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
12237637
label
Ford Broadcasts, 1965-1966
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
12237637
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Broadcasts, 1965-1966
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Broadcasts Files
subjects
Michigan
Johnson, Lyndon B. (Lyndon Baines), 1908-1973
Communism
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
Unidentified flying objects
Great Society
Agriculture
Inflation (Finance)
Crime
Taxation
Interest rates
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
12237637
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1968-11-30
month
11
year
1968
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1961-02-01
month
2
year
1961
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
d1fcc4aa7d02531b
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D37, folder "Ford Broadcasts, 1965-1966" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D37 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
H
SUSPENSE
(QUELLO, James H.)
Re: Broading WJR June 20, 1965
Bernice Hase
May 4, 1965
Mr. James H. Quello
Station Manager
WJR
Fisher Building
Detroit, Michigan 48202
Dear Jim,
Thanks for your request to make a 13]-minute report for WJR's
"Your Government" broadcast series.
I will make arrangements with Miss Bernice Hase, of Clear Channel
Broadcasting Service in Washington, when she contacts me.
Warmest personal regards.
Ex30255
Sincerely,
Gerald R. Ford, M.C.
GRF:jm
Jack Kessler
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
WJR
THE GOODWILL STATION
fisher BUILDING
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48202
The
JAMES H. QUELLO
STATION MANAGER
April 30, 1965 Jam
Congressman Gerald R. Ford
let
House Office Building
Washington 25, D.C.
Dear Jerry:
armething in
WJR would like to resume the "Your Govern-
ment" broadcast series, and we would like
a 13-minute report from you to the people
of Michigan. Miss Bernice Hase, of the
time
Clear Channel Broadcasting Service in Washing-
ton, will contact your office to arrange for
the broadcast, scheduled 9:15-9:30 PM Sunday,
June 20th.
As in the past, we plan to alternate the two
Michigan Senators on the first Sunday of each
month; alternate a Democratic and Republican
Representative in the middle weeks of each
month and schedule a monthly report from the
Governor on the last Sunday of the month.
We know the people of Michigan will be inte-
rested in these regular monthly reports, and
we trust the broadcasts will provide a useful
vehicle for direct expression of your opinions
in your own words.
Remember, too, that our newsroom is always inte-
rested in timely news developments that may come
from your office.
Kindest regards,
JHQ/dp
give
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
A DIVISION OF CAPITAL CITIES bROADCASTING CORPORATION
For "Your Government" broadcast series
13} minutes
WJR Detroit
for airing June 20, 1965
TO BE TAPED IN GRF OFFICE JUNE 15
When I was a member of a University of Michigan football team we
played one particular game I recall often these days.
We had traveled from Ann Arbor to meet the Cophers of the University
of Minnesota. Coach Bernie Bierman's team was an unbeaten powerhouse that
season, yet was going into the game with a unique record. Minnesota had
failed to score on "ichigan since 1929 and had not defeated the Wolverines
at home since 1892.
Football fans may recall what happened that day in Memorial Stadium.
I'll never forget it. In fact, I may still carry a few some
emotional bruises---from November 3rd, 1934, when we spent the afternoon
trying to outplay Minnesota's famous All-American trio----Bevan, Larson and
Lund-----and their great team-mates.
Sportswriters had some kind words to describe our efforts. One praised
our defense play and told how John Regeosi's punting kept Minnesota with
its back to the wall during the first half. When the final gun sounded,
a Jimx of 41 years was broken Michigan was defeated 34 to 0.
Another sportswriter said if Michigan's line replacements had been
more plentiful, the score might have been lower. Perhaps, the Wolverines
might have won the game.
-more-
GERALD, FORD LIBRARY
WJR broadcast
page ?
As leader of the Republican minority in the House of Supresentatives,
I compare our politically-cutmumbered group with the Michigan team that
played
Minnesota..... we have the spirit and enthusiasm, but we lack
power and strength in rumbers.
Further comparing the 89th Congress with football, we are three-quarters
way through the season and our record could be better. The legislative
score is impressive one way, however----news laws have been passed with
historic speed. But, I question whether the overall performance has been
of All-American class. The record is long on quantity and short on quality.
I do not intend to spend this time with you harpooning my Democratic
friends or President Johnson and his Administration, except to point out
what I believe are some weaknesses in government st this time.
But first, I emphasise that the Congress put aside political differences
to strengthen our Nation's fight against Communist aggression- the threat
to freedom.
Although some of the President's own political empire dissented, Congress
approved a $700 million expansion of the military budget. This action showed
the world that Americans are overwhelmingly behind the President in his
qt strengthen our forces for the defere of The U. S
decision to honor our foreign commitments. It was, in effect, a public
endorsement of the tougher line the President has been taking. aproat communer
appersum
We cannot turn away from the fact that today America is fighting a
worldwide war for liberty. True, it is still a cold war in certain places.
At any moment, however, 1t could burst into global flames.
GERALO FORD LIBRARI
WJR BROADCAST
Page 3
The action of Congress in supporting the President in South Viet Nam
policy and military measures so far has other far-reaching effects.
In wartime, we have learned from experience, the American people cannot
have both butter and guns...when "ncle Sam puts on his combat gear, he must
take off his Santa Claus suit
as military spending skyrockets, we must
retrench somewhere along the line.
long
America is a rich country, but the riches are not unlimited. It has been
a dream of the Communist world that sooner or later America would spend itself
into bankruptcy
In this crucial time, I am confident Americans are
prepared to do the best they can in a financial way--even if it means
doing withoutorome desires, on "gordies" that an come nefot month or
nebt year
Although the President so far has been given strong Congressional support
in his actions against Communist aggression, I am concerned that the Administration
fundamental problem in The
has failed to take firm steps toward currecting the situation in Cuba.
Carnbean - which is catmon Cala
offenive
The Administration has failed to carry out the original stitack against
Communism in Cuba which John F. Kennedy demanded. II was a Tragely The Bay of
Pigumsa failure in april 1961 but this set luck should not prevent america from
During the 1960 Presidential campaign and at the time of the Cuban missile
crisis, the late President insisted on removal of all Soviet forces from
is other
We
Fidel Castro's spawning ground for Communism. He called for support of
The Ph aromist
free Cuban forces both inside and outside of that country. And, he demanded
in for Itm state
/
an end to the export of Communism from the strategic island, which is
GERALD
almost within sight of our shoreline. Those friends outhout 4 the
late Present and And Forday - - they should be
implemental on There will be additional trankle apoto briling
up of explaining in The Cranbean. R gubhams will support
a policy world of strength in this hemophane as we have electrone n
The
WJR BROADCAST
Page 4
A few minutes ago I compared the 89th Congress with two football teams.
It seems to me that like the game I described involving the Welverines of
Ann Arbor and the Cophers of Minnesota, the score Congress has made this year
so far would be somewhat different if the balance of strength between the
Republican and Democrat sides had been more even. Since Requlhers have
syported fohnson present foregr Mhay more emphatically then many
This is something I've been telling audiences many places in our Nation, The Brinks
would he
speaking as Minority Leader of the House.
better off will
a Reputhon
Naturally, when I speak at a Republican meeting, I talk about ways to
Empers
strengthen our membership in the House and elsekbere in government. fasta This
evening I won't bore the "emocrats who are listening to this WJR broadcast
with such information.
However, I think all Americans should be concerned with two major dangers
that threaten the foundations of our Democracy.
Spesking in a non-partisan way, I believe the dangers are the present
imbalance of power in the legislative, executive and Judicial branches and
the possibility that our strong two-party system could become a thing of the past.
When either political party controls Congress by a crushing majority, the
traditional system of checks and balances, which is designed to protect the
public interest, is endangered.
The present Congress is a good example of imbalance, with the same party
that has an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate controlling the White
House.
-more-
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
WJR BROADCAST
Page 5
The President has virtually unlimited resources for working his will---
a veritable army of experts, authorities, researchers, propagandists and the
like.
He is also king pin of the branch of government that employes 21 million
civilians and controls the detiny of 2 million 600 thousand military personnel.
These two groups have an amual payroll cost totalling $28 billion-and
together they will spend more than 127 billion tax dollars in fiscal 1966.
This awesome power and the vast apparatus, if used improperly, could mean
the withering away and eventually the death of the two-party system.
Some observers have compared the work 80 far of the legislative branch--
Congress--- with the House and Senate in 1933 when Franklin D. Roosevelt
was president. In a sense, this may be true. We have passed more legislation
so far this session than during any comparable period I can recall. Nowever,
quantity is not the same as quality. Nor do new laws guarantee remedies for
old or new problems.
It seems to me that a Congress of better balance would have adopted
better legislation at a shower, more deliberate pace.
Critics have said Congress frequently makes haste slowly. However, the
act of deliberate slowness is a safeguard against racing to the brink of decision.
It prevents a dangerous plunge. Congress should reach its decisions only after
adequate
adequate research, thought and exhalastive discussion.
-more-
GERALD LIBRAR FORD
WJR BROADCAST
page 6
Reflecting on the duties and obligations of the third branch of
government----it can be said the Federal Judiciary's function 10 to interpret
the Constirution and the laws.
There is evidence that the "udicial Branch is arbitrarily elbowing its
way to new positions of authority, disregarding the wise suggestions of
Judicial restraint made by the late Justice Felix Frankfurter and others.
When the Supreme Court ordered states to respportion on the one-man, one-vote
concept, Justice Frankfurter in a dissenting opinion was critical of the
court assuming--in his words--- "destructively novel judicial power."
Justice Frankfurter also said---"in this situation, an in others of
like nature, appeal for relief does not belong here. Appeal must be made to
an informed, civically militant electorate."
While talking with you on this WJR broadeast, I have spelled out the
threatening imbalance of power in the present Congress, executive and judicial
branches of our
The government. embalance in our freleral programent
To correct this-situation, I urge more citizens to become part of what
Justice Frankfurter described as an informed, civically ******* militant
electorate. I encourage each of you to become more knowledgable on all
sides of leading issues and with all political personalities. This would be
gost insurance While for we the may preservation not agree among of ourselves your rights as to The own own freedom choice of of and political mation
parties and candidates, we should thoroughly agree that men and women who
actively work for a party and candidates of their choice are better citisens.
-more-
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
WJR BROADCAST
PAGE 7
Without any indulgence in partingmship, I am sure we can agree
that a strong two-party system is bedrock assurance that our Democracy
will survive, prosper, grow and help others in the world to accept their
responsibilities in the society of free nations.
Now--- if you will allow me to comment on the Republican Party,
which is out of power and a minority in Congress---- I believe we must
earn the confidence and trust of the American people.
By earning this respect---and I stress the word "esrning"------ can
bring a better balance to Congress and retain a strong two-party
system, which is desperately needed to maintain our Democracy and to
make this a better Nation.
Thanks for listening. I am happy to have this opportunity to speak
with the WJR listening audience.
#
#
#
FORD LIBRARY is OERALD
For "Your Government" broadcast series
13ᵗʰ minutes
WJR Detroit
for airing June 20, 1965
TO BE TAPED IN GRF OFFICE JUNE 15 at 10:30 a.m.
When I was a member of a University of Michigan football team we
played one particular game I recall often these days.
We had traveled from Ann Arbor to meet the Gophers of the University
of Minnesota. Coach Bernie Bierman's team was an unbeaten powerhouse that
season, yet was going into the game with a unique record. Minnesota had
failed to score on "ichigan since 1929 and had not defeated the Wolverines
at home since 1892.
Football fans may recall what happened that day in Memorial Stadium.
I'll never forget it. In fact, I may still carry a few lumps---and some
emotional bruises--from November 3rd, 1934, when we spent the afternoon
trying to outplay Minnesota's famous All-American tric---Bevan, Larson and
Lund--and their great team-mates.
Sportswriters had some kind words to describe our efforts. One praised
our defense play and told how John Regeczi's punting kept Minnesota with
its back to the wall during the first half. When the final gun sounded,
a jinx of 41 years was broken--Michigan was defeated 34 to 0.
Another sportswriter said if Michigan's line replacements had been
more plentiful, the score might have been lower. Perhaps, the Wolverines
might have won the game.
-more-
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
WJR broadcast
page 2
As leader of the Republican minority in the House of Representatives,
I compare our politically-outnumbered group with the Michigan team that
played
Minnesota.....
we have the spirit and enthusiasm, but we lack
power and strength in numbers.
Further comparing the 89th Congress with football, we are three-quarters
way through the season and our record could be better. The legislative
score is impressive one way, however-=-=news laws have been passed with
historic speed. But, I question whether the overall performance has been
of All-American class. The record is long on quantity and short on quality.
I do not intend to spend this time with you harpooning my Democratic
friends or President Johnson and his Administration, except to point out
what I believe are some weaknesses in government at this time.
But first, I emphasize that the Congress put aside political differences
to strengthen our Nation's fight against Communist aggression- the threat
to freedom.
Although some of the President's own political empire dissented, Congress
approved a $700 million expansion of the military budget. This action showed
the world that Americans are oyerwhelmingly behind the President in his
of beep The threat of commund territoral away from
decision to honor our foreign commitments. It was, in effect, a public our own
shows
new, from
endorsement of the tougher line the President has been taking.
We cannot turn away from the fact that today America is fighting
a FORD LIBRARY
worldwide war for liberty. True, it is still a cold war in certain places.
At any moment, however, it could burst into global flames but 2 am mund
of the President belurs,as 2 interport his policy, that
america, its citizens 4 its allies must challenge the authesitic
dictars an Moscow, Perping on Cartro in Cuba whenever Then freen threater
WJR BROADCAST
Page 3
The action of Congress in supporting the President in South Viet Nam
policy and military measures so far has other far-reaching effects.
In wartime, we have learned from experience, the American people cannot
have both butter and guns...when ncle Sam puts on his combat gear, he must
take off his Santa Claus suit
as military spending skyrockets, we must
retrench somewhere along the line.
long
America is a rich country, but the riches are not unlimited. It has been
a dream of the Communist world that sooner or later America would spend itself
into
bankruptcy
In this crucial time, I am confident Americans are
prepared to do the best they can in a financial way--even if it means
doing without.
Although the President so far has been given strong Congressional support
in his actions against Communist aggression, I am concerned that the Administration
has failed to take firm steps toward chrrecting the situation in Cuba.
The Administration has failed to carry out the original attack against
Communism in Cuba which John F. Kennedy demanded.
