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
12209383
label
Fifth District Weekly Radio Reports, June-September 1967
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
12209383
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Fifth District Weekly Radio Reports, June-September 1967
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Weekly Radio Reports
subjects
Antimissile missiles
Crime
Economics
Education
Federal aid
Government reorganization
Labor disputes
Legislation
Middle East conflicts
Poverty programs
Railroads
Social security
Soldiers
Taxation
Urban policy
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
12209383
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1967-05-31
month
5
year
1967
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-02-01
month
2
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
976cb6c060d03afe
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D35, folder "Fifth District Weekly Radio
Reports, June-September 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Digitized from Box D35 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3, D. C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 20
June 5, 1967
EAST-WEST TRADE--TIME ENOUGH LATER
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
There was a time, and not so long ago, when trading with the enemy in time of
war was considered an act of treason. Only a traitor gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
Only a traitor had easy access to an enemy country and sold him the goods and materials
that he needed to strengthen his economy.
Now, admittedly, we haven't formally declared war in Vietnam--but we are in
a war in that faraway country just as much as we were in Korea or in Europe in World Wars
One and Two. And it's about time we faced up to that fact.
We are told that in the interests of world peace we must build trade-bridges
between East and the West. "Building bridges" has become a kind of political slogan. It
certainly has a pleasanter sound than the phrase "trading with the enemy." It gives a kind
of legitimacy to an action that profits the enemy more than it does US.
But is this the time to build bridges to the Communist world?
Let's look at some hard facts of life--namely, the heartbreaking tabulation of
our losses in Vietnam. To date, more than 10,500 American soldiers have been killed there
and another 64,000 wounded. And the weapons used by the Viet Cong to inflict these
losses--where did they come from? Most are
stamped, "Made in Russia." Russian
guns, Russian bullets, Russian surface-to-air missiles and Russian MIGs.
So far in this conflict, our airmen have shot down some 70 Russian-built MIGs.
It is estimated that well over 300 MIGs are available for replacements. Our military men
report that some 2,500 Russian-built missiles have been fired at our planes. Tens of
thousands of Russian-built and Red Chinese-built rifles and mortars have been found by our
troops in Viet Cong supply dumps.
Yet, we are asked to increase our trade with the same Communists who are
supplying the Viet Cong with weapons to kill American boys. As Senator Everett Dirlsen
FORD LIBRARY
so eloquently asked the other day--and I quote--"Is "Is trade so sweet and profits so desirable
as to be purchased at the price we now pay in death and agony?"
-more-
-2-
Without doubt, the volume of trade we are able to generate with the Communist
world is a pittance compared with our gross national product. There will be time enough
later, Ibelieve, after the Vietnam conflict has ended and the Middle East has simmered
down, to talk about "building bridges."
Surely, it makes more sense to leave the bridge-building to the Russians who need
trade with US more than we need it with them. Trade can be an instrument for world peace,
of course--but only when it is applied in the hard-nosed manner of the old Yankee traders
who insisted on fair return for their barter. There's no sensible reason to approach trade
with the Communists in the soft-headed hope that it will somehow convince them to be nice
guys.
We have too long talked with dreamy eyes of building "bridges to peace" while the
Reds put on pressure all around the world--in the Sea of Japan, along the 38th parallel in
Korea, in Hong Kong, in Cuba and South America--and now in the Middle East.
We have spread ourselves so thin we are in grave danger. It is not impossible
that we may soon find ourselves involved in some or all these scattered places. Ye.f, we
plunge on in a frenzied rush to extend bridges of trade with those who are contributing to
these pressures and problems.
Let the Soviet Union and East European Communist governments first convince US
that they truly seek peac in Vietnam and the Middle East and elsewhere. Until then, we
should refuse to be a party to any financial deals in which the main advantage is with them.
This is Congressman
reporting from Washington.
(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio.
For additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts, contact the
Committee's Public Relations Office.)
###
GERALD FORD LIDEARY
SCRIPT TAPE-RECORIED JUNE 7, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
In the past few days, the war in the Mideast has
almost totally eclipsed all other business in the Nation's capital.
Other congressional leaders and I have been deliberately restrained in our
comments on the Mideast situation. Our view has been that nothing should be said
that might in any way upset any moves being made within the United Nations or
outside it to restore peace to the Arab-Israeli world.
Members of the House Republican Policy Committee met last Tuesday afternoon
to discuss the matter with top Republican members of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee who had been regularly briefed on the Mideast situation by
State Department officials. We
agreed that the committee should
issue no
statement of any kind.
That night the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution urging
an immediate cease-fire in the Mideast, an unconditional ease-fire with no
reference to troop withdrawals. This was extremely significant because it was
a
concession on the part of the Soviet Union, which had backed
the
Arab nations against Israel. This type of cease-fire was exactly the
best
kind of arrangement I espoused as the UN move toward settlement of the
Mideast conflict.
Last Wednesday morning I and other congressional
leaders met with
the President at the White House to learn what the situation was as of that
moment. It was the first time the President had called in the leaders of both
to discuss several other matters 7 national concern
parties to discuss the Mideast crisis with us.
At least two lessons emerge for us from the Mideast
crisis.
In
future,
no UN official can be permitted to withdraw a UN peacekeeping force from a trouble
spot
without insisting on consultation with the UN Security Council and
General Assembly. The other lesson is that firmness and the honoring of
international pledges is the only way to prevent a shooting war. The blockade of
the Gulf of Aquaba was an act of aggression by Egypt. When the United States and
other maritime nations failed to lift that blockade by joint action, a shooting
war between Israel and the Arab states became inevitable.
The Mideast crisis overshadowed legislative action in Congress last week, yet
that action was important.
House Republicans sought to block an Administration move to raise the national
debt limit by $29 billion--the largest raise in the debt ceiling sino World War
2.
The reason for our action was simple--to focus attention on
continued
-2-
excessive spending on non-essentials by an Administration
which also is spending $2 billion a month on the war in Vietnam.
Republicans also wished to remind the Nation that the Administration has
consistently underestimated the cost of the Vietnam War so the true
financial condition of the federal government would be obscured from public
scrutiny and criticism.
With both non-defense and Vietnam spending rising rapidly, Administration
have found
officials
themselves forced to admit the possibility
of
a $24 billion federaldeficit in the fiscal year beginning July 1.
some
Republicans are trying to holders the line on domestic spending programs
and are trying to keep others from expanding as fast as the Administration
would like. The President's response has been to accuse House Republicans of
trying to "cut those programs." I will let you judge the fairness of that statement.
The American people may find
themselves faced with an income tax increase
and a new round of inflation before the end of this year
as a result of excessive federal spending.
The
Congress has a duty and an obligation to reduce the Administration's
spending requests and try to avoid a tax increase.
This
is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I'll be talking with you again next week over this same station.
BERALD LIBRETY FORD
SCRIPT TAPE*RECORIED JUNE 14, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
The 90th Congress is--to some degree, at least--reflecting the mood of
the electorate which last November increased Republican strength in the U.S. House
of Representatives by 47 seats.
There is an economy spirit in the House.
Just how strong it
is I cannot yet say. But there definitely is an awareness that the people
want
a hold-down on non-essential federal spending.
I think it is fair to say that the added Republican strength has created the
economy spirit in the House, the awareness of a need for spending cuts.
This brings me to a story which I think has not yet been told about what's
happening in Congress this year.
The House has made some sizable cuts in the President's budget for fiscal 1968.
Most
of the cuts
have taken place
initially in the House Appropriations Committee-and we can only hope that these cuts
will survive Senate action to a great degree.
stem
The reductions made in the House Appropriations Committee
from
greater
Republican
influence on that
committee
Where there were 34 Democrats and 16 Republicans
on the House Appropriations Committee in the wild-spending 89th Congress, there
now are 30 Democrats and 21 Republicans on the group. This
change is due to
the fact that Republicens now hold 47 more seats in the House than we did in the last
Congress.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman George Mahon, Texas Democrat who is
a longtime friend of mine, estimates the cuts made by his committee to date at $3 billion.
This includes House action on the $70.3 billion defense
appropriation bill, which included $20.3 billion for the Vietnam War. Unfortunately
for all of us, that $20 billion for the Vietnam fighting probably
will fall about $5 billion short.
