secretary Fowler to join in the chorus of reckless threats in order
to stampede the Congress into passage of the President's tax bill.
Secretary Fowler yesterday warned of "drastic consequences" both to
the nation's economy and to the international financial system if Congress
does the "unthinkable" and adjourns next month without acting on a tax
bill. Secretary Fowler asserted neither leadership nor financial
statesmanship by reacting to what borders on international blackmail of
domestic fiscal policy considerations.
- 0 -
GERALD
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
November 30, 1967
JOINT STATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD FORD
AND REP. WILLIAM B. WIDNALL, RANKING MINORITY MEMBER
OF THE HOUSE BANKING COMMITTEE ON HIGH INTEREST RATES
We share the concern expressed in the joint statement of
November 28th by twenty-seven of our Democratic colleagues in calling
this afternoon's emergency meeting on the so-called "interest rate
crisis."
At the outset, we commend our colleagues for their candor in
admitting that interest rates are at their highest levels of this
century. We agree that the burden of high interest rates falls unevenly
on the economy, in that such credit-sensitive industries as homebuilding
suffer far more than others.
We wish to declare in no uncertain terms, however, that reckless
and wild talk such as that offered by our Democratic colleagues and the
Johnson Administration can do nothing except add further pressures to
the economy.
Such needless panic terms as "monetary crisis" and "monetary
disaster" serve no useful purpose other than to disturb confidence in
our economy both at home and abroad. Panic talk only rewards the
speculators and those who, like President DeGaulle, wish to impose
either devaluation or a severe economic recession on our economy.
Moreover, those who today are urging action to lower interest
rates are the very same individuals who ignored or turned aside practi-
cally every attempt during the 89th and 90th Congresses to recognize
the dangers of inflationary fiscal policies while a major war was being
fought. For instance, of the twenty-seven members calling today's
meeting, an overwhelming majority voted for the Participation Sales
Act of 1966, an act which only this week enabled Treasury guaranteed
credit to be sold at a record 6.4 percent interest rate in an effort
to conceal from the public additional billions in inflationary Federal
spending.
We also deplore a similar tendency on the part of Treasury
Secretary Fowler to join in the chorus of reckless threats in order
to stampede the Congress into passage of the President's tax bill.
Secretary Fowler yesterday warned of "drastic consequences" both to
the nation's economy and to the international financial system if Congress
does the "unthinkable" and adjourns next month without acting on a tax
bill. Secretary Fowler asserted neither leadership nor financial
statesmanship by reacting to what borders on international blackmail of
domestic fiscal policy considerations.
- 0 -
Approved by the
Republican Coordinating Committee
Washington, D. C. December 11, 1967
LET'S STOP CREATING FINANCIAL CHAOS
The United States is at the brink of a fiscal crisis the full
dimensions of which are not yet clear. International confidence in the dollar
is being severely tested. Our dwindling gold supply continues to flow out of
the country. Inflation is a grim reality. Interest rates are higher than
during last year's serious "credit crunch." They are the highest in some
fifty years, for government, for business, for the home builder and the home
buyer.
In short, the powerful United States economy has been undermined and
weakened by an Administration whose fiscal policies are marked by wild extrava-
gance on the one hand, and by delay, expediency and cover-up on the other.
Our gold supply of $12.4 billion is the lowest since 1937 -- down
from $19.4 billion at the end of 1960. More gold is being shipped out of
our country in the wake of the 14.3 percent devaluation of the pound and the
subsequent challenge to the dollar. Potential foreign claims against our
remaining gold supply have risen to over $30 billion. And these claims will
continue to increase as our balance of payments deficit this year will soar
more than 50 percent higher than in 1966. We deplore that the Johnson Administra-
tion may soon find it necessary to request removal of the remaining gold backing
behind our currency, now 25 percent, thus turning it wholly into "paper money."
In spite of the Administration's boast of unrivaled prosperity,
unemployment among America's workers is increasing. From a low of 3.6 percent
in March, the unemployment rate climbed to 4.3 percent in October.
GERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
-2-
Inflation is rampant and will get worse. Due to the failures of
the Administration's policies, the cost of living is escalating. Prices
went up 3.3 percent in 1966, are now rising at about a 4 percent annual rate,
and some observers predict a 5 percent increase in 1968. The purchasing power
of the Nation's wage earners has declined and those who must live on a fixed
income are having more and more trouble making ends meet.
Repeatedly the Republican Coordinating Committee has warned that the
reckless fiscal policies of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration have been
leading the Nation toward fiscal and economic chaos.
Repeatedly, our specific remedies have been rejected.
On April 30, 1965, we recommended a nine-point program to prevent the
serious economic problems that were then fast approaching. Our proposals were
ignored by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration.
On March 28, 1966, we warned of increasing inflation and recommended a
thirteen-point program to stabilize the value of the dollar. Our pleas fell
upon deaf Administration ears.
For the fiscal year 1967, the President estimated a budget deficit of
$1.8 billion: the actual deficit was $9.9 billion even after much fiscal hocus
pocus by the Administration to improve its appearance.