During the 1960 Presidential campaign and at the time of the Cuban missile
crisis, the late President insisted on removal of all Soviet forces from
Fidel Castro's spawning ground for Communism. He called for support of
free Cuban forces both inside and outside of that country. And, he demanded
an end to the export of Communism from the strategic island, which is
almost within sight of our shoreline.
-more-
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
WJR BROADCAST
Page 4
A few minutes ago I compared the 89th Congress with two football teams.
It seems to me that like the game I described involving the Wolverines of
Ann Arbor and the Gophers of Minnesota, the score Congress has made this year
so far would be somewhat different if the balance of strength between the
Republican and Democrat sides had been more even.
This is something I've been telling audiences many places in our Nation,
speaking as Minority Leader of the House.
Naturally, when I speak at a Republican meeting, I talk about ways to
strengthen our membership in the House and elsembere in government.
eventing I won't bore the Democrats who are listening to this WJR broadcast
with such information.
However, I think all Americans should be concerned with two major dangers
that threaten the foundations of our Democracy.
Speaking in a non-partisan way, I believe the dangers are the present
imbalance of power in the legislative, executive and judicial branches----and
the possibility that our strong two-party system could become a thing of the paste
When either political party controls Congress by a crushing majority, the
traditional system of checks and balances, which is designed to protect the
public interest, is endangered.
The present Congress is a good example of imbalance, with the same party
that has an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate controlling the White
House.
-more-
FORD
WJR BROADCAST
Page 5
The President has virtually unlimited resources for working his will---
a veritable army of experts, authorities, researchers, propagandists and the
like.
He is also king pin of the branch of government that employes 2½ million
civilians and controls the destiny deving of 2 million 600 thousand military personnel.
These two groups have an annual payroll cost totalling $28 billion--and
together they will spend more than 127 billion tax dollars in fiscal 1966.
This awesome power and the vast apparatus, if used improperly, could mean
the withering away and eventually the death of the two-party system.
Some observers have compared the work so far of the legislative branch---
Congress--- with the House and Senate in 1933 when Franklin D. Roosevelt
was president. In a sense, this may be true. We have passed more legislation
so far this session than during any comparable period I can recall. However,
quantity is not the same as quality. Nor do new laws guarantee remedies for
old or new problems.
It seems to me that a Congress of better balance would have adopted
moreconotmetive
better legislation at a slewer, more deliberate pace.
Critics have said Congress frequently makes haste slowly. However, the
act of deliberate slowness is a safeguard against racing to the brink of decision.
It prevents a dangerous plunge. Congress should reach its decisions only after
adequate research, thought and adequate exhakstive discussion.
-more-
WJR BROADCAST
page 6
Reflecting on the duties and obligations of the third branch of
government---- it can be said the Federal Judiciary's function is to interpret
the Constitution and the laws.
There is evidence that the Judicial Branch is arbitrarily elbowing its
way to new positions of authority, disregarding the wise suggestions of
judicial restraint made by the late Justice Felix Frankfurter and others.
When the Supreme Court ordered states to reapportion on the one-man, one-vote
concept, Justice Frankfurter in a dissenting opinion was critical of the
court assuming--in his words--- "destructively novel judicial power."
Justice Frankfurter also said---"in this situation, as in others of
like nature, appeal for relief does not belong here. Appeal must be made to
an informed, civically militant electorate."
While talking with you on this WJR broadcast, I have spelled out the
threatening imbalance of power in the present Congress, executive and judicial
branches of our government.
To correct this situation, I urge more citizens to become part of what
Justice Frankfurter described as an informed, civically
militant
electorate. I encourage each of you to become more knowledgable on all
sides of leading issues and with all political personalities.
While we may not agree among ourselves as to own own choice of political
parties and candidates, we should thoroughly agree that men and women who
actively work for a party and candidates of their choice are better citizens.
-more-
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
WJR BROADCAST
PAGE 7
Without any indulgence in partimanship, I am sure we can agree
that a strong two-party system is bedrock assurance that our Democracy
will survive, prosper, grow, and help others in the world to accept their
responsibilities in the society of free nations.
Now--- if you will allow me to comment on the Republican Party,
which is out of power and a minority in Congress I believe we must
earn the confidence and trust of the American people.
By earning this respect---and I stress the word "earning" we can
bring a better balance to Congress and retain a strong two-party
system, which is desperately needed to maintain our Democracy and to
make this a better Nation.
Thanks for listening. I am happy to have this opportunity to speak
with the WJR listening audience.
GCRALD FORD LIBRARY
1-minute radio tape for Congressional Committee
via phone June 29, 1965
The swift sword for freedom must strike mightier blows now from the
air and from the sea in the Viet Nam war. They must be shanch quickly.
They must be unleashed to prevent a costly and possibly never-ending
land war in the steaming jungles and swamps of that southeast asian country.
Republicans are against a massive ground war in Viet Nam. We know
the pitfalls of being over-committed in large-scale jungle warfare.
fighting under the rules of the enemy.
Experience and logic prove there is a better way to impress the
enemy with our power
it should be forcefully demonstrated in the
air with attacks on significant military targets.. and on the sea with
a naval quarantine to shut off the flow of mertial that fattens the enemy's
war arsenal
Power-hungry Communist leaders will dodge the megotiation table
until they are convinced by stepped-up air attacks and a naval quarantine
that the United States will stay in Viet Nam until peace with both honor
and meaning is achieved.
# # #
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
Radio statement for GOP Congressional Committee Jan. 25, 1966
The President's proposed budget would mean Americans will pay more
for everything. Under the program contemplated by the White House the
cost of living would increase two percent.
The budget from President Johnson threatens to make the lurking shadow
of inflation a monster of reality.
The Administration's financial
document tries to go in both directions at
the same time. It calls for even more federal spending in dubious areas and
ignores any sensible corner-cutting on non-essential domestic programs.
Republicans support all necessary funds for national security. At the same
time, Republicans insist on setting priorities at home without sacrificing
american
the proven needs of the people....all the people.
#
#
#
V 8:30 And
GERALD R. LISAARY FORD
Radio statement for GOP Congressional Committee Jan. 25, 1966
The President's proposed budget would mean Americans will pay more
for everything. Under the program contemplated by the White House the
cost of living would increase two percent.
The budget from President Johnson threatens to make the lurking shadow
of inflation a monster of reality.
The Administration's financial
document tries to go in both directions at
the same time. It calls for even more federal spending in dubious areas and
ignores any sensible corner-cutting on non-essential domestic programs.
Republicans support all necessary funds for national security. At the same
time, Republicans insist on setting priorities at home without sacrificing
Amucan
the proven needs of the people....all the people.
xav GERALD LIBRARY FORD
STATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
ON THE AIR 2 P. M., MARCH 25, 1966.
I believe Congress should thoroughly investigate the rash
of reported sightings of unidentified flying objects in Southern
Michigan and other parts of the country.
I feel a congressional inquiry would be most worthwhile
because the American people are intensely interested in the
UFO stories, and some people are alarmed by them.
Air Force investigators have been checking on such reports
for years but have come up with nothing very conclusive.
In the light of these new sightings and incidents near
Ann Arbor, Michigan, and elsewhere, it would be a very wholesome
thing for a committee of the Congress to conduct hearings and
to call responsible witnesses from the executive branch of the
government and other witnesses who say they have sighted these
objects.
UFO STATEMENT
-2-
I think the American people would feel better if there
was a full-blown investigation of these mysterious flying
objects, which some persons honestly believe they have seen.
###
Lile: Broadcasts JV
of
Radio
STATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
ON THE AIR 2 P. M., MARCH 25, 1966.
I believe Congress should thoroughly investigate the rash
of reported sightings of unidentified flying objects in Southern
Michigan and other parts of the country.
I feel a congressional inquiry would be most worthwhile
because the American people are intensely interested in the
UFO stories, and some people are alarmed by them.
Air Force investigators have been checking on such reports
for years but have come up with nothing very conclusive.
In the light of these new sightings and incidents near
Ann Arbor, Michigan, and elsewhere, it would be a very wholesome
thing for a committee of the Congress to conduct hearings and
to call responsible witnesses from the executive branch of the
FORD
government and other witnesses who say they have sighted these
objects.
(MORE)
UFO STATEMENT
-2-
I think the American people would feel better if there
was a full-blown investigation of these mysterious flying
objects, which some personshonestly believe they have seen.
# # #
GEEAL R FORD
APRIL 5, 1966
WETA-TV DOCUMENTARY ON GREAT SOCIETY, CREATIVE FEDERALISM, AND APPALACHIA
BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
The American people are a great people. They have built a mighty nation
from humble beginnings. From the earliest days of this republic, our people
have yearned toward greatness and have displayed the pride and spirit
necessary to achieve it.
We have been building a great society on the North American continent
ever since the early settlers came to these majestic shores and began carving
out a new life for themselves in the wilderness.
President Johnson has seized upon a phrase--the Great Society--and has
given it propaganda value. He tried it out in a University of Michigan
commencement address before he quite knew what he was going to do with it. It
caught on, and he has been capitalizing on it politically since then.
Let's take a good look at the Great Society catch-phrase. What does
it really mean?
Briefly stated, it is the old New Deal updated. It is the New Deal
warmed over and fluffed up into a giant omelet of Big-Daddy Government that
is overflowing the sides of the pan and threatening to put out the fire. By
"the fire " I mean the pride and spirit of industry and incentive which have
generated the greatness we see everywhere about us in this rich and beautiful
land of ours.
There is nothing really new in Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" program--
nothing that does not flow out of the "New Deal" or out of the Kennedy Administra-
tion's attempts to build a mighty political machine in every city in the nation.
(MORE)
-2-
WETA-TV DOCUMENTARY ON GREAT SOCIETY, ET AL.
Look at some of the facets of the anti-poverty program. The Job Corps
is the old Civilian Conservation Corps of depression days reshaped to fit a
nation of big cities. The college work-study program is the old National
Youth Administration idea. The Community Action Program is the local community
uplift program hooked to federal money and, not incidentally, to federal
dictation.
We Republicans have not opposed all phases of the President's so-called
particularly Head start
"Great Society" program. We have voted for parts of it, and we have improved
1
some of the legislation implementing it as it moved through Congress.
Most of the objectives are desirable, but the end does not always justify
the means. This is true just as much in government as in individual conduct.
When Republicans are returned to power in Washington, we also will offer
the people a program that promises great progress toward realization of this
nation's goals and dreams.
The Republican attitude toward what President Johnson calls his "Great
Society" program is based on the difference in philosophy between the two
major political parties.
We feel that we are the Party of the People because of this difference
in philosophy. Republicans want to help people do more for themselves.
Democratic Administrations just want to do things for people. This is
epitomized by the cynical question asked by those whose votes can be bought:
"What have you done for me lately?"
(MORE)
-3-
WETA-TV DOCUMENTARY ON GREAT SOCIETY, ET AL.
We, too, want to make this an ever greater nation--but not through
sacrifice of the spirit and incentive by which the American people already
have made themselves great.
This does not mean we are sit-patters. This does not mean we oppose
just for the sake of opposing It means we think our way of leading
America to greatness is better than the way of Lyndon Johnson and the liberal
Democrats.
President Johnson in his 1965 State of the Union message defined his
Great Society program as aimed at improving the "quality" of the American
people. Republicans believe it may undermine the character of the people
instead of strengthening it because as engineered by Lyndon Johnson, it smacks
too much of "Big-Daddy-will-take-care-of-you."
Perhaps the best example of this is the rent subsidies program for which
the House recently voted funds by an eight-vote margin. The fact that some
Democrats joined Republicans in voting against the funding of this program
points up the basic weakness of it.
Republicans feel the rent subsidies program should not be launched at
this time, when we are fighting a multi-billion-dollar war in Vietnam.
But apart from that, there is the basic question underlying a program
like that of rent subsidies, What does it do to a family to have the government
pay three-fourths of its rent bill? Will this be an incentive for this family
to buy or build a home of its own someday? I doubt that very much. I think
the effect will be to destroy initiative. It will only be natural for the
(MORE)
-4-
WETA-TV DOCUMENTARY ON GREAT SOCIETY, ET AL.
family living in a government-subsidized apartment to stay there the rest of
its days and let the government--that's every taxpayer--pay most of the rent.
Where we Republicans have attacked so-called Great Society bills, it has
been because this legislation threatened tostifle state, local, and private
initiative or launched expensive new programs in a time of inflationary peril.
We have made repeated attempts to improve Great Society legislation, and in
some instances we have succeeded.
We gave strong support on final passage to the higher education bill,
vocational training loan bill, the immigration bill, the Older Americans Act
of 1965, various bills in the field of health, manpower development and
training, various anti-crime bills, measures for the control of air and water
pollution and water resources planning, and the 1965 voting rights bill.
Republicans made a huge contribution to the health care of older Americans
in 1965. It was Republicans, not Democrats, who proposed a program of matching
contributions to cover the medical expenses of oldsters. The Democrats
snatched up the plan--and combined it with their program of hospitalization
under social security.
President Johnson for two years now has been tossing around another phrase
which is as nebulous as his "Great Society" catchword was originally. He
talks about "creative federalism.'
Mr. Johnson speaks of creative federalism in terms of working with the
states and local communities to solve various problems and of developing new
fiscal arrangements to promote that so-called partnership.
(MORE)
-5-
WETA-TV DOCUMENTARY ON GREAT SOCIETY, ET AL.
This is an extension of what the Kennedy Administration tried to do when
it conducted regional White House conferences throughout the country.
As we Republicans see it, creative federalism promotes not so much a
partnership between the federal government and the states and localities as
it does a dependence upon the federal bureaucracy.
This so-called "creative federalism" is marked by a shift away from the
old, across-the-board grants in aid toward specifically targeted programs
that carry with them greater federal restrictions. This, of course, means
less authority for governors. It means more and more that Washington is
running the whole show, bypassing states and working directly with local
communities as in the anti-poverty program or as in employing a federal boss
to direct a multi-state program like Appalachia.
Local officials are wary of such potential czardom, and well they might
be. The term "federal coordinator," as employed in the proposed Demonstration
Cities bill, sounds innocent enough. But it is another step toward creating
a new layer of federal bureaucracy--the "federal mayor."
Is it only Republicans who worry about this new trend toward greater
federal dictation to states and local communities? Not at all. It was
California's Democratic governor, Pat Brown, who recently moaned that "while
an increasing number of Government services are administered under joint state
and federal auspices, the governor is brought into the policy-making
discussions only infrequently, informally and haphazardly."