So even though Mr. Mahon puts his committee's cuts at, $3 billion on paper--and
there are five
money bills still to be handled by the House--the country continues
(and threat Jan income tax increase,
in deep financial trouble We need help from the White House to make meaningful
cuts in non-essential spending--and we need that help now. That is
why I am pre ssuring the House to send the President's fiscal 1968 budget back to him with
a request that he cut non-essential
expenditures wherever possible.
is to the credit of the House that an effort is being made there
behalf of the taxpayer.
LIBRARY "y
It is also to the credit of the House that the will of the people is obging
reflected in other changes.
-2-
There is, I believe, a swing in the House away from federal controls
and
toward
a greater say for the states and local communities in
federal programs.
complete
While the House would not accept the Republican substitute nevertheless for the
Administration's Elementary-Secondary Education Act,
the House adopted
changes which give the States control of federal funds for supplemental, experimental
education centers and for the improvement of State Departments of Education.
More recently Republicans and Democrats in a House Education Subcommittee
joined hands to shift control over the National Teacher Corps to
State and local
authorities. If this change wins approval in final action by the House and
Senate,
the upshot will be that teachers will be recruited locally--not nationally--for the
Teacher
Corps and their training will be directed by the
state universities participating in the program. At present, both the recruitment
and training of these teachers is handled by the U.S. Office of, Education.
teachers
Republicans
believe
trained
specially for work in slum schoolsy But we don't want a Federal Teacher Corps controlled
and directed from Washington.
I believe the
economy spirit in the House and the trend toward greater state and
local control directly reflect the will
of the American people as expressed in the last election.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
SCRIPT TAPE-RECORDED JUNE 21, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
The big problems are still with us. They are problems which do not go
away. Congress must meet the challenge which these problems pose or admit to
evasion of responsibility.
One such problem--one which the U.S. House of Representatives failed to
face up to--is that of the continuing crisis in the railroad industry, the
continuing threat of a nationwide strike.
After the Senate had approved the President's bill to make the recommendations
of a railroad mediation board stick, the House took out the binding feature in
the legislation and voted only for a 90-day strike moratorium.
This didn't make much sense to me, because Congress previously had provided
for 47 days of strike delay which left railroad management and the shopcraft
unions far apart. The new 90-day moratorium appeared to be just another breather.
I felt that the rail labor dispute would be right back in Congress's lap after
the 90-day period.
I don't like compulsory arbitration any better than anyone else. There is
something basically repugnant about telling a man he has to work on terms laid
down for him by an outside party.
But the public interest also must be considered, and therefore better
machinery must be developed for the handling of national emergency strike situations.
That is why I think Congress should take the initiative to improve the
Taft-Hartley Act and our other labor laws and bring about a better way to deal
with national emergency labor disputes.
President Johnson promised in January, 1966, to take the lead on this matter.
He has failed to do so. Just a few days ago he indicated he is willing to let
Congress have a crack at it.
I welcome this move by the President. The Congress should get to work on
such legislation at once.
The President has suggested hearings before the House and Senate labor
committees. I believe it would be better if a joint House-Senate committee were
created to tackle this particular subject. This would produce some agreement
between both houses of Congress on this controversial issue from the start of the
legislative process--if, indeed, agreement is possible.
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
AAL
-2-
Of course, no action will come unless Democratic leaders in Congress take
the President at his word and get the ball rolling.
The Republican leadership in Congress can do no more than to urge that hear-
ings be scheduled and a study launched. This I have done for many months, without
results. It may be, of course, that the President's go-signal to Congress has come
because of Republican pressure.
This report to you would be incomplete without some mention of the Middle
East situation.
As regards the Middle East, the Soviet Union seems to have begun a great new
propaganda game aimed at convincing the world that Israel was the aggressor in
the six-day Mideast war. The Russians would have the world believe that the
2½ million Israelis are a constant threat to the 60 million Arabs in the Mideast.
There will only be peace in the Mideast when the Arab states admit that
Israel has a right to exist. That peace must also be based on valid guarantees
of territorial integrity for all in the Mideast and peaceful passage of Israel
through the Suez Canal and the Strait of Tiran.
I am greatly troubled because it appears that the Soviet Union is working
against peace in the Mideast--just as she acted to provoke war before the
fighting broke out on June 5.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I'll be talking with you again next week over this same station.
####
BERALD LIDRARY TORD
SCRIPT TAPE-RECORDED JUNK 21, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USR by FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
The big problems are still with us. They are problems which do not go
away. Congress must meet the challenge which these problems pose or admit to
evasion of responsibility.
One such problem--one which the U.S. House of Representatives failed to
face up to--is that of the continuing crisis in the railroad industry, the
continuing threat of a nationwide strike.
After the Senate had approved the President's bill to make the recommendations
of a railroad mediation board stick, the House took out the binding feature in
the legislation and voted only for a 90-day strike moratorium.
This didn't make much sense to me, because Congress previously had provided
for 47 days of strike delay which left railroad management and the shoperaft
unions far apart. The new 90-day moratorium appeared to be just another breather.
I felt that the rail labor dispute would be right back in Congress's lap after
the 90-day period.
I don't like compulsory arbitration any better than anyone else. There is
something basically repugnant about selling a man he has to work on terms laid
down for him by an outside party.
But the public interest also must be considered, and therefore better
machinery must be developed for the handling of national emergency strike situations.
That is why I think Congress should take the initiative to improve the
Taft-Martley Act and our other labor laws and bring about a better way to deal
with national emergency labor disputes.
President Johnson promised in January, 1966, to take the lead on this matter.
Ne has failed to do so. Just a few days ago he indicated he is willing to let
Congress have a crack at it.
I welcome this move by the President. The Congress should get to work on
such legislation at once.
The President has suggested hearings before the House and Senate labor
committees. I believe it would be better if a joint House-Senate committee were
created to tackle this particular subject. This would produce some agreement
between both houses of Congress on this controversial issue from the start of the
legislative process--if, indeed, agreement is possible.
-2-
OF course, no action will come unless Demoeratic leaders in Congress take
the President at his word and get the ball rolling.
The Republican leadership in Congress can do no more than to urge that hear-
ings be scheduled and a study launched. This I have done for many months, without
results. It may be, of course, that the President's ge-signal to Congress has come
because of Republican pressure.
This report to you would be incomplete without some mention of the Middle
East situation.
As regards the Middle East, the Soviet Union seems to have begun a great new
propaganda game aimed at convincing the world that Israel was the aggressor in
the six-day Mideast war. The Russians would have the world believe that the
24 million Isreelis are a constant threat to the 60 million Arabs in the Mideast.
There will only be peace in the Mideast when the Arab states admit that
Israel has a right to exist. That peace must also be based on valid guarantees
of territerial integrity for all in the Mideast and peaceful passage of Israel
through the Suez Canal and the Strait of Tiran.
I am greatly troubled because it appears that the Soveet Union is working
against peace in the Mideast--just as she acted to provoke war before the
fighting broke out on June 5.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I'll be talking with you again next week over this same station.
####
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
RADIO SCRIPT RECORDED JUNE 28, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE OVER FIFTH DISTRICT STATIONS
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
The big news in the Nation's capital last week was taxes--regardless of what
was happening on the floor of both houses of Congress.
The news was taxes because suddenly everything that those of us who believe
in economy in government have been warning about began to surface. All of the
pieces began falling into place--and the sum total appeared to be a big rise in
every working American's tax bill.
Here is the evidence that you should be prepared for an increase not only
in your income tax but also in Social Security tax:
The President's chief economic adviser, Gardner Ackley, told Congress there
is "no escape" from an income tax rise this year. I might add that the talk within
the Johnson Administration is that the President will ask Congress to approve as
much as a 10 per cent income tax surcharge--not merely the six per cent he talked
about last January.
House Ways and Means Chairman Wilbur Mills, who heads the committee which
writes the Nation's tax bills, said rising hospital costs may force an increase
in payroll taxes to pay for the Medicare program. In addition, the Ways and Means
Committee was reported close to agreement on a 13 per cent minimum increase in
Social Security benefits. That, in turn, will mean an increase in payroll taxes.
The Johnson Administration also reported a third tax development. This had
to do with the automobile excise tax--and Administration plans to hold it right
where it is in stead of letting it drop next April as scheduled. You can't really
call that a tax increase--but it's another example of what happens when the federal
government insists on an extravagantly high level of non-essential spending
BERAL and 4' FORD LIBRARY
then grabs every tax dollar it can
get to help pay for it.
-
My position in these matters is well known. I have consistently held that
the Administration and the Congress should work together to cut back and hold down
non-essential federal spending to a point where an income tax increase could be
avoided. The President and his Administration are refusing to cooperate in this
regard. They take the attitude that an income tax increase is inevitable. If
this proves true, it will only be because the Administration insists on a high
level of non-essential domestic spending during a time when this Nation is at war.