For the fiscal year 1968, the Administration proposed a budget deficit
of $8.1 billion.
We challenged that figure on April 3, 1967, and predicted "an actual
deficit in 1968 of from $25 to $30 billion or more." We repeated our recommenda-
tions to avoid a deficit of that magnitude.
On July 24, 1967, we reiterated our program to restore fiscal
responsibility to government. Again no action was taken by the Administration.
-3-
On November 17, 1967, the President created near panic in the world
financial markets by mentioning that the deficit might go as high as $35 billion.
The Democrats have consistently sponsored and encouraged vast rises in
Federal spending -- which has gone up 97 percent for non-defense purposes since
they took office in 1961. By July 1, 1968, the cumulative Democratic deficits
for its eight years of office will total over $60 billion.
Eight years of deficits and irresponsible spending have brought the
Nation to the brink of financial crisis.
Irresponsibility always exacts its price. Democratic irresponsibility
is now taxing Americans heavily through inflation and the Administration's
solution is to add to that burden a ten percent surtax and to raise the possibility
of wage and price controls.
We call for new fiscal policies for the government of the United States
-- policies that will put an end to chronic budget deficits and inflation by
eliminating waste in public spending and by establishing a rational order of
priorities among Federal programs.
Credibility and confidence must be restored to this Nation's economic
affairs.
#
#
#
Approved by the
Republican Coordinating Committee
Washington, D. C. December 11, 1967
LET'S STOP CREATING FINANCIAL CHAOS
The United States is at the brink of a fiscal crisis, the full
dimensions of which are not yet clear. International confidence in the dollar
is being severely tested. Our dwindling gold supply continues to flow out of
the country. Inflation is a grim reality. Interest rates are higher than
during last year's serious "credit crunch." They are the highest in some
fifty years, for government, for business, for the home builder and the home
buyer.
In short, the powerful United States economy has been undermined and
weakened by an Administration whose fiscal policies are marked by wild extrava-
gance on the one hand, and by delay, expediency and cover-up on the other.
Our gold supply of $12.4 billion is the lowest since 1937 -- down
from $19.4 billion at the end of 1960. More gold is being shipped out of
our country in the wake of the 14.3 percent devaluation of the pound and the
subsequent challenge to the dollar. Potential foreign claims against our
remaining gold supply have risen to over $30 billion. And these claims will
continue to increase as our balance of payments deficit this year will soar
more than 50 percent higher than in 1966. We deplore that the Johnson Administra-
tion may soon find it necessary to request removal of the remaining gold backing
behind our currency, now 25 percent, thus turning it wholly into "paper money."
In spite of the Administration's boast of unrivaled prosperity,
unemployment among America's workers is increasing. From a low of 3.6 percent
in March, the unemployment rate climbed to 4.3 percent in October.
-2-
Inflation is rampant and will get worse. Due to the failures of
the Administration's policies, the cost of living is escalating. Prices
went up 3.3 percent in 1966, are now rising at about a 4 percent annual rate,
and some observers predict a 5 percent increase in 1968. The purchasing power
of the Nation's wage earners has declined and those who must live on a fixed
income are having more and more trouble making ends meet.
Repeatedly the Republican Coordinating Committee has warned that the
reckless fiscal policies of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration have been
leading the Nation toward fiscal and economic chaos.
Repeatedly, our specific remedies have been rejected.
On April 30, 1965, we recommended a nine-point program to prevent the
serious economic problems that were then fast approaching. Our proposals were
ignored by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration.
On March 28, 1966, we warned of increasing inflation and recommended a
thirteen-point program to stabilize the value of the dollar. Our pleas fell
upon deaf Administration ears.
For the fiscal year 1967, the President estimated a budget deficit of
$1.8 billion: the actual deficit was $9.9 billion even after much fiscal hocus
pocus by the Administration to improve its appearance.
For the fiscal year 1968, the Administration proposed a budget deficit
of $8.1 billion.
We challenged that figure on April 3, 1967, and predicted "an actual
deficit in 1968 of from $25 to $30 billion or more." " We repeated our recommenda-
tions to avoid a deficit of that magnitude.
On July 24, 1967, we reiterated our program to restore fiscal
responsibility to government. Again no action was taken by the Administration.
-3-
On November 17, 1967, the President created near panic in the world
financial markets by mentioning that the deficit might go as high as $35 billion.
The Democrats have consistently sponsored and encouraged vast rises in
Federal spending -- which has gone up 97 percent for non-defense purposes since
they took office in 1961. By July 1, 1968, the cumulative Democratic deficits
for its eight years of office will total over $60 billion.
Eight years of deficits and irresponsible spending have brought the
Nation to the brink of financial crisis.
Irresponsibility always exacts its price. Democratic irresponsibility
is now taxing Americans heavily through inflation and the Administration's
solution is to add to that burden a ten percent surtax and to raise the possibility
of wage and price controls.
We call for new fiscal policies for the government of the United States
-- policies that will put an end to chronic budget deficits and inflation by
eliminating waste in public spending and by establishing a rational order of
priorities among Federal programs.
Credibility and confidence must be restored to this Nation's economic
affairs.
#
#
#