(MORE)
-6-
WETA-TV DOCUMENTARY ON GREAT SOCIETY, ET AL.
The Appalachia program is an example of what Mr. Johnson calls "creative
federalism." It passed the House a little more than a year ago, 257 to 165.
It was the first major Great Socity bill to clear the 89th Congress.
Republicans opposed it on the ground that Congress was discriminating
against other regions troubled with poverty pockets by pumping extra federal
dollars into one particular part of the country. Well, Mr. Johnson has an
answer for that. He now plans to use this same type of regional aid approach
for other blocs of states. That way he can spend much more on such programs.
Instead of the general attack on poverty pockets throughout the country
that House Republicans proposed early last year, the Administration plans to do
it on a region-by-region basis. That way the dollar amount in each bill does
not seem overly great, but all the bills put together will add up to a whopping
sum.
Are federal dollars the only answer to the economic woes of areas with
played-out coal mines and iron ore mines depleted of high grade ore?
One answer in those areas is to capitalize on assets not yet fully developed--
such as prospects for promoting a richly rewarding tourist industry or turning
other natural resources not yet fully tapped into jobs and local dollars. This
can often be done through state and local action. Minnesota, for instance, has
persuaded industry to make use of that states virtually unlimited low-grade iron
ore reserved by giving industry a tax break as an incentive. Incidentally, this
break was voted by the people--not handed to industry by the State legislature.
This is local and state creativeness. This is creativeness at its best.
This is the people speaking and solving their problems. This is what we
Republicans believe in.
###
Eftra Fito Broadcosts
Ori. File speeches
APRIL 5, 1966
WETA-TV DOCUMENTARY ON GREAT SOCIETY, CREATIVE FEDERALISM, AND APPALACHIA
BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER gerald R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
The American people are a great people. They have built a mighty nation
from humble beginnings. From the earliest days of this republic, our people
have yearned toward greatness and have displayed the pride and spirit
necessary to achieve it.
We have been building a great society on the North American continent
ever since the early settlers came to these majestic shores and began carving
out a new life for themselves in the wilderness.
President Johnson has seized upon a phrase--the Great Society--and has
given it propaganda value. He tried it out in a University of Michigan
c ommenc ement address before he quite knew what he was going to do with it. It
caught on, and he has been capitalizing on it politically since then.
Let's take a good look at the Great Society catch-phrase. What does
it really mean?
Briefly stated, it is the old New Deal updated. It is the New Deal
warmed over and fluffed up into a giant omelet of Big-Daddy Government that
is overflowing the sides of the pan and threatening to put out the fire. By
"the fired" I mean the pride and spirit of industry and incentive which have
generated the greatness we see everywhere about us in this rich and beautiful
land of ours.
FORD
There is nothing really new in Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" program--
nothing that does not flow out of the "New Deal" or out of the Kennedy Administra-
tion's attempts to build a mighty political machine in every city in the nation.
-2-
WETA-TV DOCUMENTARY ON GREAT SOCIETY, ET AL.
Look at some of the facets of the anti-poverty program. The Job Corps
is the old Civilian Conservation Corps of depression days reshaped to fit a
nation of big cities. The college work-study program is the old National
Yough Administration idea. The Community Action Program is the local community
uplift program hooked to federal money and, not incidentally, to federal
dictation.
We Republicans have not opposed all phases of the President's so-called
"Great Society" program. We have voted for parts of it, and we have improved
some of the legislation implementing it as it moved through Congress.
Most of the objectives are desirable, but the end does not always justify
the means. This is true just as much in government as in individual conduct.
When Republicans are returned to power in Washington, we also will offer
the people a program that promises great progress toward realization of this
nation's goals and dreams.
The Republican attitude toward what President Johnson calls his "Great
Society" program is based on the difference in philosophy between the two
major political parties.
We feel that ve are the Party of the People because of this difference
in philosophy. Republicans want to help people do more for themselves.
Democratic Administrations just want to do things for people. This is
epitomized by the cynical question asked by those whose votes can be bought:
"What have you done for me lately?"
GERALD
(MORE)
-3-
WETA-TV DOCUMENTARY ON GREAT SOCIETY, ET AL.
We, too, want to make this an ever greater nation--but not through
secrifice of the spirit and incentive by which the American people already
have made themselves great.
This does not mean we are sit-patters. This does not mean we oppose
just for the sake of opposing....It means we think our way of leading
America to greatness is better than the way of Lyndon Johnson and the liberal
Democrats.
President Johnson in his 1965 State of the Union message defined his
Great Society program as aimed at improving the "quality" of the American
people. Republicans believe it may undermine the character of the people
instead of strengthening it because as engineered by Lyndon Johnson, it smacks
too much of "Big-Daddy-will-take-care-of-you."
Perhaps the best example of this is the rent subsidies program for which
the House recently voted funds by an eight-vote margin. The fact that some
Democrate joined Republicans in voting against the funding of this program
points up the basic weakness of it.
Republicans feel the rent subsidies program should not be launched at
this time, when we are fighting a multi-billion-dollar war in Vietnam.
But apart from that, there is the basic question underlying a program
like that of rent subsidies, What does it do to a family to have the government
pay three-fourths of its rent bill? Will this be an incentive for this family
FORD
to buy or build a home of its own someday? I doubt that very much. I think
the effect will be to destroy initiative. It will only be natural for GERAL the
LIBRARY
-4-
WETA-TV DOCUMENTARY ON GREAT SOCIETY, ET AL.
family living in a government-subsidized apartment to stay there the rest of
its days and let the government--that's every taxpayer--pay most of the rent.
Where we Republicans have attacked so-called Great Society bills, it has
been because this legislation threatened tostifle state, local, and private
initiative or launched expensive new programs in a time of inflationary peril.
We have made repeated attempts to improve Great Society legislation, and in
some instances we have succeeded.
We gave strong support on final passage to the higher education bill,
vocational training loan bill, the immigration bill, the Older Americans Act
of 1965, various bills in the field of health, manpower development and
training, various anti-crime bills, measures for the control of air and water
pollution and water resources planning, and the 1965 voting rights bill.
Republicans made a huge contribution to the health care of older Americans
in 1965. It was Republicans, not Democrats, who proposed a program of matching
contributions to cover the medical expenses of oldsters. The Democrats
snatched up the plan--and combined it with their program of hospitalization
under social security.
President Johnson for two years now has been tossing around another phrase
which is as nebulous as his "Great Society" catchword was originally. He
talks about "creative federalism."
Mr. Johnson speaks of creative federalism in terms of working with the
states and local communities to solve various problems and of developing new
LIBRARY
fiscal arrangements to promote that so-called partnership.
(MORE)
-5-
WETA-TV DOCUMENTARY ON GREAT SOCIETY, ET AL.
This is an extension of what the Kennedy Administration tried to do when
it conducted regional White House conferences throughout the country.
As we Republicans see it, creative federalism promotes not so much a
partnership between the federal government and the states and localities as
it doms a dependence upon the federal buresucracy.
This so-called "creative federalism" is marked by a shift away from the
old, across-the-board grants in aid toward specifically targeted programs
that carry with them greater federal restrictions. This, of course, means
less authority for governors. It means more and more that Washington is
running the whole show, bypassing states and working directly with local
communities as in the anti-poverty program or as in employing a federal boss
to direct a multi-state program like Appalachia.
Local officials are wary of such potential czardom, and well they might
be. The term "Pederal coordinator," as employed in the proposed Demonstration
Cities bill, sounds innocent enough. But it is another step toward creating
a new layer of federal bureaucracy--the "federal mayor."
Is it only Republicans who worry about this new trend toward greater
federal dictation to states and local communities? Not at all. It was,
California's Democratic governor, Pat Brown, who recently moaned that "while
an increasing number of Government services are administered under joint state
and federal suspices, the governor is brought into the policy-making
discussions only infrequently, informally and haphasardly."
(MORE)
-6-
WETA-TV DOCUMENTARY ON GREAT SOCIETY, ET AL.
The Appalachia program is an example of what Mr. Johnson calls "creative
federalism." It passed the House a little more than a year ago, 257 to 165.
It was the first major Great Socity bill to clear the 89th Congress.
Republicans opposed it on the ground that Congress was discriminating
against other regions troubled with poverty pockets by pumping extra federal
dollars into one particular part of the country. Well, Mr. Johnson has an
answer for that. He now plans to use this same type of regional aid approach
for other blocs of states. That way he can spend much more on such programs.
Instead of the general attack on poverty pockets throughout the country
that House Republicans proposed early last year, the Administration plans to do
it on a region-by-region basis. That way the dollar amount in each bill does
not seem overly great, but all the bills put together will add up to a whopping
sum.
Are federal dollars the only answer to the economic woes of areas with
played-out coal mines and iron ore mines depleted of high grade ore?
One answer in those areas is to capitalize on assets not yet fully developed--
such as prospects for promoting & richly reyarding tourist industry or turning
other natural resources not yet fully tapped into jobs and local dollars. This
can often be done through state and local action. Minnesota, for instance, has
persuaded industry to make use of that states virtually unlimited low-grade iron
ore reserved by giving industry a tax break as an incentive. Incidentally, this
break was voted by the people--not handed to industry by the State legislature.
This is local and state creativeness. This is creativeness at its best.
This is the people speaking and solving their problems. This is what we'D
Republicans believe in.
# #
REPRESENTATIVE FORD
[1966 J
ON MARCH 31ST LAST, THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE, ORVILLE L. FREEMAN
ANNOUNCED THAT THE PRICES OF FARM PRODUCTS
HAD DROPPED DURING THE PRECEDING WEEKS
AND EXPRESSED DELIGHT IN THIS FACT. THE
PRESS THROUGHOUT THE NATION REPORTED HIS
ELATION IN DETAIL AND FARMERS THROUGHOUT
AMERICA REACTED ANGRILY.
THE NEW YORK TIMES BEGAN ITS REPORT
ON THE SITUATION IN THIS WAY:
"SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE ORVILLE L.
FREEMAN EXPRESSED PLEASURE TODAY
WITH THE FACT THAT THE PRICES OF
FARM PRODUCTS HAD DROPPED RECENTLY.
"IT WAS THE FIRST TIME IN THE
MEMORY OF FEDERAL FARM OFFICIALS
THAT A SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
LIBRARY 5
39
INDICATED THAT HE WAS PLEASED WITH
- 2 -
A DECREASE IN FARM PRICES. LIKE
MR. FREEMAN, THE OFFICIALS WERE
HAPPY TO NOTE THAT CONSUMERS WOULD
BENEFIT FROM LOWER PRICES BY THIS
SUMMER."
LET ME REPEAT THAT LAST SENTENCE:
"LIKE MR. FREEMAN, THE OFFICIALS WERE
HAPPY TO NOTE THAT 00 NSUMERS WOULD BENEFIT
FROM LOWER PRICES BY THIS SUMMER." THERE
IS ONLY ONE FLAW IN THIS STATEMENT. IT
SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE. PARADOXICALLY, AS
FARM PRICES HAVE MOVED STEADILY DOWNWARD,
RETAIL FOOD PRICES HAVE RISEN EVEN MORE
RAPIDLY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S
COST OF LIVING INDEX HAS CONTINUED TO CLIMB
TO RECORD HIGHS.
GERALD R. LEGRARY R-FORD
- 3 -
SECRETARY FREEMAN, ECONOMIC ADVISOR
GARDNER ACKLEY, AND EACH OF THE OTHER
PROMINENT AGRICRATS HAVE TRIED, REPEATEDLY
AND WITH ZEAL, TO MAKE THE AMERICAN FARMER
AND HIS FAMILY THE WHIPPING BOYS FOR THE
INFLATION THAT IS STEADILY TAKING MORE
AND MORE DOLLARS FROM THE POCKETS OF
EVERY AMERICAN. THE HOUSEWIVES OF AMERICA
SHOULD BE TOLD THAT 61 PERCENT OF THE COST
OF THE FOOD IN THEIR MARKET BASKETS IS
ADDED AFTER IT LEAVES THE FARM. I REPEAT--
THE HOUSEWIVES OF AMERICA SHOULD BE TOLD
THAT 61 PERCENT OF THE COST OF THE FOOD IN
THEIR MARKET BASKETS IS ADDED AFTER IT
LEAVES THE FARM.
THE COLD HARD FACT OF THE MATTER LIBRO IS
FORD
LIBER
THAT THE RISING COSTS OF LIVING IN THIS
COUNTRY CAN BE ATTRIBUTED PRIMARILY TO
- 4 -
THE EXCESSIVE, RECKLESS SPENDING OF OUR
PEOPLE'S MONEY FOR WASTEFUL, TOO OFTEN
UNNECESSARY PROGRAMS CONCEIVED BY THE
SO-CALLED GREAT SOCIETY PLANNERS AND
CONCURRED IN BY THE GREAT MAJORITY OF
DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS.
SECRETARY FREEMAN HAS ALLEGED THAT
DURING HIS TENURE OF OFFICE THE AMERICAN
FARMER HAS ENJOYED A FIFTY PERCENT
INCREASE IN HIS INCOME. WILL ALL THE
FARMERS WHO HAVE ENJOYED A REAL INCOME
INCREASE OF FIFTY PERCENT PLEASE STAND UP?
OR, BETTER YET, LET THE ADMINISTRATION
AND THE CONGRESS HEAR FROM YOU BY LETTER,
WIRE, OR TELEPHONE. FARM ORGANIZATIONS,
FARM STATE NEWSPAPERS, FARM LEADERS AND
COUNTLESS INDIVIDUAL FARMERS FROM COAST
TO COAST ARE BOILING WITH ANGER OVER THE
- 5 -
POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF THIS
ADMINISTRATION WHICH ARE DRIVING FARM
PRICES SWIFTLY DOWNWARD AND CONSUMER
COSTS HARSHLY UPWARD WITH EACH PASSING
DAY.
LET THERE BE NO MISTAKE. THE
JOHNSON-HUMPHREY ADMINISTRATION IS
USING AND ABUSING AMERICAN FARMERS AND
RANCHERS AS THE SCAPEGOATS OF INFLATION.
TO THIS STATEMENT I ATTACH A LISTING OF
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES AND I INVITE YOUR
ATTENTION TO IT.