As for Social Security, of course benefits must be increased. Our elderly
have been grievously hurt by inflation--the price upsurge of 1966 which they still
feel. We could have provided an 8 per cent increase in benefits early this year--
retroactive to Jan. 1--without an increase in payroll taxes. With benefits greater
than 8 per cent, an increase in payroll taxes is inevitable. We must keep the
Social Security program on a sound basis. It therefore follows, too, that payroll
taxes will have to be further increased if rising hospital costs connected with the
Medicare Program demand it.
But let the record be clear that the driving force behind all of the predicted
increases in your federal taxes is excessive federal spending. This is the primary
cause of cheap money, rising prices and a constantly escalating cost of living.
This is not my definition of prosperity.
I have always felt that the way to move this country ahead is to achieve steady
growth in the economy and to generate more jobs while maintaining a sound dollar and
relative stability in prices. That's the only way we can make a net gain and really
get ahead.
Those of us in the Congress who are economy-minded are working constantly to
bring federal spending under control and to restore conditions of sound economic
growth in this country. Unfortunately, there are not enough of us.
GERALD
If I had my way, the mix of our federal fiscal and monetary policies would be
such that we would be moving toward a reduction in federal income tax, not an
increase.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
####
ALD GET The FORD LIBRARY
SCRIPT RECORDED JUNE 29, FOR USE WEEKEND OF JULY 8-9 OVER 5TH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
It is the nature of news reporting that controversy makes news. This is
especially true in politics and government. Little attention is paid to quiet
agreements between the two major political parties, worked out in the committees
of Congress, even though a major piece of legislation is affected.
It was just such an agreement which now has made it possible for a program
of great promise--the Teacher Corps--to move forward with vigor and the potential
for producing big educational dividends in urban and rural slum schools.
The agreement was important because it eliminated Federal control over the
Teacher Corps and made it a locally-oriented program. Republicans felt this was
necessary to give the Nation a healthy Teacher Corps program preserving the concept
of local control of schools.
The result of the agreement was sharply revised legislation which turns
recruitment, selection and training of Teacher Corpsmen over to local schools and
colleges. This is as it should be.
The agreement also meant that the Teacher Corps program was extended for three
years under authorizing legislation which could bring as many as 9,000 trainees a
year into the Teacher Corps by 1970.
I voted for the bill because in its new form the Teacher Corps is a program
that America needs. House approval of the bill by a vote of 311 to 88 meant that
the Teacher Corps had received bipartisan endorsement. And I was happy to see the
Senate accept the legislation exactly in the form that the House had passed it.
This was bipartisanship at its best. The Teacher Corps bill was shaped and
passed in a spirit of compromise. In my view, the program was altered for the
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
better--and this reflected the changed complexion of the Congress.
There is good reason to believe that in time the Teacher Corps will help
change America for the better, because the program gives special teacher aid to
schools which badly need such help. It brings into those schools volunteers who
teach or assist in teaching while studying at nearby colleages and universities. A
program of this kind should help to strengthen America.
The congressional blessing given the Teacher Corps is only one recent example
of bipartisanship in the Congress--only one instance of Republicans working with
Democrats to improve the functioning of our society.
Another instance is bipartisan agreement in a House elections subcommittee on
a new election reform bill co-sponsored by Rep. Charles E. Goodell, Republican of
New York, and Rep. Robert T. Ashmore, Democrat of South Carolina.
The subcommittee rejected President Johnson's elections bill, which called for
spending tens of millions of dollars out of the Federal Treasury on presidential
election campaigns.
Instead the subcommittee approved a bill which Chairman Ashmore said was
stronger in key respects than the President's.
Aimed at clean elections, the subcommittee bill would abolish legal limits on
campaign expenditures but tighten reporting requirements on contributions. The
thought here is that candidates often set up a multitude of committees so that the
limit on campaign spending doesn't mean a thing. On the other hand, full disclosure
of campaign contributions will serve as a check on campaign expenditures. The bill
would apply to all those seeking Federal elective office, challengers and incumbents
alike. It would not=apply to candidates for state and local office.
ALD FORD LIBRAR
Among other points, the bill would forbid the use of corporate funds or union dues
-3-
or assessments for political activities. At present, it is only the use of such
funds for direct campaign contributions which is forbidden.
If bipartisan support can continue for such legislation as it moves through
Congress, America will benefit.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington. I'll
be talking with you again next week over this same station.
####
GERALD FORD
SCRIPT RECORDED JULY 11, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
The big topics as the House of Representatives resumed work after
a
Fourth of July recess were the Vietnam War, taxes and anti-riot legislation.
While the Administration reviewed the requests of our military commanders
for more men in Vietnam, eight imagimative Republican members of the House put
forward an ingenious proposal for de-escalating the war.
The plan for scaling down the fighting called for a reduction of United
States bombing in North Vietnam by stages--with the initial small reduction to be
followed up only if the enemy reciprocated with a reduction in his own military
or terroristic activity.
House Democratic Leader Carl Albert immediately attacked the proposal on the
floor of the House and went to
great
pains to
spell out every
move that the Administration has made in the past to reduce the level of Vietnam
fighting.
I was surprised by the vehemence of Mr. Albert's attack. It seemed to me that
the eight
Republicans who formulated the Vietnam de-escalation plan deserved
applause for their efforts. While there is no way of knowing whether the plan would
work, it appeared to have merit. The proposal certainly deserved better treatment
by the Johnson Administration than
outright dismissal. I felt the plan
should
have been c arefully considered by the Administration. It has definite possibilities,
and no possible avenue to an honorable peace in Vietnam should go
unexplored,
There is no good reason why we should not
attempt peace probes in Vietnam at the same time that we apply
military pressure
aimed at pushing North Vietnam to the peace table.
While the
Administration
rejected out of hand the de-escalation
proposal of the eight Republican House members, there was increasing talk in
Congress that the Administration will ask for an income tax increase very soon.
Administration officials have made it clear they will
call their
proposed income tax increase a war tax. What they don't talk about is that federal
non-defense understang spending has gone up 97 per cent sinde 1960, while defense
expenditures--including
$22 billion this fiscal year for Vietnam--have gone
up
68
per cent.
So don't let them tell you that the proposed increase in income taxes is
due entirely to the Vietnam War. The truth is that feder BORD
spending will more than double during this decade of the 1960s, regardless
happens in Vietnam.
GERAL
what
LIBRARY
That is why I am demanding that federal nondefense spending be cut back. I
-2-
don't want a bigger tax burden loaded on the b acks of the American taxpayer while
the federal governument keeps doling out federal dollars
at
a
fantasticm pace.
The strongest economy can't run a deficit forever.
Neither can the strongest country remain strong if
riots
rage in its cities.
That is why the House of Representatives--while anxious to
help eliminate the social evils that contribute to riots--also has
taken direct action against those who incibe riots.
A Nation torn within itself cannot long endure. The Congress must there fore
go from state to alate to
enact legislation to next restrain and punish those who incite others
1
to burn, loot and kill.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from W ashington.
I'll be speaking with you again next week over this same station.
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
SCRIPT RECORDED JULY 19, 1968, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS
[1967 ?]
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
The focus in the Nation's capital is slowly but steadily turning to the
tremendous problem of waste in the federal government--not necessarily the
deliberate squandering of taxpayer dollars but the waste that flows from dupli-
cation and inefficiency.
I have long been urging that the Congress take up arms against waste in
government, and this brings us to another problem. Whenever the Loyal Opposition
in Congress is creative in its proposals for problem-solving, the other side is
likely to steal the Opposition's best ideas.
We really don't mind, however, because the more support we muster for our
proposals the better the chances of meeting the challenges faced by this Nation.
That is why we applauded last week when Senator Abraham Ribicoff, Democrat of
Connecticut, enlisted in the War on Waste declared earlier by House Republicans.
Ribicoff's support is important because he is chairman of the Senate
Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization.
I am happy to report that Senator Ribicoff introduced a bill which would do
exactly what I proposed in my Republican State of the Union Message last January--
set up a presidential commission with the task of streamlining Federal programs
and agencies.
Senator Ribicoff made a speech in the Senate to stress the urgency of
congressional action to create the presidential commission. His remarks were very
similar to those made by me and a large group of House Republicans some days
An efficiency study of this kind, aimed at wiping out waste in the executive
LIBRARY &
-2-
branch of the Federal government, would take some time--perhaps 18 months or longer.
Meantime, the fiscal situation in Washington cries out for such a study.
More and more we read reports hinting that it is simply impossible to cut
federal spending in any meaningful way. I believe that we can make substantial
cutbacks and avoid an income tax increase--by a freeze on some spending already
scheduled, among other means. But there is no question that creation of a
presidential study commission is needed to bring federal spending under control--
to eliminate overlapping of government functions, duplication in certain federal
grant-in-aid programs, activities that are simply wasteful. While pinpointing
areas where Congress should act, the commission also could consider the possibility
of a systems management approach to operation of the Federal Government.
The commission would be modeled after two groups led in 1947 and 1953 by
the late President Herbert Hoover--groups whose work has been praised by Democrats
and Republicans alike. The new commission would include two members from each
House of Congress, two governors, two executive branch officials and six members
chosen from the public-at-large.
We must reorganize the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.
We must declare War on Waste--now.
((PAUSE))
There also is need, of course, to reorganize the Congress. The Senate has
passed a congressional reorganization bill, and this legislation is awaiting
action in the House Rules Committee. I am very anxious that the House get moving
on this legislation. There is no question that our congressional machinery needs
a major overhaul and not just an oil change.
-3-
But I would note with some pride that Congress can move quickly, when necessary.
A case in point is the speedy one-day approval by both House and Senate of
emergency legislation to end the crippling rail strike, which had partially
blocked the flow of arms to our fighting men in Vietnam. That congressional
action highlighted the fact that, creaky though the machinery may be, the Congress
can and will act quickly when the welfare or security of the Nation demands it.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I'll be talking with you again next week over this same station.
####
SCRIPT RECORDED JULY 19, 1968, FOR WEEKEND USE BY TOTAL DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
The focus in the Nation's capital is slowly but stendily turning to the
tremendous problem of waste in the federal government--not necessarily the
deliberate squandering of taxpayer dollars but the waste that flows from dupli-
cation and inefficiency.
I have long been urging that the Congress take up arms against waste in
government, and this brings us to another problem. Whenever the Loyal Opposition
in Congress is creative in its proposals for problem-selving, the other side is
libely to steal the Opposition's best ideas.
We really don't mind, however, because the more support we muster for our
proposals the better the chances of meeting the challenges faced by this Nation.
That is why we applauded last week when Senator Abraham Ribicoff, Democrat of
Connecticut, enlisted in the War on Waste declared earlier by House Republicans.
Ribicoff's support is important because he is chairman of the Senate
Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization.
I an happy to report that Senator Ribicoff introduced a bill which would do
exactly what I proposed in my Republican State of the Union Massage last January
set up a presidential commission with the task of streemlining Federal programs
and agencies.
Senator Ribicoff made a speech in the Senate to stress the urgency of
congressional action to create the presidential commission. His remakks were very
BRAR
similar to these made by me and a large group of House Republicans some days carlier.
An efficiency study of this kind, aimed at wiping out waste in the executive
-2-
branch of the Federal government, would take some time--perhaps 18 months or lenger.
Meantime, the fiscal situation in Washington cries out for such a study.
More and more we read reports hinting that it is simply impossible to cut
federal spending in any meaningful way. I believe that we can make substantial
cutbacks and avoid an income tax increase--by a freeze on some spending already
scheduled, among other means. But there is no question that creation of a
presidential study commission is needed to bring federal spending under control--
to eliminate overlapping of government functions, duplication in certain federal
grants-in-aid programs, activities that are gimply wasteful. While pinpointing
areas where Congress should act, the commission also could consider the possibility
of a systems management approach to operation of the Federal Government.
The commission wuld be modeled after two groups led in 1947 and 1953 by
the late President Merbert Noover-*groups whose work has been preised by Democrate
and Republicans alike. The new commission would include two members from each
House of Congress, two governers, two executive branch officials and six members
chosen from the public-at-large.
We must recoganize the Enecutive Branch of the Federal Government.
We must declare Mar on Weste--now.
....((PAUSE))....
There also is need, of course, to reorganise the Congress. The Senate has
passed a congressional reorganization bill, and this legislation is awaiting
action in the House Rules Committee. I am very anxious that the House get moving
on this legislation. There is no question that our congressional machinery needs
a major overhaul and not just an oil change.
GERALD LEBRAR
-3-
But I would note with some prède that Congress can move quickly, when necessary.
A case in point is the speedy one-day approval by both House and Senate of
emergency legislation to end the crippling rail strike, which had partially
blocked the flow of erms to our fighting men in Vietnam. That congressional
action highlighted the fact that, creaky though the machinery may be, the Congress
can andilivill act quickly when the welfare or security of the Nation demends it.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I'll be talking with you again next week over this same station.
###
GERALD FORD AR
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3. D.C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 28
August 7, 1967
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
Today, the self-respecting, taxpaying, decent, average American is a bewildered and
weary human being. He is war-weary, inflation-weary, tax-weary, riot-weary and crime-weary.
But amid all the black clouds there are some bright spots. For example, a bipartisan bill
was introduced in the House of Representatives the other day which will go far in helping some 23
million older Americans on Social Security meet rising living costs.
The legislation was worked out in the House Ways and Means Committee and provides a
general increase of 12.5 percent in benefits and a minimum increase of at least six dollars a month.
These increases will take effect two months after passage of the bill, which is expected in this
session of Congress. Here are some other highlights of the bill:
--Maximum benefits of 168 dollars eventually payable under present law would rise to 189
dollars.
--The amount a person may earn without having his Social Security benefits withheld would
be increased from 1,500 dollars annually to 1,680 dollars.
--For Social Security benefit purposes, the pay of a person in the armed forces would be
counted as 100 dollars a month more than actual earnings. Additional cost of paying benefits would
be met from general revenues.
--New Medicaid restrictions are provided to protect the system against the cost resulting
from State expansion of services to a large proportion of their populations.
-Restrictions and incentives to seek work are written in for some categories of welfare bene-
ficiaries.
--The amount of earnings which would be subject to tax and could be used in computation of
benefits would be increased from the present 6,600 dollars a year to 7,600 dollars, effective Jan.
I, 1968.
An increase in Social Security payments is, of course, essential for our older citizens on
fixed incomes. They are tragic victims of the inflation spiral. That is why the Congress must enact
GER
increases this session--and I, for one, intend to do what I can to see that this happens.
(more)
-2-
While this legislation has my support, I do want to point out what is often overlooked with
expansion of a program of this kind. That, of course, is the tax increase which goes hand in
hand with increased benefits.
Under the measure, the combined employer-employee payroll tax, now 8.8 percent, would
increase to 9.6 percent by 1971. This would increase by stages thereafter to 11.8 percent in 1987
and after. Of course, there always exists the possibility that some future Congress would again
raise the benefits--and the taxes-thereby increasing these percentages even more.
Nonetheless, the bipartisan bill which now has been introduced will go a long way in
improving the financial situation of our senior citizens. I wholeheartedly endorse it.
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio. For
additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts, contact the Committee's
Public Relations Office.)
###
SCRIPT RECORDED AUGUST 9, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BYX FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
In government there is a constant need for reappraisal, for putting first
things first. This has not been happening in Washington in the Executive Branch
of the Government and so Congress has been Survenizing moved ***** into this matter
C
of priorities.
The need for a system of national priorities was thrown into sharp focus when
the riots hit in Grand Rapids and other large cities from
coast to coast, and when President Johnson suntziongrexexx said he plans to
XMH send 45,000 more xx American ground troops to South Vietnam and wants to improsexx
mimpose an income tax increase on the American people.
It can fairly be said that the President did not xxgx act decisively in the face
of the rioting. So fangen the House of Representatives, with Republicans taking the
initiative, THESX re-shaped the Administration's K anti-crime bill to place special
emphasis on training MX local police to cope with riots and situations that might lead
to riots.
We also altered the legislation to give the states control over expenditure of the
anti-crime funds instead of twaring placing that power in the hands of the Attorney
General of the United States.
Ibelieve the result was a much-improved bill which will help local law enforcement
bodies fight not only criminalsmx who operate continuously but those who seize
upon a minor incident as an excuse for wholesale looting
and rioting.
The fight against crime is one of our top printix priorities. The House of
Representatives is treating it as such.
I also sought last week to trigger a general debate in the Congress on the very
highest of our national priorities--an effort to end the Vietnam War quickly amix and
honorably.