WHEN THE AGRICRATS OF THE JOHNSON-
HUMPHREY ADMINISTRATION IMPOSE POLICIES
AND PRACTICES WHICH HELP NO ONE AND HARM
EVERYONE, THE CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN FORD
PEOPLE ARE FULLY JUSTIFIED IN THEIR GERALD ANGER.
THE BOILING POINT IS NEAR AT HAND.
- 6 -
THEREFORE, OUR QUESTION-OF-THE-WEEK:
MR. PRESIDENT, ARE YOU GOING TO
KEEP PRICES | DOWN ON THE FARM?
FORD LIBRARY & BERALD
June 16, 1966
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
FROM:
William B. Prendergast
SUBJECT: Farm Income
The real net farm income in 1965 was 15 per cent above the
1960 level. In 1965 it was $14.1 billion; in 1960, $12.3 billion.
The increase is due entirely to increased government payments.
Because the number of farmers has decreased, real net
income per farm was about one third higher in 1965 than in 1960.
For 1966, the Department of Agriculture estimates a
$1 billion increase in net farm increase and a $1 billion increase
in government payments.
income
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration is using and abusing American
farmers and ranchers as the scapegoats of inflation:
(1) by domestic fiscal policies which have sharply increased
farm production costs;
(2) by market price manipulations whech have decreased prices
received by farmers, with the result that the present
parity ratio stands at only 79, even including direct
subsidies, despite Democratic promises of 100;
(3) by refusing to admit that increased consumer prices --
increased food costs to the housewife and the wage-earner
--have not been caused by farmers, such consumer prices
having risen steadily as farm prices have as steadily
decreased;
(4) by recommending drastic cuts in Congressional appro-
priations for school milk, school lunches, land grant
colleges, and other vital programs;
(5) by the Secretary of Agriculture's dumping of huge
quantities of grain at unrealistic prices upon the
domestic market in order to break and depress grain
and livestock market prices;
(6) by the Department of Commerce action of March 7, 1966
imposing restriction on the export of cattle hides, calf
and kip skins, such action resulting in lower domestic
livestock products,
(7) by a large and unilaterial increase in Cheddar cheese imports,
without any attempt being made to secure reciprocal trade
concessions from other nations to expand U. S. agricul-
tural exports overseas;
(8) by a sharp curtailment of purchases of pork and of butter
and other dairy products by the Department of Defense;
and, I repeat -
(9) by the Secretary of Agriculture's expression of pleasure
with the fact that prices of farm products have dropped.
GOP CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
TAPED 7/29/66
RADIO TAPE REMARKS
Agriculture Secretary Orville Freeman has told Democratic candidates
for Congress to "slip, slide, and duck any question of higher consumer
prices if you possibly can." I am not surprised that Mr. Freeman gave
this advice to Democrats at a recent candidates conference. He knows full
well that the Johnson-Humphrey-Freeman Administration is entirely to blame
for the shockingly swift rise in the cost of living during the first half
of 1966. He knows that the cost of living rose 2 per cent last year and
is going up at a 3 to 4 per cent rate this year. Naturally Mr. Freeman is
telling Democrats to avoid questions on inflation. He knows it's the No. 1
issue in the country and it is damaging to the Democrats.
###
Broadcasts Ford
TE EPROMPTER SCRIPT
MINUTE IV IMULCAST ANCHER NELSEN CAMPAIGN ENDORSEMENT, HOUSE TV STUDIO
1:30 DM. Friday, Ang. ?, 1966
ANNOUNCER: Ladies and Gentlemen, the Minority Leader of the United States
House of Represe totives, the Hon. Gerald R. Ford:
of
Disse
are
fortunate to have Ancher Nelsen as your Congressman. A recommized farm
expert who headed the REA during the Disenhower Administration, Ancher
is an effective and respected voice for rural America in Congress. He
1. ranking Republican on the House District Committee, a position of
responsibility. House Commerce Committee, Ancher handled
TAW key pieces of legislation affecting the health, transportation and
conditions of our country, Ancher has led the Congressional
in keep mulities out of our civil service merit system. Ancher's
,
responsible, common sense approach to questions of public policy
s
by
ited to sound, two-party govern-
Kenner working for you. P need him in Congress.
This political broadcast pain by the Ancher Nelsen Volunteer Committee.
BERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
United States Senate
BENATS INVESTIGATIONS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
AMERDIAN,
ADVISORY COMMISSION ON
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
RELATIONS
WALTER c. CONAMAN
SECRETARY
LEGLA FOUTH DAKOTA
August 12, 1966
OK/ have seryt
Honorable Gerald Ford
r
H230 United States Capitol
Washington, D.C.
Dear Gerry:
With respect to NO forthcoming can
paign, I'd like to ask a favor of you. Would it be possible
ire you sometime in the near future to do a 45-second televi-
sion spot in my behalf at the House Recording Studior the
cost, of course, would be billed to me.
I would like to utilize it as a part
of a one-minute spot for use back home in our television and
radio advertising and would also appreciate permission to use
the text in a news release at the appropriate time.
If you can see your way clear to
make such a spot, you might wish to have the man in your office
who works on these matters with you contact Walt Conahan in my
office to make whatever arrangements are required.
With thanks for your consideration of
this request, and my kindest regards, I asi,
Cordially yours,
Karl R. Mundt, U.S.S.
KEM:edc
FORD
GERALD R. FORD
MICHIGAN OFFICE:
FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
425 CHERRY STREET SE.
GRAND RAPIDS
Congress of the United States
Office of the Minority Leader
House of Representatives
Mashington, D.C.
August 15, 1966
Honorable Karl E. Mundt
United States Semate
4121 Senate Office Bldg
Washington, D. C.
Dear Karl:
Thank you for your letter of August 12 with the kind invitation to
prepare a 45-second television spot in your behalf.
You know that I will be pleased to do this and anything else I can
to be helpful.
I will have my press secretary, Mr. Paul Miltich, get in touch with
Walt Conahan to make the arrangements.
Warmest personal regards.
Sincerely,
Gerald R. Ford, M. C.
GRFime
Abcc: Mr. Paul Miltich - copy of original Mundt letter
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
Week Sept. 26, L966
To FUND-RAISER
My friends, there is a clear and present danger in America today-too much
power concentrated in the hands of one political party.
To get good legislation, we need competition in Congress--a greater
number of Republicans to challenge the mistaken policies of this Administration.
Too many Democrats in Congress means too much federal spending, high prices in
the marketplace, skyrocketing interest rates, conditions that lead to recession
and unemployment.
In the past two years, the lopsided Democrat majorities in the House and
Senate have passed too many laws too hestily and with too many loopholes. The
Democratic Congress has passed laws with too many rough corners and without
assessing current or ultimate costs.
The automatic-Democratio Congress last year and in 1966 rubber-stamped
too much legislation demanded by the President.
America desperately needs an independent, cost-conscious Congress that
will represent you, the taxpayer--you, the citizen.
LIBRARY FORD & 071
More Republicans must be elected November 8 if we are to restore
GA
competitive balance in Congress, break the Democratic stranglehold and protect
the proper interests of all Americans.
...
2nd Dreft
CAMPAIGN TV SCRIPT
RE: CRIME--LAW & ORDER - 1966
ANNOUNCER: Ladies and Gentlemen, our Congressman, Jerry Ford.
MR. FORD: I was with Chuck Percy the evening before tragedy struck in his home
early Sunday morning just a few weeks ago, Chuck Percy is a good friend and will
make an outstanding United States Senstor. But the scars of this terrible crime
will be with him all of his life.
This murder was a dramatic example of crime in our country. As J. Edgar
Hoover has said, "Citizens of this country ought to be able to welk on the streets
of our cities without being mugged, attacked, or robbed." "But," he added, "we
can't do that today."
The crime rate goes up every year, but one of the most startling facts is
that the rate of criminal convictions is going down. This means that more crimes
are being committed and more criminals are getting away with it.
What can we say to all this? First of all, we as parents can ask ourselves
whether we are doing everything we can to instill in our children a devotion to
law and order, a respect for other people and their property, and a sense of
personal responsibility.
We look to our schools and colleges to promote good citizenship by developing
a love of country and a deep appreciation for its institutions, and to provide
every person with such training as will enable him to be a useful member of society.
We must also look to the church to develop high moral standards. The Ten
Commandments and the Golden Rule, ancient as they are, are true and valid today.
(MORE)
GERALD LIBRARY
The whole community, which means all of us, must be willing to report law
violations and support law enforcement. I, therefore, strongly comment the Grand
Rapids Traffic Squad for spensoring the project CHEC, "Citizens Helping Eliminate
Crime." They want 30,000 to 40,000 citizens to cooperate. You can help by signing
up as a volunteer.
But what of the government? Former Justice Whittsker of the United States
Supreme Court wrote recently that we all agree that a citizen's first duty is to
uphold the law. But he added with emphasis, "It is also a first duty of government
to enforce the law."
Leadership in high places is, consequently, most significant. I was, therefore,
terribly disturbed when the Vice President of the United States stated recently
that he had "enough spark left in (him) to lead a mighty good revolt under (certain)
conditions."
And not too long ago, one of our top leaders told a national association that
it should resort to "every means, even including bottle fighting" to retain its
gains.
Our internal security has been established through a long history of justice
under law. We don't need "bottle fighting;" we don't need top administration
leaders who may be willing to "lead a mighty good revolt."
We call upon our national leaders to improve conditions that need improving.
We call upon our leaders to secure to all Americans their constitutional rights.
But we GOR expect our leaders to maintain order, to counsel the use of "due
process of low," and to discourage rather than encourage and criminal action.
(MORE)
-3-
During this past session of Congress, I supported legislation which would
make it a federal crime to travel in interstate commerce or to use any of the
facilities of interstate commerce with the intent of inciting to riot or other
forms of violence. This is one good stop in the right direction.
I also voted to create a National Commission on Criminal Laws. This Commission
would have the task of making a comprehensive study of all our federal criminal
laws including decisions of the courts on criminal procedure. This must be done
if we are to find ways of giving our law enforcement officers the tools they need
to protect all of us.
New Laws may help; but if we are to meet the problem of crime and lawlessness,
we must recognize that a citizen's first duty is to uphold the law, and that "the
first duty of government is to enforce the law."
I am asking for your support for reelection to the Congress so that I may
continue my efforts in your behalf. We want a government where there is just
enforcement of the law and a determined effort to protect the rights and best
interests of every citizen.
ANNOUNCER: Vote on November 8. Vote Republican. Vote for Congressman Jerry Ford.
e # e
CAMPAIGN TV SCRIPT
1966 - INFLATION
ANNOUNCER: One of the key issues in this election campaign is inflation. Here
is our Congressman, Jerry Ford, to discuss this issue with you.
MR. FORD: Inflation is a thief. It robs you of hard-earned wage gains; it steals
from your earnings. --(PAN TO INFLATION POSTER NO. 1 BRIEFLY)-- You can't lock
your door against it. No use to bar the windows. --(CAMERA BACK TO FORD)--
What is inflation? It's the oost of living going up and up and up. It's
price rise after price rise. Your dollar is worth less and less.
Are you making more now than you were last year? According to official
government figures, the cost of living is going up faster than the average working
man's income. --(PAN TO INFLATION POSTER NO. 2)--
This year inflation is on a rampage. Last year the cost of living was
creeping upward. This year it's in orbit.
Who's to blame for this destructive inflation? Are you? Is labor? Is
industry?
No, it is primarily President Johnson and his Democrat dollar shrinkers in
Washington.
Budget deficits and a bigger National Debt equal shrunken money. --(SHIFT
TO CLOSEUP OF POSTER NO. 3 AND THEN DRAW AWAY)--
The Johnson Administration and free-spending Democrats in the Congress are
primarily responsible for our present frightening inflationary cycle. They could
have stopped it, but they didn't. In fact, they encouraged it by continuing
excessive spending policies and deficit financing.
FORD NEBARK
How could the Democrate have halted inflation? By cutting back on non-
essential federal expenditures before the fires of inflation began roaring out
-2-
of control. Timing is most important. Instead of moving last January to cut
back on government spending, President Johnson encouraged new spending schemes.
There is every reason to believe the President will demand an increase in
personal and corporate income taxes sometime after November 8.
It will be ironic, indeed, if Mr. Johnson succeeds in raising personal
income taxes.
That would be a cruel joke on the people of this country--to be forced to
pay higher taxes at the same time that prices are going up. --(GO TO CLOSEUP OF
POSTER 3 AGAIN, THEN PULL BACK)-- And you'll be paying those high taxes with
smaller dollars-dollars made smaller by Mr. Johnson and his Democrat dollar
shrinkers.
--(CAMERA BACK ON FORD)--
The truly tragic aspect of a possible income tax increase is that it will
give the Johnson Administration and free-spending Democrats in Congress more
taxpayer money to throw wround.
I'd rather take from them some of the power to spend. I'd prefer to keep
more money in your pockets.
Recently, Mr. Johnson case up with some helpful advice to the American
people. He said any American who had nothing better to do than complain about
inflation ought to join the Republican Party. There was more truth than postry
in those words. Democrats and independents ought to oblige him.
In snother speaking appearance, Mr. Johnson had this comment to make on
the problem of inflation**
(CLIP OF JOHNSON SAYING: "So when these folks start talking to you
about inflation, you tell them that's something you only have to worry about in
Democratic administrations."
-3-
(BACK TO FORD)--
He is so right. You do have to worry about inflation. And it is his
administration which is primerily responsible for bringing on inflation and
failing to stop it.
As Republican leader in the House of Representatives, I led a fight to cut
the President's non-military budget by 5 per cent this year. We had the support
of nearly all the Republican congressmen, but only one out of five of the
Democrats cooperated. Since Democrats in the Congress outnumber the Republicans
more than two to one, it's easy to see why we couldn't win--why you couldn't vin--
on any economy votes.
You want to stop inflation? It can be done. Elect to public office men
and women who not only talk about the danger of inflation but doesomething about
it--men and women who will vote against unnecessary spending, who will insist on
a balanced budget and sound money.
ANNOUNCER: Had enough of higher prices? Vote Republican, and return Jerry Ford
to Congress.
...
CAMPAIGN TV SCRIPT
1966 - TAXES & DEBT
ANNOUNCER: In a world of uncertainties, taxes are something that will always be
with us. But our Congressman, Jerry Ford, knows that they do not have to go up.
Jerry...
MR. FORD: Six years of deficit spending. That's what you've had under two
Democratic Administrations. They've gone in the hole every year for six years.