To that end I brought before the House completely reliable information on the extent
to which the Administration has failed to make use of our air superiority in Vietnam while
feeding more and more of our young men into the Vietnamese meat grinder on the ground.
I have been troubled for many months over the way t he war is going, the fact that
we can see no light at the end of the tunnel, the fact that our airmen have been
restricted as to the millitary targets they can hit while our KBKX ground troops
being subjected to firepower from the most sophisticated weapons the Wx Soviet Union
LIBRARY
can supply to the enemy.
GERA
-2-
When I finally obtained authoritative figures ENX showing that our pilots are
permitted to hit only a fraction of the legitimate military targets--not civilian, but
military targets-in Vietnam, I went before the House of Representatives to demand a
change in policy.
What I said in effect was that I am opposed to sending even one more American
youth to Vietnam while the President refuses to use our conventional air power to
destroy the enemsytex enemy's ability to wage war-refuses to use our conventional
air power to force the enemy to the peace table.
The President has called his 10 per cent income tax smetx surcharge a war tax.
Ibelieve every member of Congress would willingly vote for any level
of taxes if this would bring the Vietnam War to an early and honorable end. But
there is every reason to question whether existing Administration policy would
produce that result.
I do not believe the grave challenges we face at home can be met simply by
pouring out more and more money, and neither do I believe that the graver challenge
in SEN Vietnam can be met merely by pouring in more and more men and by these brave
men pouring out more and more blood.
This is a time for reappraisal. This is a time for taking a hard look
at our conduct of the war,Must asking ourselves what's wrong and then setting it
right. This is a time for hard decisions and a setting of national priorities.
This is a time for decision for all of us--those of us in Congress and all of the
American people. We in Congre SS are trying to point the way.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington. I'll
be talking with you again nextweek over this same station.
GERALD FORD
8'16 evelty TUO Jade grivode XMX compli vision I nert
Jad easilivio quatifie stamitiye! odd 20 moldoant S VINO Itd of
E basereb of 10 secoil att smled know I menselV quatilin
at egnado
étom eno neve galbnes of besoqqu as I Jarid age at bise I
OF Tawoq The "ECO can of secuter add elidw sental of
TWO 080 of eyew of willids 8' e'ymene odd with
older 99691 all of grade até of "Iswoo Tis
NOW S xtexa xst taxe 190 Of ald beffso and Institute edT
lovel VIS Tol edov vigaifitw bluow seergno0 to Todan yrave evoiledI
Ju8 .bas e.[dstoned has vires xint as of nW odt gaind bloow eids 11 texas to
bloow votice gnissixe notessep 03 views of stedt
dult sombong
vd vignie their od aso and is soal SW every all evelled for où I
synalfado TOVATS edj that evelled I où Teddion bus 6'10AT birth stor dup
event seed# Vd bas from 6'20" bris at Vd Vister for ed neo monterV nut ni
boold bne 0'20" two gaiwoq nom
%00 £ basd 201 and 8 at sid?
TOT
suit
$
at
aid?
#1 gaissee mont bus улоты a'Jodw galses add 20 Joubnoo THO to
settinging Isnoljen 10 goittee S bite emolatoeb busd 701 exit 8 at eid?
,tigis
525,000
Is bas ni as to 10 Us TOT notatoob 701 enti a al and
45000
480000
YSW with dalog of gniyzi ene at sW efqueq motions
TIT
mott DOV of gattrogor drog visit TWOY at aid?
nottata entse aid "ISVO alage BOY date paixist ed
1444
SCRIPT RECORDED AUGUST 16, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
It is the duty of a congressman to reflect the will of the people and to
help shape national policy in the best interest of all Americans.
In that light, I recently revealed that the Johnson Administration has kept
our airmen under such tight restrictions that only about 30 per cent of the more than
200 significant military targets in North Vietnam have been attacked by our bombers.
My purpose in disclosing this information was to save lives--the lives of
young Americans fighting in South Vietnam. It is the simplest logic to assume that
if we destroy the enemy's ability to wage war or even reduce it drastically he cannot
go on killing American soldiers and marines at the horrible pace we have been witnessing.
I am not talking about escalating the waro I am opposed to sending any more
ground forces to South Vietnam. I have consistently opposed letting ourselves get
bogged down in a big land war in Southeast Asia. I am not talking about more men or
more bombs. What I am talking about is dropping the bombs where they will really hurt
the enemy's ability to kill American fighting men.
I want to save the lives of Americans in Vietnam and to force the enemy to
the bargaining table. There is no call in this proposal for unconditional surrender.
But somehow we have to make Ho Chi Minh want to make peace, and I think this is the
way.
It is unfortunate that we did not make effective use of our great conventional
air power long before this--at the very beginning of our active participation in the
Vietnam War. Had we done so, the war might well have ended before this time. I agree
with Former President Eisenhower that if you find yourself in a war you should strike
the enemy fast and hard--not employ a strategy of gradualism. There is some evidence
that President Johnson now is really putting the squeeze on North Vietnam. I would
hope that he is also embarked on a renewed search for roads to negotiation and peace.
And I hope that the seeming shift in air war policy is not too late,
In my call for strikes at more meaningful military targets in North Vietnam I
apparently touched a very responsive chord among the American papple. My mail and
telegrams have been running 10 to 1 in favor of the course I advocated.
le tter writer from Michigan says: "McNamara may be against this, but be sure
90 per cents of tax-paying people are for using our air power and feel it would end
this mess in a hurry. Keep up this drive. We need it.
From Pennsylvania comes this message: "Please continue your efforts to
FORD
uncover the failures in our Vietnam war effort. We find it hard to believe **** the
U.S. can do so poorly that we are despised by the world."
GERALD
-2-
A resident of the District of Columbia writes: "Your comments and position
on the Vietnam situation are in my opinion absolutely sound and correct. Do
everything in your power to force the hand of the Executive to maximize the proper
use of military equipment before one additional serviceman is shipped to that country."
A professor writes from New York: "We are disgusted with the errors and
halfway measures that have caused unnecessary loss of American lives. Win or get
out of Vietnam."
A Texan has this to say: "Thank goodness somebody in Congress has decided to
speak out. I have a son who spent 20 months in and out of the war zone (in Vietnam)
so I've given a great deal of thought to this matter. Get in, get it over with and
get out, fast."
A New York parent with three sons in the Marines wrote this: "Please be
assured this is no casual support. We have three in the U.S. Marine Corps. One
son was killed leading his platoon in Vietnam. I hope your point of view prevails."
Nearly all of the letters I have received on my recent Vietnam speech were
favorable. Only a few were not. I feel encouraged that we may be able to clean up
the mess in Vietnam and bring the war to an early and honorable conclusion.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington. I'll
be talking with you again next week over this same station.
####
SCRIPT TAPE-RECORDED AUGUST 23, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO
STATIONS
55%
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
The Congress is moving to help the aged of the Nation, particularly
11,
with fixed incomes who have been and are being hurt by the steady climb in the
cost of living. I have joined whole-heartedly in this effort. I deeply regret
that the action is so long overdue.
The House has passed a bill to increase Social Security payments by 12½
per cent, and the Senate now is working on the legislation. The House in the
same bill took another action which is also belated--to reduce welfare rolls by
trying to make taxpayers out of tax-eaters.
As I recently warned on this program, Social Security taxes will go up to
pay for the 12½ per cent increase in retirement benefits. I voted for the bill
which recently passed the House but earlier I repeatedly urged a Social Security
benefits increase effective last January--an increase of 8 per cent in benefits
which would have involved no increase in payroll taxes. My proposal also called
for raising Social Security benefits every time the cost of living went up by
at least 3 per cent.
Under the Social Security bill passed by the House, payroll taxes will
jump beginning next Jan. 1 for everybody with a gross income of more than $6,600
a year. In this time of so-called "cheap" dollars, the bulk of our people will
be affected by the payroll tax increase.
The increase in benefits will become payable the second month after the bill
completes its journey through the Congress. In other words, if the legislation
GERALD LIBRARY
-2-
is signed into law in September the increase will show up in the November social
security checks.
This extra money is badly needed by Social Security pensioners. Last year
the cost of living went up a full 3.3 per cent. At the same time, Social Security
benefits fell seven percentage points behind the consumer price index when
figured against the last time Congress raised the benefits. In the first six
months of this year, consumer prices rose an additional 1.3 per cent. This
added to the squeeze on consumers, especially the aged who live on pensions.
The steadily rising cost of living, sharply climbing Medicare costs and the
constant cheapening of our currency are combining to push up payroll taxes. Not
only will the Social Security tax be levied on the first $7,600 of gross income
starting in January--instead of the present $6,600--but rates are scheduled to
climb in future years. When you and your employer are now paying a Social Security
tax of 4.4 per cent each, the rate will go to 4.8 per cent each in 1969, 5.2
per cent in 1971 and 5.6 per cent in 1973. If benefits are increased in the
meantime, Social Security taxes likely will have to be raised correspondingly.
The House wrote into the Social Security bill some provisions aimed at
getting people off public welfare and putting them to work. I heartily applaud
this action. The changes are primarily directed at women who have illegitimate
children and collect Government checks to pay for this way of life. In other
words, the taxpayers are supporting illegitimacy and immorality.
To try to break up this pattern, the House voted to require the states to
set up work-training programs for such mothers, require the mothers to take training
GERALD R. LIBRAR FORD
-3-
and accept appropriate jobs or lose their aid-to-dependent-children benefits,
and to provide day care services for the young children whose mothers go to
work.
The House is not being inhuman in seeking these welfare changes. The House
is not being harsh, as charged by the Administration. We are simply trying to
break the welfare cycle which finds the third generation of such people drawing
welfare checks.
The upward trend in welfare must be reversed. We now see 4½ per cent of all
the children in America on welfare, and this will soon rise to 10 per cent unless
we do something about it.
Federal welfare costs--the billy/you as a taxpayer are footing--stand at
$4.5 billion now and winh rise to $6.7 billion in four years under present law.
The number of persons receiving dependent children's assistance has doubled in
the past 10 years until it now totals five million.
This trend in public welfare must be stopped, and the time to stop it is
now.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I'll be talking with you again next week over this same station.
####
FORD LIBRARY
SCRIPT TAPE-RECORDED AUGUST 23, 1967, FOR NEEKEND USE by FIFTH DISTRIBT RADIO
STATIONS
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
The Congress is moving to help the aged of the Nation, particularly those
with fixed incomes who have been and are being hurt by the steady climb in the
cost of living. I have joined whole-heartedly in this effort. I desply regret
that the action is so long overdue.
The House has passed a bill to increase Social Security payments by 124
per cent, and the Senste now is working on the legislation. The House in the
same bill took another action which is also belated--to reduce welfare rolls by
trying to make texpayers out of tax-asters.
As I recently warned on this program, Social Security taxes will go up to
pay for the 124 per cent increase in retirement benefits. I voted for the bill
which recently passed the House but earlier I repeatedly urged a Social Security
benefits increase effective last January--an increase of 8 per cent in benefits
which would have involved no increase in payroll taxes. My proposal also called
for raising Social Security benefits every time the cost of living went up by
at least 3 per cent.s
Under the Social Security bill passed by the House, payroll taxes will
jump beginning next Jan. 1 for everybody with a gross income of more than $6,600
a year. In this time of so-called "cheap" dollars, the bulk of our people will
be affected by the payroll tax increase.
S FORD LIBRARY
The increase in benefits will become payable the second month after the bill
completes its journey through the Congress. In other words, if the legislation
:
is signed into law in September the increase will show up in the November social
security checks.
This extra money is badly needed by Social Security pensioners. Last year
the cost of living went up a full 3.3 per cent. At the same time, Social Security
benefits fell seven percentage points behind the consumer price index when
figured against the last time Congress raised the benefits. In the first six
months of this year, consumer prices rose an additional 1.3 per cent. This
added to the squeeze on consumers, especially the aged who live on pensions.
The steadily rising cost of living, sharply climbing Medicare costs and the
constant chespening of our currency are combining to push up payroll taxes. Not
only will the Social Security tax be levied on the first $7,600 of gross income
starting in January--instead of the present $6,600--but rates are scheduled to
climb in future years. When you and your employer are now paying a Social Security
tax of 4.4 per cent each, the rate will go to 4.8 per cent each in 1969, 5.2
per cent in 1971 and 5.6 per cent in 1973. If benefits are increased in the
meantime, Social Security taxes likely will have to be raised correspendingly.
The House wrote into the Social Security bill some previsions sined at
getting people off public welfare and putting them to work. I heartily apploud
this action. The changes are primarily directed at women who have illegitimate
children and collect Government checks to pay for this way of life. In other
words, the taxpayers are supporting illegitimacy and immorality.
FORD
To try to break up this pattern, the House voted to require the states to
LIBRARY
set up work-training programs for such mothers, require the mothers to take training
and accept appropriate jobs or lose their aid=te=dependent-children benefits,
and to provide day care services for the young children whose mothers go to
work.
The House is not being Bnhuman in seeking these welfare changes. The House
is not being harsh, as charged by the Administration. We are simply trying to
break the welfafe cycle which finds the third generation of such people drawing
welfare checks.
The upward trend in welfare must be reversed. We now see 4b per cent of all
the children in America on welfare, and this will soon rise to 10 per cent unless
we do something about it.
Federal welfare costs-*the bill you as a taxpayer are footing--stands at
$4.5 billion now and will rise to $6.7 million in four years under present law.
The number of persons receiving dependent children's assistance has doubled in
the past 10 years until it now totals five million.
This trend in public welfare must be stopped, and the time to stop it is
now.
This is your congressmen, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I'll be talking with you again next week over this same station.
$
FORD LIBRAGE
SCRIPT RECORDED FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS** august 1967
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you on what's going on
in Washington.
When Congress left town for a Labor Day vacation break, it was clear that
President Johnson's tax bill was in trouble.
It's safe to predict that if Congress were to vote on Mr. Johnson's request
for a 10 per cent surtax at this time it would be soundly defeated.
There are a number of reasons.
The President has tied his tax increase request to his plans to send 45,000
to 50,000 more ground troops to Vietnam--and this agrument just doesn't hold up
under examination.
The President's advisers have based their arguments on a prediction of a
boom in the economy, accompanied by a new surge of inflation. There are holes
in their cases, too.
The Congress has adopted a wait-and-see attitude toward the tax increase, and
it's easy to see why.
First of all, the proposed tax increase supposedly would bring in about
$7½ billion more a year. The cost of sending the additional troops to Vietnam
is far less--perhaps $4 billion.
Second, the economy is not showing the zip that the President's advisers have
predicted. This means that a tax increase at this time could deal the economy a
sharp blow. In fact, the result could be that the tax increase would not bring
in more revenue because business activity would drop off.
GERALD R. LEBRARY FORD
-2-
Of course, there still is the Administration's forecast that spending
under Mr. Johnson will put us $25 to $30 billion in the red this fiscal year if
there is no tax increase.
For Administration officials, there is "no escape" from a tax increase.
I do not believe this. I think there is a better way--deep cuts in non-essential
Federal spending. The House has already cut $4.3 billion from the President's
spending requests, so the House certainly is doing its part to make reductions.
I have opposed a tax increase at this time because I believe spending can
be cut enough to make it unnecessary and because a tax boost could cause serious
damage to the economy.
Every month the economists take a look at what they call the leading indicators
to try to see which way the economy is heading.
A few days ago they looked at 21 indicators compiled for the month of July--
new orders for durable goods, new housing starts, prices of industrial materials,
and the like. What they saw gave more ammunition to those who say Congress
had better hold off on a tax increase. Thirteen of the 21 indicators were down;
only eight were up.
This doesn't mean we aren't experiencing inflation. Consumer prices went up
four-tenths of 1 per cent in July--the sharpest rise in the last nine months.
At the same time, the purchasing power of the Nation's labor force went down.
Consumer prices climbed 3.3 per cent in 1966 for the biggest increase in
10 years. If you take a look at the monthly increases so far in 1967, it looks
like the price climb this year will add up to another 3 per cent.
-3-
Deep cuts in federal spending can be just as effective as a tax increase
in fighting inflation. I don't want to see a tax increase added to the burden
of the consumer who already is paying the high price of inflation.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you on what's happening
in Washington.
###
SCRIPT TAPED FOR FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO USE ON WEEKENE
This is your Congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
One of the most important functions of Congress--one that Congress is
neglweting these days--is its role of checking clesely into the operation of
Federal programs.
It is Congress' duty to act as watchdog, so to speak, over its legislative
acts. Too often, however, having passed the legislation to put some program in
force, it doesn't follow up. It doesn't see to it that the program is run properly.
I henestly believe that if Congress had done its job of overseer properly, if
it had evaluated more thoroughly the programs it enacted, we would not be faced
today with the threat of a tax increase.