And the accumulated deficits add up to over $30 billion.
Hasn't it ever struck you as strange... all the money the Federal Government
takes from you in taxes, and they still can't balance the books. And if the
Democrate can't balance the budget in times such as these, when will they do it?
This year the Federal Government will collect $311 from every man, woman
and child in the country. Well, the kids won't pay that, of course. You'll pay
it for them.
Did you know that in just the past 10 years the income tax load per family
in this country has jumped from $1,242 to $2,897? --(PAN TO INCOME TAX POSTER)--
That's more than double--and still our free-spending Democratic Administrations
keep wallowing in the red. --(BACK TO FORD)--
The sad fact is that with a Democrat in the White House and with huge
Democratic majorities in the Congress, the federal government isn't able to pay
for its extravagances despite the tremendous tax burden you're carrying.
The free-spending Democrate will tell you that more taxes and a greater
National Debt are nothing to worry about. But you still pay and pay.
FORD
They don't tell you that the government borrowing necessary to pay the
LIBRARY
bills has helped drive up interest rates to the highest point in more than 40
-2-
years. This makes it more expensive for you to buy a house or to buy a car.
They don't tell you that the National Debt now unceeds $325 billion, up
$8 billion over a year ago (as of September 30). --(PAN TO DEBT POSTER)--
They don't tell you that each billion dollars in debt adds more than $33
million per year to interest charges.
They don't tell you that the interest on the National Debt now totals a
staggering $13 billion a year.
These Democratic spenders don't tell you that you pay over $1 billion a
month in taxes just to pay the interest on the National Debt.
They don't tell you that this interest payment alone takes all the federal
income taxes paid by everybody earning $6,000 a year or less. -(BACK TO FORD)--
They talk about the Great Society, but they don't tell you that this $13
billion interest payment comes to more than President Johnson has budgeted for
health, welfare and education all lumped together. And if the Democrats do not
balance the budget in times such as these, when will they ever do it?
President Johnson keeps telling the American people low much he and his
lopsided Democratic majorities in Congress are giving the American people.
Anything you get you have paid for--and your future and that of your
children and grandchildren are mortgaged to the hilt in the bargain. The next
time Mr. Johnson tells you what he is giving you, remember your tax bill and
think about that $13 billion in interest on the National Debt. And if the
Democrats do not balance the budget in times such as these, when will they ever
do it?
****(PAN TO TAX POSTER NO.
GERALD
All of the Presidents and Congresses through World War II taxed the
American people a total of $248 billion. The New Frontier-Great Society has
-3-
caxed us about $500 billion, and you're paying every penny of it.
---(BACK TO FORD)--
Your tax burden has already been increased this year through higher social
security taxes, higher excise taxes, and advance withholding of income taxes.
We know the fiscal 1967 budget will be for larger than the President has
forecest. We know the President will demand another tax increase--after the
election. We know that you do not want another tax increase. Taxes are high
enough now.
There's a better way out of the mess we're in. Let's cut non-essential
federal spending. How do we do that? Vote Republican on November 8.
ANNOUNCER: Had enough of high taxes? Vote Republican. Vote for Congressman
Jerry Ford.
ese
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
CAMPAIGN TV SCRIPT
1966 - HIGH INTEREST
ANNOUNCER: High interest rates are plaguing the American people. More is our
Congressman, Jerry Ford, to give you the lowdown on high interest. Jerry...
MR. FORD: First, let me read you a letter from a distressed wife and mother in
-- (FORD READS FROM LETTER)--
Grand Rapids whose husband has been transferred by his employer. A She writes:
"We are unable to sell our modern four-bedroom home here due to high interest
(currently 7 per cent), and the high down-payment required (currently a third).
We are therefore unable to manage the 20 percent down-payment required on a home
in New York State. of course, I do not need to tell you how difficult this is
for a family with young children."
The plight of this family is a most painful one. It is multiplied many
times in similar cases throughout our district and all across America. It could
have been prevented.
-- (PAN TO HIGH INT. POSTER)-
Interest rates are the highest in 45 years. 1 You know what that means to
the family interested in buying a home-interest payments of 6½ or 7 percent a
year for 20 or 35 years.
But maybe you aren't about to buy a house, and so you say to yourself,
'What's high interest to me?'
High interest rates help to push up prices. They raise the businessmen's
costs and he generally passes the added cost on to the consumer.
High interest rates hurt every American. They show up in the form of price
boosts all along the line. They hit the farmer, business, and the builder
LIBRARY 07V039 pase
wind up hurting the consumer. High interest rates mean increased rents.
(MORE)
-2-
Interest rates on installment borrowing for cars and other consumer goods
also are going up.
This could hurt car sales, could lead to unemployment in the auto plants.
This country is in deep economic trouble. The unsound economic policies
of the Democrate are actually planting the seeds of a recession. How did we get
this way?
High interest rates didn't just happen.
When inflation began its insidious attack upon the American economy last
year, President Johnson refused to act. He refused to cut back on federal spending
and thus take the excess sir out of the economic bubble.
The bubble began swelling more and more. Seeing the vacuua of leadership
in the White House, the Federal Reserve Board triggered a rise in interest rates
in a move to prevent runaway inflation.
Interest rates went up, but the economy didn't level off. Prices continued
going up, up, up. --(PAN TO PRICE SKYROCKET)-- The Johnson Administration kept
spending, spending, spending. The cost of living went into orbit. Democrats in
Congress kept voting more money for the Administration to spend and spend and spend.
Along with a war, Americans got e triple dose of inflation--high interest
rates, high prices, and a record high level of unnecessary federal spending.
It's the Johnson Administration and the free-spending Democrats in Congress
who are primarily to blame for high interest rates. It's not the Federal Reserve
Board. The Board was forced to set because the President wouldn't.
Johnson-Democrat interest rates are hurting all America.
FORD LIBRARI
When the economy became overheated, Mr. Johnson and the Democrats went
right on spending funds that should have been seved.
-3-
Inflation was threatening to destroy the economy, but most Democrats in
Congress kept right on spending as usual. They resisted all Republican attempts
to make deep non-military spending cuts--the best way to fight inflation. Instead
they poured millions into such non-essential projects as Alaska's centennial
celebration and Florida's Interama exposition. Scorning all Republican pleas for
economy, the Democrate remmed through bills to spend $9.5 million in taxpayer
money on the Florida Interama and $4.6 million on the Alaska centennial.
Today all Americans are paying the high cost of Johnson. They're paying
for Johnson-Democrat inflation; they're paying Johnson-Democrat interest rates.
You're paying and paying--every penny of it, in high prices, high interest, and
high taxes.
ANNOUNCER: Want to change the high interest picture? Went to keepndown prices
and taxes? Vote Republican. Vote to reelect Jerry Ford to Congress.
# # #
FORD-GRIFFIN SCRIFT
RE: LANDRIBI-GRIPYIN ACT
ATTIOUNCER: The only major labor legislation passed by Congress in the last two
decades has the same ul a Michigan Lawnsher on It. It is the Londrum-Griffin hat,
co-suthored by United States Senstor Robert 8. Griffin as a congressmen in 1959.
Michigan labor leaders have made the Landrum-Griffin Act an tosue in Sen. Griffin's
compaign. More are Sen. Criffin and Rep. Gerald R. Ford, your Fifth District
Congressmen, to give you the real lects about the Landrum-Griffin Act.
MR. FORD: Bob, z hope you and I together can make known to the people of Michigan
just what the Landrum-Griffin Labor Act is all about, because a lot of untruths
have been told about it.
MR. CREFFIN: Jerry, I really volcome this opportunity to key the facts on the
line about the Lendrum-Oriffin Mr. The best way to do that, I think, is to
remind people that this Legislation was conceived during a period of flagrent
syme
abuses by labor officials and vas simply streed at cleaning up that situation.
MR. FORD: I recall that one of the congressional leaders to the movement to class
up laber scandale in 1959 was the late President John w. Kennedy, who at that time
was in the Senste.
NR. CUIFFIN: That's right, Jerry. The Senste passed what was known as the
Kennedy-Ervin Bill, and the House approved the Leadrum-Griffin Sill. The two
bills were somewher different, and so Jack Kennedy, I and certain other members
of the House and Senste were given the job of working out a compromise acceptable
to both houses of Congress. Jack Kennedy and I worked together very closely on
(ISCUR)
GERALD FORD
.80
that compromise, 00 that when it was finally adopted soup cold it
could well have been salled the Rennody-Oriffin Act. - TO L-8 POSTER me. 1)--
In fact, 18 was Back Rounody the starred at through the Senate. Lyndon Johnson,
who then use the Somate Democratic londer, voted for it. so did Sea. Phil Bart
and the late See. Pat who had been 0 union official. --(NM no I-6 FORTH
me. 2)-- The Londrun-Briffin BEEL passed the Broos 352 to $2. the Senste approved
it 95 to 2.
- 1 8
Bob, 8 find 25 really vidioulous that - labor leaders are trying to
uske you out 88 anti-laber for co-outhering s bill that was supported by the lass
Fresident Heansdy, Lyndon Johnson and all but two Descreats in the Senate.
III. Jerry, 1 Seel sure that the people of Michigan wen't swellew charges
1the that on long où they become avere of the fease. I think 18's significant
that Former Laber Secretary Arthur Goldborg seld no homes labor Londer could
Look upon the Landron-Oriffis Let 00 noything mes then e code of athics.
Bob, the present sestetant Democret Sucretary of Labor, James J. Reynolds,
recently used to . interview that the Landvan-Oriffin Act is "see of the
mest constructive" piceas of labor legislation % years." That's e direct quote.
Mr. Reynolds also cald "an Image of the Art has developed which
I think 10 greesly unfeir." There's 8 hay wed is that Mr. Reynolds
that word is "tonge."
m. ORDER That's right, Jerry. Sertain later efficials have tried to paint
the Landrun-Oriffin Act is ovil colors. They hope this will nb off on m. the
truth is that the Landren-Oriffin Act is is the public interest. It's also is
the interest of the upice nombers.
is
M. 1 think you ought to straighten out the record right have and now.
m. GAINZIN: to not the resert straight, here's e brief sundown on what the
Inadrun-Oriffin Act is: TO 1-0 POSTER me. # Et's . bill of rights
for rech-ond-file union members. " guarantees then honosty to the election of
union officials and the conduct of union affetve. It's 0 Low to protect the
reck-end-file union member and a Low to probect the public interest.
Well, 8'm not suspetend come will paid under efficials don't like it.
After cil, it gives 8 union swaker the sight to speak out against unles Senders
without fear of reprisel. Buts of those paid officials antonolly wouldn't Like
. Insurance requires a financial steenating by union Lenders every year ont guards
against winess of union funds. Bob, a Sam of the Labor Becaus don't like the
Londron-Griffin Act, The l'feel sure the people of this country their
includes seak-and-file within mothers.
n. CHIPPING Jerry, %'m to lot the purple judge whether the Landrum-
Unititn Act 1a good Len.
For raupomville rece for Box. Oriffin and Roy. Part on
Becauser s. Total
...
GERALD FORD LIBRANK
FORD-4RIFTIN N SCRIPT
INVIATION . 1964
ANNOUNCES: Inflation--the steady and continuing rise in prices+-is rebbing
Michigan's citizens of their vage gains. Bore are tuo distinguished nouhers of
Congress+-United States Senater Robert P. Oriffin and mop. Gorald B. Ford of the
Fifth CongRessional District to telk about this meet pressing problem with you.
(NOTH: FORD s GREFFIN to have NAMIPLATES IN yasur or CONSUMER PRICE neex
CHART BUSIND this.)
Bob, I an mest happy to have you with 100 on this program
you are hosaly aware of problems
affecting the whole statumar MICHIGAN.
m. CRIFFIX: Jerry, certainly the problem that is meet on the winds of all the
people of Michigan, except for Vietnom, to inflation. My supermarrhot enevey of
housewives established that. I found they are meet vahappy about high pripes.
That answer cam through loud and sleer.
-- OPAN TO GREAT SOCIETY SUPERMARKET FOSTER no. 1 TO FORE).-
m. FORD: Nob, the meet fentactic statements 1 have heard 8 Johnson Administration
official make in recent veebs ware the readeha of Labor Supretary Willard Wirts
before the AFL-CIO Committee ⑉ Felities1 Education Servention is Decreit -
Sept. 29. be actually had the serve " stand before that subtones and tell these
people we don't relly have inflation todayouthot inflation to just southing
Republicens are talking about in their speecher,
m. Boy, Michigan housewives would really streighten m. Wirts out 12
they had the chance-- they will have that chance on Election Bay. They know
LIBRARY
GERA
÷
- the cost of living is going up about 9 por cost this year. That's twice as
fast as is 1965-cand 1965 wes bed enough.
M.D. that's right, Dob. Mobody in Michigan to going to be taken is by
Mr. Wrts's ridioulous statement because his own) Berone of Labor Statistics united
reports which show be's telling fatry sales. --(MM TO FRICE ENDER GRAPH)--
It's all here on this chartong chart drawn from official
figures furnished by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Look et the way that cost-
ef-living line has seemed sproad. It show a sharp climb, particularly in 1965
and this year. That's when President Johnson and the Democrets is Congrass should
have hold down on non-defence spending but didn't.
Here is what's happened to prisse--In block and white. Starting with the
hase figure of 100 is the 1957-59 pariod, we ass that consumer prices have seased
until in August--the latest figure we have here-the
eight=year high, the 113.8 narh.
--(CAMERA 057 POSTER AND ou CRIFFIN)--
m. ORIGWIN: Our people in Michigan should realise that what all this means is
just this: The 1937339 dellar-oon which our present Geneuner Price Inden is
based--in now worth only as conto. This to like paying a 24% federal salse can.
--(NMI 20 DOLLAR SECREASE FORTHER)--
m.m. That's right, Bob, It'm get cheep dallars beday-velleep Johnson dellare.
They just don't " very ter. Bracy housewife on a budget and every senior citizen
struggling to live on Social Security to sainfully explaine. of that. -
Dob, what this country is suffering from right sev is Johnson inflation.
(MM)
*jo
B. CRIFYIN' That's absolutely right, Jerry. You know carlier this year,
W. Allen Wellis, President of the University of Rechester and a former nember of
the President's Council of Recomic Advisers, made this statement: "Inflotion
can only be generated by the government. Business fires, labor waters, consumers
with excessive merket pover can do many objectionable things that are centrary to
the public interest; but cas objectionable thing they cannot to is to cause
inflation--or, for that instrur, provent it."