Here's just one alarming example of Congress' failure to follow through.
Recently, two billion dollars in arm sales--tvo billion, not million--were financed
by Export-Import Bank credits, without the knowledge of the House Banking and Currency
Committee. Yet, this is the committee which has the responsibility for checking
on Export-Import Bank affairs.
This trend in the workings of Congress could have very serious results. It
could diminish the role Congress plays in our political system--unbalancing, in effect,
the tri-partite system of government which now serves us well. Congress is one
institution, capable of humanising the governmental process by correcting the often
arbitrary nature of administrative decisions.
FORD LIBRARY "y
Congress must, in my opinion, reestablish its role in government--sust play
a
more aggressive and positive role not only now, but in the 1970s and begond.
-2-
As you know, during the last few years new programs have sprouted like
mushrooms from the Executive Branch. We have poured out billions in support of
these programs. Many were good programs and much needed. But, as you also know,
many have been woefully mismanaged. The poverty program, for example, has been
riddled with waste and extravagance in some instances. The same for the foreign
aid pregram--and many others.
Unfortunately, the Administration too often keeps the facts on the operation of
these programs from the public. Too often, a resy hue is jut on program activities
that need instead a bright light. Only when things get really scandalous does the
real truth come out. But we just can't afford to wait till "things get really
scandalous" before acting. Too much of the taxpayers' money is involved, and the
results that will accrue from giving the Administration a free hand in running the
various programs are too important to pass over. This is where Congress must play
a key role.
To better this situation, Congress should take four major steps:
1. Establish a subcommittee on legislative review in each of the standing
committees of the House.
2. Give priority to this review function on at least two days each month.
3. Increase each committee's power to obtain information from the Executive
agencies.
4. Make clear to new members of Congress the vital importance of the legislative
GERALD
BRARY
review function of Congress.
-3-
I believe these steps are necessary to keep the Federal government from
turning into a bureaucratic state. It is up to Congress to assume once again its
rightful role in the American political system.
This is your Congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting from Washington.
####
GERALD R. FORD
9/5/67
SCRIPT TAPED AUGUST 30, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you on what's going on
in Washington.
You are concerned, all Americans are deeply concerned, about the continuing
rise in crime throughout our nation. You want something done about it, and so
do I. (PAUSE)
I must report to you that we are still losing the war against crime.
Nationwide, the crime rate has grown nearly seven times faster than the
population in the past six years.
What, you want to know, can be done about it. (PAUSE)
Basically, there are two kinds of crime-crime in the streets and organized
crime.
Crime in the streets is essentially a local problem. Congress is acting
to help local governments and police departments cope with crime in the streets,
whether it is individual or gang-type activity or criminal mob action like looting,
arson and murder.
As I recently reported to you, the House has passed and sent to the Senate
two bills aimed at aiding local authorities in their war against crime in the
streets.
One bill is the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1967. The House followed
a Republican lead in strengthening that legislation to give top priority to riot
control training and to channel federal assistance funds to the cities through a
State-designated agency.
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
-2-
The other bill was the Cramer Anti-Riot Act, sponsored by a Florida
Republican. The Cramer Anti-Riot Act would make it a federal offense for an
individual to travel from one state to another with the intent to incite a
riot.
Local police need the support of all decent, law-abiding citizens in the
local community to bring crime in the streets under control. Congress can help
to some extent, and we are seeking to do SO.
If the Cramer Anti-Riot Act receives full congressional approval, then a
Federal penalty can be imposed in cases where individuals travel from state to
state inciting riots. Ways must be found to stop the anarchistic efforts of men
like H. Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael. They are hurting the very people
they claim to be helping.
We must also launch a new and real Federal war on organized crime. The
fight against this kind of crime is clearly a Federal responsibility. I am
talking now about organized criminal activity that feeds on gambling and gets
much of its "take" from the urban poor.
Present Federal efforts to fight organized crime are woefully inadequate.
As a result, wealthy gangster-types have taken on an aura of respectability.
And, worse still, the public loses respect for law and order and for law
enforcement authorities when good, decent citizens see prosperous mobsters go
untouched. Can nothing be done to destroy the seeming immunity of the Mafia and
their ilk? I believe much can be done.
House Republicans want law enforcement officers to have the use of electronic
DERALD FORD HIBRARY
-3-
devices as an aid in getting the goods on the mobsters. Under our bill, such
devices could be used only under court order and court supervision. This is
to protect the privacy of the innocent.
Other steps also should be taken--including the beefing up of that section
of the U.S. Justice Department dealing with organized crime and racketeering,
providing a Federal residence where protection can be given key witnesses
testifying at a trial, prohibiting the investment of illegally acquired funds
in a legitimate business, and improving the gathering and dissemination of
information on organized crime.
We must act--and quickly--if we are to win the war against crime.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you on what's happening
in Washington.
###
FORD LIBRARY
recorded Sept. 13, 1967
weekend use
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3. D. C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 32
September 4, 1967
THE WAVE OF LAWLESSNESS
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
There was a time-not too long ago--when it was safe to walk the streets of nearly any
city in America without fear of being robbed, raped, mugged--or even murdered.
There was a time-not too long ago--when it was considered safe to leave your home
unlocked when you went to the store or even out of the city.
There was a time-not too long ago--when respect for law and order was as much a part
of the American way of life as baseball, hot dogs and apple pie.
But not anymore !
Today, lawlessness has taken over and there seems to be little or no concern about it on
the part of the administration officials here in Washington.
many
The Administration in power has been talking a lot about the problem--and setting up
commissions, study groups, panels and committees all over the place.
But so far there has been little action. Meanwhile, crime continues to increase.
The F.B.I. recently released a report on major crimes in this country since 1960. It shows
that since 1960 o wave of lawlessness has obviously swept over the country.
According to the F.B.I.'s figures, the total volume of serious crimes reported in the U.S.
has risen a startling 62 percent since 1960--much more than doubled in less than seven years.
During this same period crimes of violence have risen 49 percent and property crimes
have increased 64 percent. This means that, since 1960, the ordinary American citizen's chance
of being the victim of a serious crime has risen by 48 percent. And every day this percentage is
going up and up !
The F.B.I. statistics show that last year there were three and one quarter million serious
crimes in the U.S.--an increase, just since 1965, of II percent I And what has this crime wave cost
the American public in dollars and cents? F.B.I. Director J. Edgar Hoover estimates that the value
of goods alone lost last year in burglaries, larcenies, and auto thefts was more than $600 million.
What must be done?
Let me ask the questions-
(more)
over
and if they are properly answered I think we
would get some good results.
Why have the activities of the organized prime
since 1964?
section of the Justice Dept. been dramatically reduced
Commission to reverse an earlier recommendation
Why has the administration influenced the Crime
for or favoung curritap ligislation?
and why did the administration persist in its
position that authorized electronic servailances
of little value despite platements to the contrary
from Rountry? almost every law inforcement officeal in the
vis odt to tuo neve TO eyota smt of tnew uoy norlw beloolne
thoq and lastly why has the administration ignored
almost every recommendation by the Presidents'
mon prime commission on organized crime
no yes, l. think if we had some proper answers
in and action for those questions we would be on the
road to the solution of our growing crime problem.
But let me say this for me thing, instead of
appointing more commissions and panels to study
the prime problem I think the administration
should accept the ligislative recommendations
its earlier national crime commission and get some
action in the longress It should get behind
ligislation now pending in Congress and strengthen
the hands of surd law enforcement officers. It should
start showing more concern for the rights of gated lo
victime of crime Than for the criminal. Until this
is done I fear we are in a continued period of
lawlessness univanted in this or any nation
of the world. Pirhase the guatest prime of all
to date is norlt that stom sow the club administration in Washington
has refused to do anything effective about the
problem
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
This is your congressman, Jerry Fad,
-2-
For one thing, instead of merely appointing more commissions and panels to "study" the
crime problem, the Administration should accept the legislative recommendations of its earlier
National Crime Commission. It should get behind legislation now pending in Congress to strengthen
the hands of our law enforcement officers. It should start showing more concern for the rights of
victims of crime than for the criminals.
Until this is done, I fear we are in for a continued period of lawlessness unwanted in
this or any other nation of the world.
Perhaps the greatest crime of all to date is that the Administration in Washington has
refused to do anything about the problem.
This is Congressman
reporting from Washington.
(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio. For
additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts, contact the Committee's
Public Relations Office.)
###
signing off tell must week, same time, same
station
GERALD R. LISANRY FORD
Tapel 9-20-67
script tape recorded Sept. 20, 1967 for Jeb
District up
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE 312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL WASHINGTON 3, D. C. LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 33
September II, 1967
THE TAX HIKE DEBATE
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
"To raise taxes or not to raise taxes"-that today is the multi-billion dollar question
that all Congressmen are asking themselves. The President has called for higher taxes. He says
they are necessary to pay for sending additional American troops to Vietnam. But is a tax-hike
really necessary? The country is slowly being taxed to death. Isn't there some way of avoiding
a tax raise which c ould wipe out salary increases for most wage-earners and Social Security benefit
increases for others?
I don't have to tell you that many Congressmen and Senators believe that cuts in Federal
spending could erase the necessity for a tax raise. I share this view--as you know--and have con-
sistantly urged reductions in non-essential Federal programs.
I am convinced that far too much of our government's spending is simply non-essential
at this time--and could well be postponed till the Vietnam war is over and our finances are in a
better shape.
For instance, let's look at one place where cuts could be made--public works. The
President's Fiscal 1968 budget proposes over $4-1/2 billion for direct Federal projects. And more
than $5 billion in grants for civil projects, a total of $9.5 billion. This is one of the highest
expenditures for non-defense public works in our history.
Foreign aid is another place which has many "soft spots" where economies could be made.
Even President Johnson recognized this as far back as 1953, when he said--and I quote--"We can-
not indefinitely tax our citizens to support the rest of the world. That point appears to be here
now." End of quote. Mind you, the point he referred to was 14 years ago. Mr. Johnson also said
"we cannot afford to sap our vitality in a futile effort to support people incapable of supporting
themselves."
There, are, of course, other areas where spending cuts could be made--the anti-poverty
program, social welfare activities, the space program--just to mention a few. Furthermore, there
is a raft of other projects which hardly seem necessary at this time when the American taxpayer is
is already overburdened by costs of the war in Southeast Asia.
(more)
-2-
For example, just this year the government awarded a grant of almost 9,000 dollars to
a professor to study comic strips; another 5,000 dollars went to complete an experimental analysis
of a violin varnish known to have improved violin tone prior to 1737. And 10,000 dollars was
awarded to study a collection of texts on medieval cannon law.
In short, at this point I don't believe the Administration has made a case for its tax
increase proposal. In fact, I have joined with many of my colleagues in suggesting that the
President submit new and accurate figures to Congress on just how much the Federal Government
is spending--before we are asked to vote on a tax hike.
Congress cannot enact a tax increase responsibly until proper figures are made
available. This up-to-date data is required so we may judge whether the original fiscal 1968
budget estimates and the recent mid-summer revisions are as useless for responsible decision-
making as were the 1966-67 estimates--which were off by billions of dollars. Congress, if it is to
discharge its solemn obligations in the field of tax policy can settle for no less.
This is Congressman
reporting from Washington.
(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio. For
additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts, contact the Committee's
Public Relations Office.)
###
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE 312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL WASHINGTON 3, D. C. LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 34
September 18, 1967
AN OPPORTUNITY CRUSADE
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
"You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you haven't got a pair of boots."
That is what the poor people are saying about the poverty program. In other
words, in spite of the publicity experts' glowing words claiming success, the poor who are
supposed to be benefitting think the war on poverty is a complete flop.
Let me quote the Reverend William Sicking, who has been helping run the poverty
war in Cincinnati. He has this to say about it: "I have found very few programs that attack the
problem of poverty at home plate. Grass-roots poor people laugh at the antipoverty program."
Unquote.
A few of the comments from the "grass-roots poor" prove extremely revealing.
For instance, a 26-year-old man, who works at "miscellaneous jobs" for Father
Sicking, told Congressional investigators the other day that the poverty program is "a racket."
"There is no real training for jobs," he said. "The only people who are making money are those
in the poverty program." By that, he meant those who are running the program.
Another man, referring to Administration spokesmen, said --Quote-- "They do
make a lot of promises, but promises won't help feed your children or put clothes on your back."
These are the comments of poor people. These are the comments of those whom
the poverty program is supposed to be helping. Their views were turned up by a Republican
Congressional team which recently held hearings in Cincinnati on the way the so-called poverty
"war" is being run.
The information turned up during the Cincinnati hearings is, I am afraid, too
typical of the Federal poverty effort. The war on poverty is in desperate need of a major
redirection. Let me elaborate a bit.
ORD
First, I don't believe the antipoverty activities should be eliminated--they
should be revamped and put on a realistic basis. Only a small percentage of the poor have
LIBRARY
received meaningful assistance as a result of the billions of dollars in the present war on
- more -
-2-
poverty. After three years, the poverty war has spent some 4 billion dollars of the taxpayers'
money and created a poverty bureaucracy of over 91,000 administrators. The poor have lost
faith in the high promises of those who thought they could solve difficult problems by simply
spending billions of dollars through a new poverty agency in Washington.
If the Administration fails to take the drastic steps long overdue to overhaul
completely the present poverty war, I believe Congress may well repeal the entire program and
the good will go down with the bad.
In order to give new shape and meaning to the antipoverty effort, many of US in
Congress have supported new legislation called the "Opportunity Crusade.' This program is
aimed at involving private industry and States in the poverty fight, building upon the solid
foundation of a free enterprise economy.
By providing realistic incentives for private employers and individuals to develop
on-the-job training programs, it offers respectable and productive jobs, rather than dead-end,
make-work, public employment. The testimony of the poverty-stricken has shown US they them-
selves prefer meaningful labor - not the handout variety.
The plight of the poor in America today is a growing problem that must be met
realistically. The Opportunity Crusade, by reinforcing and redirecting portions of the poverty
program and by inaugurating programs needed in other areas, will revive the hopes of the poor
and the confidence of the people. I intend to do what I can to see that this new direction takes
shape.
This is Congressman
reporting from Washington.
(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio.
For additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts, contact the
Committee's Public Relations Office.)
###
Tapel 9-28-67
Sept 967
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3. D.C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 35
September 25, 1967
THE ABM ISSUE
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
Today, we have, practically speaking, no defense against a missile attack on this
country. If the Russians suddenly decide to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles against us,
we will just have to sit and take it. Millions upon millions of Americans will lose their lives
--with some estimates ranging up to 120 million.
We have, of course, the missiles to launch a devastating counter-attack and destroy
untold millions of Russians--if we are able to launch them. We have relied on this counter-
attack power to make the Russians think twice about starting an all-out nuclear war. So far,
it has worked, although more than once they have rattled their atomic weapons and looked
mighty grim.
In other words, there has been an atomic missile stalemate. But how long can
that stalemate last? No one knows for sure. But we do know that the Soviets have begun
building a defense system to protect their key cities from missile attack. Our counter-
attacking power, therefore, will not be quite as potent a deterrent as it used to be.
Up until a few days ago, we sat back on our haunches and let the Russians go
ahead. The Administration, despite pressure, refused to give a go ahead on a United States
missile defense system.
But, as I am sure you all know, Secretary of Defense McNamara has yielded his
usual inch. He has just announced that we will build a "thin" system, costing about five
billion dollars.
Speaking for the Administration, Secretary McNamara said this so-called "mini-
defense" system is being deployed mainly because of the threat from Red China's rapidly-
developing nuclear capability. At the same time, he urged Russia to join in what he called
a "race toward reasonableness" instead of an arms race. But it is quite clear our missile
LIBRARY
defense system is based on a Red Chinese threat.
GERALD
- more -
- 2 -
In the meantime, though, the Soviet Union continues to build its anti-missile
defense system which, in turn, makes our weapons arsenal less effective as a deterrent to
nuclear war. In short, what concerns many of US on Capitol Hill is whether this "mini"
system is up to the challenge. What catastrophe could happen, for example, if the Soviets
struck while our missile defenses were solely Red Chinese-oriented?
These are grave questions and the equally grave answers must be reached in
the coming months. But we can take some comfort in the fact that our secretary of de-
fense has finally accepted professional military advice on a matter so vital to the very sur-
vival of the Nation. At least, we are making a start toward protecting our citizens.
I leave you today with this thought--handed down by Teddy Roosevelt. "Speak
softly and carry a big stick" is still good advice in the face of potential attackers. I am
not interested in seeing the United States and Russia armed with equal-sized sticks--and only
the Reds carrying an effective shield.
This is Congrassman
reporting from Washington.
(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV
Studio. For additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts, con-
tact the Committee's Public Relations Office.)
###