12. FORD X wonder if your opponent in the November 8 election agrees with that
statement. or would he, like Yr. Johnson, blane the housewife, the former,
Industry and labor for the sharp rise in the cost of living.
Mr. CERTIFY Jarry, I think inflation has eaught mp with Mr. Johnson and with
Mr. Williams. The unfortunate part is that it's the American people who are
Bloking up the tab.
M. FORD, Bob, 1 think the people of Michigan will vote to bring dawn
will
high prices. I balieve they vota for responsible government Da
Nevember 8.
ANNOUNCES: Sick of high prices? Vote Republican SR November s.
...
GERALD R. LISHARY FORD
The National Broadcasting Company Presents
MEET THE PRESS
America's Press Conference of the Air
Produced by LAWRENCE E. SPIVAK
Guest: TOM MBOYA
Minister of Economic Planning
and Development, Kenya
VOLUME 10
MARCH 20, 1966
NUMBER 12
Merkle Press Inc.
Printers and Periodical Publishers
Division of Publishers Co. Inc.
Box 2111, Washington, D. C. 20013
10 cents per copy
Panel:
JOSEPH C. HARSCH, NBC News
GRAHAM HOVEY, The New York Times
CARL T. ROWAN, Chicago Daily News
LAWRENCE E. SPIVAK, Permanent Panel Member
MEET THE PRESS
MR. RASH: Our guest today on MEET THE PRESS, although
he is only 35, has earned a reputation as one of Africa's foremost
Moderator: BRYSON RASH
spokesmen. He is Mr. Tom Mboya, the Minister of Economic
Planning and Development of Kenya. Mr. Mboya arrived in
this country this weekend. He is also Chairman of the United
Nations Economic Commission for Africa and Secretary General
of his country's ruling political party, the Kenya African Na-
tional Union. Now we will have the first questions from Mr.
Lawrence Spivak, the permanent member of the MEET THE
PRESS panel.
MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Mboya, our press reported the other day
that a Communist plot to overthrow your government had been
uncovered. Is that report true?
MR. MBOYA: No, this is not true, and the Minister for De-
fense the next day made a correction of the report, pointing
out that there had not been such a plot although, of course, in
view of recent developments in Africa, we, like every other
African government, have warned against any of our people or
leaders getting involved with forces from outside.
MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Mboya, is it not true that there was a gov-
ernment announcement that there had been a Communist plot to
overthrow
MR. MBOYA: No, there was no such government announce-
ment.
Permission is hereby granted to news media and
MR. SPIVAK: According to our press also, you stage-managed
magazines to reproduce in whole or in part. Credit
the conference which deprived Vice President Odinga of his
to NBC's MEET THE PRESS will be appreciated.
power in your party. Why did you at this particular time move
against him?
1
MR. MBOYA: First, I'd like to make a correction again that
MR. MBOYA: I have not said-
there was no question of a stage-managed party convention.
The whole program of reorganizing the party has been going on
MR. SPIVAK: I am asking the question.
since 1964. This is because the party was originally used in the
MR. MBOYA: I am explaining the situation. If people have any
struggle against colonialism, and once independence was won, it
predetermined ideas about these matters, I think the only per-
was necessary to revise its role and also to determine the part
sons who can interpret the position correctly would be ourselves.
it would play in independent Kenya.
There have been activities by certain individuals from certain
Since 1964 we have been organizing party branch elections
Communist countries, and those individuals have been expelled
in the districts. We have 41 districts in the country. This process
from our country because of those activities.
came to an end last year, and the final position was to organize
As regards the question of communism itself, our government's
the party convention, which has now taken place.
position is quite clear. We have published last year a Sessional
In this reorganization we have had to amend the party consti-
Paper on African socialism in which we have quite clearly and
tution, and in the process of our amendment of the party con-
categorically stated that we would not import into Kenya foreign
stitution we have done away with the post of Deputy President
ideologies, that for Kenya the ideology would be one of African
of the party and replaced it with eight Vice Presidents. The
socialism. That means that we reject communism. It also means
purpose of this is to give the party a broader representation
that we reject capitalism in its well-known form of laissez faire
and bring in more people from the different provinces at the
capitalism, and we want to construct in our country and estab-
national executive level. In the course of this reorganization, the
lish for our country our own system and our own society.
Deputy President-that is, the former Deputy President-lost
MR. ROWAN: Mr. Mboya, to follow up on Mr. Spivak's line
his seat, but this was as a result of an election by the party
of questioning, just S0 our viewers may have the record straight,
convention. It is not a stage-managed affair.
I believe that in the last few weeks actually a dozen diplomats
MR. SPIVAK: You sound like an American politician, Mr.
and newsmen from Communist countries have been expelled from
Mboya. You say there was no Communist plot, that your dis-
Kenya, haven't they?
placement of Mr. Odinga was just one of those things that hap-
MR. MBOYA: That is qiute true, yes.
pened in the natural process of things, that he himself does not
lean towards Communism, and that everything was just in order.
MR. ROWAN: Then last fall a man from the New China News
Agency was expelled after it was discovered he was the top
Why did you, according to reports at least, expel six Commu-
Chinese Communist intelligence agent in Kenya? I believe that
nist diplomats-some newsmen, three Czechs, two Russians and
is correct, is it not?
a Chinese diplomat? Is this too inaccurate?
MR. MBOYA: I will not state why he was expelled, but it is
MR. MBOYA: First, I have not spoken of Mr. Odinga nor
true that we did expel him.
have I said anything about his leaning or not leaning toward
communism. I have mainly spoken, in reply to your question,
MR. ROWAN: It is also true, isn't it, that in the last several
about the recent Party convention and the changes that we
months President Kenyatta has had occasion to say in several
speeches that there is no room for communism in Kenya?
have made.
Coming to the absolute point you make now, regarding the
MR. MBOYA: This is not new. This is what we have said all
recent decision to expel a number of people from Communist
along.
countries residing in Kenya, the decision was taken by the gov-
MR. ROWAN: And I believe that when I was in Kenya in the
ernment on assessing certain facts or positions within the coun-
fall, the press had some large reports about a document pur-
try relative to the activities of the individuals concerned.
portedly distributed by the Chinese Communists calling for the
We have diplomatic relations still with the USSR, with China
overthrow of Mr. Kenyatta, is that not correct?
and with Czechoslovakia. These expulsions did not have anything
MR. MBOYA: We have had a number of such documents dis-
to do with whether or not we continue to recognize these
tributed and published.
countries.
MR. ROWAN: The point I am trying to establish is whether or
MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Mboya, am I to understand there has been
not there is a genuine fear in Kenya today that there is some
no Communist activity, there has been no attempt to overthrow
kind of move afoot to overthrow the government of President
your government, that you have had no trouble at all from the
Kenyatta.
Communists in your country, is that what you are saying?
MR. MBOYA: There is no fear as such, but we have, as I have
2
3
already stated, taken certain steps that will insure that we do not
tribe-I believe it's the second biggest tribe in Kenya-has to
have external interference in our affairs, and particularly that
be treated in this way?
we do not have external forces trying to undermine the gov-
MR. MBOYA: This is a very interesting point of view, or
ernment of our country. In addition to the people that you have
argument, to put: Is it a humiliation to call for democratic elec-
referred to and the decisions that we have taken recently, you
tions at a convention? Do we now have to understand that
may already know that we have also had to take action against,
democracy means a guarantee of a certain office or position for
for example, a British monthly magazine, some British journal-
certain individuals?
ists and other people from other countries, essentially because
these people have tried to interfere in the internal affairs of our
MR. HOVEY: No, but I am suggesting-
country to try to undermine the stability and solidarity of our
MR. MBOYA: The fact that a person is not elected is not hu-
government.
miliation by itself. The people coming to the convention have a
MR. ROWAN: Are you suggesting that your fear of Great
definite right to determine at the convention whom they want
Britain is as great as your fear of the Communist bloc in this
to elect. I could have as easily been left out or any other person.
regard?
That does not mean a humiliation.
Another thing which I would like to correct immediately is
MR. MBOYA: When we expel a British journalist it is not
that Mr. Odinga or myself or any other person who wishes to
the British government that we are fighting, it is the individual's
stand for office in Kenya does so as an individual, not because he
actions. In this case, of course, the friendship we have with the
represents a tribe. Mr. Odinga does not represent the Luo tribe
British government and the cooperation that exists between us
any more than I do. The whole concept of leadership by tribe is
of course is much greater than that which we have with, say,
one which we have been fighting against for a long time and
the Communist countries. But the position that I am trying to
which we believe we have ultimately found a way out of.
establish is-and I think this is what must be made quite clear-
MR. HOVEY: I know that you have been fighting very hon-
that Kenya stands by her declared policy of complete nonalign-
orably against tribalism, and I know, too, many of my African
ment and that the actions we take against a Communist journal-
ist or a Communist diplomat do not in any way mean that we
friends think we exaggerate tribalism in examining the prob-
lems of the new Africa. But aren't you really headed for a
have departed from this policy of positive nonalignment. These
actions are taken entirely on their merit.
serious tribal situation if Mr. Odinga is involved in this reported
move to form a new party with Mr. Ngei, I believe he is an
MR. ROWAN: I believe it is a fact, however, that some mem-
Kamba, and I believe the Luos and the Kambas together would
bers of your Party last fall were publicly calling for a break in
outnumber the Kikuyus in your country, isn't that right?
diplomatic relations with Communist China, is that not correct?
MR. MBOYA: I saw this kind of reasoning in The New York
MR. MBOYA: That is correct, yes.
Times when I arrived here in an article that I read the other day
-published in The New York Times the other day.
MR. ROWAN: And that would tend to indicate to a reason-
I want to make it quite clear that this is the most misleading
able observer that they feel more strongly about this than per-
statement that I have read.
haps anybody else who might be accused of meddling in your
Firstly, because it has no truth whatsoever. Mr. Ngei has pub-
internal affairs.
licly announced that he has nothing to do with the proposed
MR. MBOYA: It depends on the degree of meddling by differ-
"new" party, although in The New York Times they report him
ent people. This does not destroy the basis of our policy for
as supporting the new party.
positive nonalignment. We are dealing with each situation as
And, secondly, even if Mr. Odinga and Mr. Ngei were to join
we find it.
the new party, that does not mean that the Wakamba people
and the Luo people have joined the Ngei party because in the
MR. HOVEY: Mr. Mboya, this Communist threat or lack of
present government there is still a majority of Luo leaders in
Communist threat apart, aren't you facing a very serious prob-
the government and there is still a majority of Wakamba leaders
lem in internal unity in Kenya when it is felt necessary to
in the government.
humiliate the Vice President in the way that he was when he
This idea that some leaders in Kenya represent a tribe and
wasn't even given one of the eight Vice Presidencies of the
can force that tribe to support this or that group is entirely
Party? Isn't this a very serious thing when an elder of the Luo
false and misleading.
4
5
MR. HOVEY: Mr. Mboya, I know Mr. Ngei subsequently de-
MR. MBOYA: I don't know.
nied this and, incidentally, The Times also carried the denial,
MR. HARSCH: Is there any evidence of that?
but you must have been worried with some pretty big names
MR. MBOYA: That is a matter of speculation.
involved in this new party yourself, because I believe on March
MR. HARSCH: May I go back to the aid business? Are you
14 you said something about the "big names in this game put
here in Washington to talk about the possibility of obtaining
forward some persons to start the party for them and wait to
more economic support-economic and financial, for your
see public reaction before coming into the open." Now, that
country?
surely must have been aimed at Mr. Odinga, Mr. Ngei or people
at a comparable level in Kenyan politics.
MR. MBOYA: We are probing, and it includes both discussions
with officials, as well as the World Bank and private investment.
MR. MBOYA: I still believe that certain big names were in-
volved, but this does not remove my point that-even if any big
MR. HARSCH: Do you get enough capital from London for
your capital investment needs?
names were involved, that does not mean that a tribe was com-
mitted. And I think this idea of associating leadership with tribe
MR. MBOYA: We don't get enough. We get quite a substantial
and exaggerating the influence of a leader on a tribe is most
amount of our capital needs from London, but we could do with
misleading and also is destructive.
a lot more and not only from London but from every country
that can afford to give us some aid.
MR. HARSCH: Mr. Minister, to what extent was the economy
MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Mboya, according to you, our press has mis-
of your country dependent upon aid from the Communist coun-
informed us pretty badly.
tries, from Russia and China?
I would like to check a couple of other apparently important
MR. MBOYA: Taking China in the first place, since independ-
things.
ence, we have received from China a gift of about a million
The Soviet Union, according to our press, has furnished offi-
pounds in cash. Beyond that there is no other economic or
cers, non-commissioned men, and sent tanks and fighter planes
technical involvement.
to Somalia, and your country and Ethiopia-again according to
From the Russians we had an agreement signed in 1964 with
reports-have established a joint military liaison committee
about nine projects. Two of these projects are gift projects. A
against guerrilla raids from Somalia. Is that true?
hospital, a 200-bed hospital in Kisumu, and a one-thousand stu-
MR. MBOYA: We established a joint defense agreement with
dent technical college. Beyond this, there has been no other
Ethiopia long before independence. This was mainly because of
technical or economic involvement.
our joint border protection agreement.
MR. HARSCH: Has there been any break in your receiving
MR. SPIVAK: Is it true that the Soviet has furnished men
economic aid from the Communist countries that ties in with the
and munitions to Somalia?
events you have just been discussing with these other question-
MR. MBOYA: I do not know the extent of the support they
ers?
are giving, but I understand they have given some military aid
MR. MBOYA: There has not been any flow of aid from these
to Somalia.
countries, and SO the question doesn't arise.
MR. SPIVAK: Is your Mr. Odinga going to start a new party,
MR. HARSCH: Since when?
or has he already started a new party, as has been reported in
MR. MBOYA: All the time.
this country?
MR. HARSCH: I have in front of me a newspaper clipping
MR. MBOYA: He has not yet started a new party, and from
which says that there is some evidence that something like
the press reports this morning here, once again, in The New
$280,000 was made available-that would be 100,000 pounds-
York Times, he is meditating for the next thirty days. That is
made available to Kenyatta's opponents by both the Soviet Union
my understanding.
and China in an unsuccessful attempt to capture last week's
MR. SPIVAK: Has Mr. Odinga been charged with accepting
crucial conference of the Kenya African National Union. Is that
money from Communist sources and using it politically?
an accurate statement?
MR. MBOYA: "Charged" would be a very strong word.
MR. MBOYA: That would not be referring to aid to Kenya.
MR. SPIVAK: Use your own word.
MR. HARSCH: That is not aid, no.
MR. MBOYA: "Charged" in our context would be in a court
Is that true though?
of law, which has not been done.
6
7
MR. SPIVAK: Would your government allow an opposition
laration of intent to break with Britain because Britain had not
party to be formed if it were Communist-dominated?
brought down this white rebel regime in Rhodesia by Decem-
MR. MBOYA: Under our constitution there is entrenched the
ber 15th, and then I am referring too to this recent meeting in
freedom of association, and that means that any group of peo-
which there were walkouts over the question of the new regime
ple can in fact form another party. Although we have been a
in Ghana. This would indicate that not only are there no other
one-party state SO far, it has been entirely voluntary.
issues on which the OAU can unite but that it is even divided on
MR. ROWAN: Mr. Mboya, you were quoted from London the
the tactics to be used on the one issue which up to now has pro-
other day as saying that it is time there was some action to
vided the cement of unity, namely, the question of the liberation
bring down the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia. Is this British
of the southern third of Africa.
military action that you are calling for?
MR. MBOYA: Yes, but I don't think there is any conflict or
MR. MBOYA: Yes.
division as regards the need to liberate any part of Africa. There
may be a difference in methods and in emphasis, but I don't find
MR. ROWAN: Do you think that if the Wilson Government
this particularly disturbing in the sense of the future unity of
gets a bigger majority in Parliament in the upcoming elections
Africa. These are some of the issues which I have referred to as
they may bring that military action?
part of the crisis of confidence, but they are things that we can
MR. MBOYA: I do not know what they will do, but this I do
get over.
know, that our government, and I believe most African govern-
MR. RASH: We have less than two minutes.
ments, would like to see Britain deal more decisively with the
rebellion in Rhodesia, including the use of force.
MR. HARSCH: At the recent meeting of that Organization
of African Unity in Addis-Ababa, the Kenya delegation walked
MR. ROWAN: I take it you think economic sanctions are not
out when the delegation from the new government of Ghana was
working, just as Mr. Smith says they are not?
seated, but when the delegation from the new government of
MR. MBOYA: They are not working, and they have not pro-
Nigeria was seated, the Kenya delegation did not walk out. Why
duced the results, and especially since they are not mandatory.
this distinction? Why do you accept the new government of Ni-
MR. ROWAN: There has been some talk of the African States
geria but not the new government in Ghana?
joining together to use force. I notice that the Premier of Malawi
MR. MBOYA: The Kenya delegation did not walk out because
used some rather colorful language to say that this talk is non-
the delegation of Ghana sat in the conference. The Kenya dele-
sense. Is this realistic talk on the part of the African States?
gation was withdrawn because there was mounting confusion in
Will anything come of it?
Addis-Ababa, and we felt that the conference should be saved—
MR. MBOYA: My position is that this is a responsibility of
our OAU should be saved and that the conference, perhaps, should
the British Government, and the British Government must take
have been adjourned to give people more time to consider the
the necessary action, including the use of force.
issues.
MR. HOVEY: Doesn't this inevitably bring up the question of
MR. HARSCH: Do I understand that your government has no
African unity, Mr. Mboya, and the recent deliberations in the
objection to the new turn of political events in Ghana?
Organization of African Unity have seemed to indicate anything
MR. MBOYA: It is not for us to object to what government
but unity within that organization.
people in Ghana have. We recognize the state of Ghana, not the
Do you think that it is possible to rebuild OAU unity SO as to
regimes.
provide-to provide even the maximum pressure on Britain and
MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Mboya, what is the explanation for the
others to take the kind of action in the southern third of Africa
increasing number of military take-overs in the newly independ-
that you would like to see them take.
ent African States?
MR. MBOYA: I think African unity still exists, and I think
MR. MBOYA: In very simple words, I would say it is part of
that Africa can still exert the necessary pressure on Britain.
this crisis of confidence. It is a question of the expectations on
the part of the people, problems of leadership, problems of insti-
I don't believe that OAU should be judged by just the incidents
tutions and some of the initial transitional problems in govern-
at one particular conference. If we were to do so, bodies like the
ment.
United Nations would have ceased existing long ago.
MR. RASH: I am very sorry to interrupt, but our time is up.
MR. HOVEY: I know, but I am not referring just to one, Mr.
Thank you, Mr. Mboya, for being with us today on MEET THE
Mboya. I am referring to the response over the unanimous dec-
PRESS.
8
9
The Proceedings of
MEET THE PRESS
as broadcast nationwide by the National Broadcasting Com-
pany, Inc., are printed and made available to the public to
further interest in impartial discussions of questions affect-
ing the public welfare. Transcripts may be obtained by send-
ing a stamped, self-addressed envelope and ten cents for each
copy to:
Merble Press Inc. Box 2111, Washington, D. C. 20013
(Division Publishers Co., Inc.)
MEET THE PRESS is telecast every
Sunday over the NBC Television Net-
work. This program originated from
the NBC Studios in Washington, D. C.
Television Broadcast 1:00 P.M. EST
Radio Broadcast 6:30 P.M. EST
17
17
The National Broadcasting Company Presents
MEETTHEPRESS
America's Press Conference of the Air
Produced by LAWRENCE E. SPIVAK
Guest:
GARDNER ACKLEY
Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers
VOLUME 10
MARCH 27, 1966
NUMBER 13
Merkle Press Inc.
Printers and Periodical Publishers
Division of Publishers Co. Inc.
Box 2111, Washington, D. C. 20013
10 cents per copy
EXATA ** FORD
Panel:
EDWIN L. DALE, The New York Times
LAWRENCE FERTIG, New York World Telegram
and Sun
AUSTIN KIPLINGER, Changing Times
SANDER VANOCUR, NBC News
MEETTHEPRESS
MR. SPIVAK: Our guest today on MEET THE PRESS is the
President's top economic adviser, Gardner Ackley, Chairman of
the Council of Economic Advisers.
Moderator: LAWRENCE E. SPIVAK
Now we will have the first question from Sander Vanocur of
NBC News.
MR. VANOCUR: Mr. Ackley, two weeks ago the Washington
Post conducted a survey of the nation's economists in business,
labor and the universities, 32 of them.
Twenty-two of them said they favored an immediate tax in-
crease. Do you, and does the Administration?
MR. ACKLEY: Mr. Vanocur, I saw that survey. The answer
to your question is that the Administration does not favor a tax
increase now, and neither do I.
MR. VANOCUR: Why is that, sir?
MR. ACKLEY: Because it is not necessary. We are watching
the economic situation very closely. The President has repeatedly
said that if the economic situation evolves in such a way that a
tax increase is appropriate, he won't hesitate to ask for it, but
our judgment as of this time is that it is not called for.
MR. VANOCUR: But, sir, to the degree that the economy, its
Permission is hereby granted to news media and
excesses or whatever you want to call them, is dependent upon
magazines to reproduce in whole or in part. Credit
defense spending-the war in Vietnam-doesn't this make this
to NBC's MEET THE PRESS will be appreciated.
kind of projection very difficult? For example, who would have
said back in 1964, in November, that a year and a half later we
would have increased our troop commitment by more than a
I
quarter of a million men with all the incumbent costs in Vietnam?
MR. DALE: Mr. Ackley, Secretary of the Treasury Fowler has
How can you project with a war like that?
said that he regards last year's rate of price increase of about
MR. ACKLEY: Indeed, it is very difficult to project under these
two percent as tolerable-not desirable, but tolerable.
circumstances, and that is one reason why we have to be very
Do you think that the recent rise in wholesale prices which
much on watch and ready to move if things change.
for four months-November through February-was at an an-
Things could change either in the international scene, with the
nual rate of six percent, is tolerable?
necessity for increased expenditures in Vietnam. They could
change in the domestic economy. But we are not going to base
MR. ACKLEY: No. I don't think that we could maintain a
our policies on some imaginary possibility. We have to concern
six percent price increase for very long and tolerate it. As a
ourselves with the way things are and our best judgment as to
matter of fact, we don't seek, we don't approve, we don't wish
how they look immediately ahead.
for any price increase. We'd like to have stability.
MR. VANOCUR: But being in the position of having to advise
Clearly the rise in the past few months has been sharper than
the President on what may be, wouldn't you think personally it
could be tolerated. It has, however, some rather special aspects
is desirable to have the stand-by tax authority that has been
to it, and I think we want to be very careful that we don't confuse
kicking around in Congress for years-not just to lower, as it
some special circumstances, particularly in agriculture. Most of
was originally projected, but to raise it too? Wouldn't it be wise
our price increase in the last few months, in the last year, has
to have that passed by the Congress S0 the President could have
been in farm and food prices. That situation is changing, and
this mechanism?
we are fairly confident that it will change from here on.
Over two-thirds of the price increase in wholesale prices and,
MR. ACKLEY: It might be nice for the President to have that
I guess, in retail prices, too, in the last year has been in farm
authority, but in the first place I don't think Congress is likely
and food prices. But beginning about the middle of February
to give it to him, and in the second place, I am not at all clear
and extending to this time, farm prices have stopped rising and
that it is necessary.
indeed have begun to decline. Now that hasn't shown up yet in
Congress has demonstrated several times that it can act quickly
our price indexes. This coming week we are going to get the
on tax matters. The tax bill which was signed ten days ago was
consumer price index for February, and that is going to be up,
passed in a very short period of time-requested at the end of
I am sure. And probably in March it will still be up. But we
January and signed on March 15. The excise tax reductions last
have to look at what is really going on now on the farm, and I
year were completed in six weeks.
think we are going to see a very different picture on farm prices
Congress can and, I think, would act quickly if the President
in the months ahead.
made a clear recommendation explaining why what he asked for
was necessary.
MR. DALE: Are you suggesting that we consumers can hope
for possibly no further increase in food prices this year?
MR. VANOCUR: Mr. Ackley, what is the next signal that you
are going to be looking for S0 that you can make a determination
MR. ACKLEY: That may be a bit optimistic, but certainly
on what the economy is going to look like for the next nine
the kind of price increase that we have seen in the past 12 months,
months?
we definitely do not expect in the next 12.
MR. ACKLEY: I don't think there is any single signal that
MR. DALE: In the overall, the Council in the Economic Report
we can use on the basis of which to call our shots. We are going
suggested that this year we could get by with a price increase
to have to look at what happens to employment, the utilization
no worse than last, which would be broadly two percent overall.
of capacity, the backlog of orders, the advance of production,
Do you still stand by that forecast?
the advance of employment, what happens to prices, obviously,
what happens to inventories. These are all statistical things.
MR. ACKLEY: I think it is too early to tell how we will stand
Then in addition we have to keep as best judgment we can of the
at the end of the year. The fact that we have had as much price
psychological attitudes which are developing, which are impor-
increase in the last few months as we have had already is going
tant. I think there is no single index that we can use to decide
to make it more difficult to achieve that forecast.
whether and when additional fiscal restraint might be necessary.
MR. FERTIG: Mr. Ackley, you referred to fiscal restraint, and
That doesn't mean that we can't recognize it if and when that
fiscal restraint has two aspects: Government spending and the
time comes.
other aspect of fiscal restraint.
2
3
Now, why don't you discuss, or why don't you advocate cutting
today, and are you against using monetary policy that way?
spending as well as raising taxes?
MR ACKLEY: In the first place, I would certainly say that
MR. ACKLEY: Mr. Fertig, at the moment I am not advocating
the restrictive measures that have been taken by the Federal
either, raising taxes or cutting expenditures. But clearly, if ad-
Reserve have contributed in moderating demand, and therefore
ditional restrictions were required, if we were clear that it were,
pressures on prices.
we would have to look at both sides of the budget, both the ex-
The change in the budget in the new tax law, which goes into
penditure side and the tax side.
effect very shortly, is an additional restraint. Together, they ac-
I would like to point out, however, that the expenditure side
complish a very considerable shift in the restraint from stimulus
has been pretty strongly restrained and that it would be quite
previously to restraint today.
difficult, without severe sacrifice of important national objectives,
I have no objection of any kind to using monetary policy as
to make major further reductions on the side of spending. That
part of the total economic stabilization arsenal. Our only objec-
is why, I would suppose, if it were determined that additional
tion on the December action of the Federal Reserve System had
fiscal restraint were necessary that the primary action probably
to do with the fact that we would have preferred to have had
would be on the side of taxes.
that decision delayed until January, until we knew and they
knew what the budget was going to be for the coming year, till
MR. FERTIG: Isn't our spending this year for non-defense
we could have decided together what combination of fiscal and
higher than last year, and isn't it considerably higher than two
monetary restraints was appropriate. That is the extent and
years ago, and do you not project even higher non-defense spend-
nature of our objection to the action that was taken last De-
ing next year? So why not cut spending instead of raising taxes?
cember.
MR. ACKLEY: The non-defense portion of the budget actually,
I think that in fact the coordination which had previously
of course, has been kept under extremely tight control and the
existed between our monetary and our fiscal policies will again
fiscal '67 budget shows an increase, other than for Vietnam, of
and-is being re-established, and I trust that instances of our dis-
only $600,000,000, and the history of the civilian part of the
agreement over procedures will in the future be less important.
budget, except for a few very uncontrollable items such as interest
MR. KIPLINGER: Dr. Ackley, you have indicated in some of
and veterans' payments, and SO forth, has been indeed held very
your earlier responses that the government, the Administration,
tightly.
was still standing by its earlier estimates as to the size of the
I think some numbers here might be relevant and interesting.
economy and the rate of price increase, something less than
The budget, the Administrative budget in fiscal year 1965 rep-
three percent in prices and $722 billion of GNP.
resented 14.9 percent of our gross national product. If you ex-
Yet a great many of your economists and a great many people
clude the additional Vietnam expenditures, that goes to 14.5 per-
inside and outside government have already upped their estimates
cent in fiscal 1966, and 13.7 percent in fiscal 1967, a declining
on the size of the GNP and on the rate of price increases. Isn't
portion. Even if you include the total Vietnam expenditures, it
it about time the government dropped this pose of wishful think-
goes from 14.9 percent of the GNP in fiscal year 1965, to 15.2
ing and adjust some of these sights up a little?
percent in both 1966 and 1967. I would point out that that is
lower than in almost any other post-war year.
MR. ACKLEY: I didn't indicate I think on this program that
I was still standing by the $722 billion GNP forecast that we
MR. FERTIG: We are spending more dollars, aren't we?
made in January. We are in the process, as we always do once a
MR. ACKLEY: We are spending more dollars, but we have a
quarter, of reviewing our forecast and will undoubtedly have
another one.
very much larger economy.
As you may recall, the Government Council's official govern-
MR. FERTIG: May I ask one other question, Mr. Ackley?
ment forecast is not made public more than once a year. We
Price pressures are very great today-as you would acknowledge
have one for our own internal purposes.
over the last few months they have been. The rate of increase
I think that probably most of the news, most of the additional
in the wholesale price index is very steep, and SO is the con-
information that we had since last-late December and early
sumer price index.
January is in the direction of pushing that forecast up. Certainly
If Mr. McChesney Martin in the Federal Reserve had not
not as much as some recent forecasts I have seen, but I would
restricted the money supply a little as it has done, if it hadn't
agree that that is the direction of any revision we might wish
raised interest rates, wouldn't that price pressure be even greater
to make.
4
5
MR. KIPLINGER: If that is the case, then doesn't this almost
Since capital investment is a great factor in the kind of over-
automatically suggest that the price rise will be greater than
heating of an economy that people are worried about, why
couldn't the Administration repeal temporarily the 7 per cent
the previous indication and that it might be in the neighborhood
investment tax credit, to be put back at such time as it is needed?
of three or three and a half percent for the year?
This wouldn't take Congress very long. Why not err on the safe
MR. ACKLEY: I am not prepared at this time to make an esti-
side in a matter like this?
mate of what the price increase might be this year. As I indicated
MR. ACKLEY: I think a case can be made that the investment
earlier, I think there are some factors working on our side from
tax credit is not serving a useful function at this time. It is
here on out.
true that the heaviest economic pressure right now is in the area
MR. KIPLINGER: I might follow with just this one question:
of capital goods, and the severest pressure on labor markets is
You have had a lot of practical experience as a price controller
in those parts of the country where capital goods are manu-
in OPA days, during World War II, and OPS, during the Korean
factured, durable goods, generally. On the other hand, I think
War. If the price level were to rise as much as 3.5 or 4 percent
there are a lot of difficulties with turning that particular weapon
this year at the consumer level, would this in your view suggest
on and off. Businessmen have been counting on it They have
that we ought to have some rigid form of price controls com-
felt it was an appropriate structural reform of our tax system.
parable to those we have had in previous war-time periods?
There are, as I say, administrative difficulties of turning it
MR. ACKLEY: On the contrary. It seems to me that it would
on and off, and I think we are not ready to reach a judgment
be quite unnecessary, inappropriate, under the kind of circum-
that that is an appropriate tool.
stances that we foresee today, to be thinking or talking of any
MR. DALE: Mr. Ackley, the White House said that it pre-
kind of legislative, statutory, wage and price controls.
fers-the Administration prefers-to work quietly in private in
I think it would be a matter of pretty poor management if
trying to get business to comply with the price guideposts, in
under the kind of economic situation we face we stumbled into
holding down prices. Can you give us an indication of how many
that.
contacts with business there are? How many a week for ex-
MR. SPIVAK: May I ask you a question, Mr. Ackley?
ample?
In January of this year you estimated that the Gross Na-
MR. ACKLEY: I don't think I could make an estimate of
tional Product for 1966 would be about $722 billion. On March
that. We are constantly in touch with businessmen, the people
23, Arthur Ross, Labor Statistic Commissioner, estimated that
in the Department of Commerce are. The President sees many
the government economists now expect the Gross National Prod-
businessmen. We talk about various things, including prices,
uct will total $735 billion. Do you agree with the $735 billion
price problems, price prospects. Where there does seem to be
figure, or do you think that is too high?
a prospect, possibility of price increases in the future, we try
MR. ACKLEY: That was Mr. Ross' own figure. It was not a
to talk about the nature of the problem and persuade the people
figure of government economists, at least in the sense that
involved to consider the national interest in price stability.
the Council of Economic Advisors was involved.
MR. DALE: Can you give us an idea of the results of these
I think 735 is too high. Our forecast, of course, was $722
conversations? Prices do seem to be going up after all. How
billion plus or minus five, SO I suppose we would be within our
many times has the [administration] succeeded in, shall we say,
forecast if we came up with 727. Whether we need to widen the
heading off a price increase through this process of friendly con-
range on the high side is something we are still considering.
versation and persuasion? Not an absolute number, but can
Mr. SPIVAK: Do you think it is more likely to be 727 than
you give us some sense of it?
735?
MR. ACKLEY: I think it is very difficult to quantify that.
MR. ACKLEY: I wouldn't want to comment on that.
We hope that a lot of our persuasion is effective-and I think
it is. Even where prices are increased, it may very well be that
MR. VANOCUR: Mr. Ackley, we seem to have come to this in
because we have discussed the problem increases are smaller or
this half hour, that you say that the Administration does not
less inclusive or accompanied by price reductions. I think it is
yet think anyone can say with finality that a tax increase is
not possible to—
needed. Yet liberal economists and many conservative economists
and bankers say that there is the need for a tax increase now.
MR. FERTIG: Mr. Ackley, Mr. Dale has referred to friendly
6
7
discussions and persuasion on the so-called voluntary controls.
We have a vast complex of voluntary controls, on prices, wages,
It has to do with the fact that we had a very short pig crop
investment abroad, loans abroad. My question is this: If our
last year, and this influenced the whole range of protein prices
monetary policy was right, why should we need all these controls?
in the agricultural economy. That situation is turning around.
MR. ACKLEY: On the domestic side I am sure that we could
MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Ackley, at this point in our econmy, would
achieve approximate stability of our general price level with no
you say the chances are greater that we will have a tax in-
other effort, by keeping our unemployment rate perhaps about
crease, or the chances are greater that we won't?
five percent and our utilization of industrial capacity down back
MR. ACKLEY: I would not like to make a guess on that, Mr.
around 85 percent.
Spivak.
We are not satisfied with operating our economy at half
MR. SPIVAK: Does the election have anything to do with
speed. There is a problem that when the economy is running
your sense of timing on that, as some cynical politicians believe?
full and making adequate use of its resources, manpower and
physical resources, there has been in the past some tendency
MR. ACKLEY: I am no expert on politics. My business is
for wages to creep up faster than productivity increases and
economics, but I have the feeling that the best politics is good
for prices to rise.
economics. I think there is nothing that people dislike more
than inflation and that sound fiscal and monetary policies are
MR. FERTIG: Are you saying, Mr. Ackley, that it is essential
to have monetary inflation and price rises in order to have a
the best politics for anyone.
prosperous economy with low unemployment? That hasn't hap-
MR. SPIVAK: Gentlement, we have about two minutes.
pened in Germany, for instance. Why should it happen here?
MR. VANOCUR: Mr. Ackley, if you are going to ask labor,
MR. ACKLEY: On the contrary, I am saying that our job
as you have asked labor in the past, for restraint, would not it
is to try to achieve simultaneously both things, full employment
be a quid pro quo to ask for the temporary repeal of the 7 per
of our resources with price stability. We are not willing to rely
cent investment tax credit? Wouldn't this help you with the
on a single tool for that purpose. We have a third objective,
labor leaders, who are quite rebellious, as you know from your
balance of payments equilibrium, and that too we want to achieve,
experience in New Jersey and other places?
but we are not going to do it just by depressing the domestic
MR. ACKLEY: I think the quid pro quo for the restraint that
economy.
we ask of labor is the restraint that we ask from business on
MR. KIPLINGER: Dr. Ackley, you seem to suggest there are
prices, and just as labor feels that we have picked on them and
some depressing factors that have not yet taken effect in the
done nothing about prices, businessmen, many of them, feel that
economy this year. If the recent rapid rise or heating up of the
we have picked on business to knock down prices and done
economy is not to continue through the remainder of this year,
nothing about labor.
then there must be some other limiting factors that are not yet
I think we have and are trying to administer a balanced pro-
perceptible.
gram in which we are asking everyone to be responsible.
What do you foresee as some of these danger spots or possibly
MR. DALE: In that connection, the Council has always di-
weak spots in the economy?
rected the guideposts of what you call monopolistic situations.
MR. ACKLEY: I don't think we are in danger of recession
Generally they are relatively concentrated, big industries, but
or slide-off in our rate of economic expansion, but I think we
isn't it true the great bulk of the price increases have come in
have to remember, we did have a major change in monetary
sectors such as food where the guideposts hardly even apply?
policy in December which has been working its way through
the economy and, really, is just now taking firm hold. It is
MR. ACKLEY: I think that is right. The big price increases
beginning to bite. It is beginning to bite on capital spending and
have been in food, farm products and a few internationally traded
raw materials.
on a lot of areas.
We have a new tax bill which, although it is not a major tax
MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Ackley, we are coming rapidly to the end
bill, is not yet even in effect. I referred, in the case of farm prices,
of our time. I think maybe on that note we should end. I am
to the fact that the outlook there was different than it had
sorry to interrupt, but our time is up.
been. This hasn't anything to do, basically, with policy actions.
Thank you, Mr. Ackley, for being with us today on MEET
THE PRESS.
8
9
The Proceedings of
MEET THE PRESS
as broadcast nationwide by the National Broadcasting Com-
pany, Inc., are printed and made available to the public to
further interest in impartial discussions of questions affect-
ing the public welfare. Transcripts may be obtained by send-
ing a stamped, self-addressed envelope and ten cents for each
copy to:
Merkle Press Inc. Box 2111, Washington, D. C. 20013
(Division Publishers Co., Inc.)
MEET THE PRESS is telecast every
Sunday over the NBC Television Net-
work. This program originated from
the NBC Studios in Washington, D. C.
Television Broadcast 1:00 P.M. EST
Radio Broadcast 6:30 P.M. EST
17
17
The National Broadcasting Company Presents
MEET THE PRESS
America's Press Conference of the Air
Produced by LAWRENCE E. SPIVAK
Guest:
INDIRA GANDHI
The Prime Minister of India
VOLUME 10
APRIL 3, 1966
NUMBER 14
Merkle Press Inc.
Printers and Periodical Publishers
Division of Publishers Co. Inc.
Box 2111, Washington, D. C. 20013
LIBRAR
10 cents per copy
Panel:
ERIC BRITTER, London Times
PAULINE FREDERICK, NBC News
SELIG HARRISON, Washington Post
PHILIP POTTER, Baltimore Sun
MEETTHEPRESS
MR. SPIVAK: Our guest today on MEET THE PRESS is the
new Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi. She is on her first
Moderator: LAWRENCE E. SPIVAK
official visit to this country since taking office.
Mrs. Gandhi was the official hostess and close confidante of her
father, Prime Minister Nehru, during the seventeen years he
served as India's leader. Today she is considered to be the world's
most powerful woman.
We will have the first question now from Pauline Frederick
of NBC News.
MISS FREDERICK: Prime Minister Gandhi, on starting your
trip to the West you said that you hoped to get India's point
of view better understood and you hoped also to learn something
from the countries and great leaders you would meet.
To what extent have you achieved these goals in the United
States?
MRS. GANDHI: I found an understanding even before I got
here. In my talks with President Johnson, he showed great
understanding and knowledge of the problems which existed in
India, and I think I was able to fill in the details.
The only other leader I have met SO far is President de Gaulle.
The talks with both of these great leaders were very useful
and, I think, did serve the purpose which I had in mind.
MISS FREDERICK: On March the third you were reported
Permission is hereby granted to news media and
to have said in the Parliament in Delhi that you were deeply
magazines to reproduce in whole or in part. Credit
distressed at the exaggerated picture of starving India being
to NBC's MEET THE PRESS will be appreciated.
portrayed to the world. Would you tell us if you still feel that
way and, if so, how you could put the picture of India's hunger
need in perspective?
MRS. GANDHI: All pictures or words are relative. India has
1
known famine and starvation for many years. But today when
we talk of famine it is not in the sense in which we knew these
petticoat rule, but aren't you rather young by Indian standards
to be running that great country?
words before independence. There is an acute shortage of food
MRS. GANDHI: Youth is a matter of which side you look at
in our country in specific scarcity areas. There are no people
it from. I mean if you ask a twenty-year-old, forty-seven, forty-
dying of starvation. With the friendly help which we are getting,
eight seems quite old. Of course, if you ask someone who is
the import of food grains, we hope to avert famine, but it is a
eighty years old, he will think it is young.
danger if we don't get the help. And there is also the danger not
I think in experience I am quite old by now.
perhaps of actual famine but of malnutrition which can be also
MR. POTTER: It has been reported that Krishna Menon, who
critical to our nation's progress.
used to see a good deal of your father, now walks in your gar-
MISS FREDERICK: President Johnson has spoken to Dutch
den but doesn't get inside to talk to you. Would you tell us the
Foreign Minister Luns about the possibility of calling an inter-
state of your relations with Mr. Menon?
national conference to develop and coordinate greater famine
MRS. GANDHI: They are exactly as they were before, which
relief for India. Did the President talk with you about such a
is cordial. I don't know how often he has walked in the garden
conference, and if so, are there plans for it?
without seeing me. I think I have met him a couple of times since
MRS. GANDHI: No, he did not mention this to me though he
I have become Prime Minister.
did mention that he would like other countries to help in this
MR. POTTER: He is a member of Parliament. Did he support
matter.
your candidacy for the Prime Ministership?
MISS FREDERICK: Prime Minister Gandhi, can India's food
MRS. GANDHI: He did at the end, yes.
problem be handled effectively without sharp control of the
MR. BRITTER: Mrs. Gandhi, I think you said in Washington
population?
that you had some understanding of the American aims in Viet
MRS. GANDHI: Well, we are doing-we have plans for the
Nam. Would you go a little further and tell us if you think that
control of the population, but naturally this is something which
India, itself, also has something at stake in the war in Viet Nam
will take a little time.
in terms of the freedom of democratic countries?
MISS FREDERICK: You have said that India is evolving pur-
MRS. GANDHI: I don't think that I said exactly that, Mr.
poseful and meaningful national concensus based upon principles
Britter. What I had said was that the Americans are in a diffi-
of secularism and democratic socialism. Have you found any
cult situation, and I can understand their difficulties, now. I
hesitancy about extending help to India, either in contributions
have expressed my views on Viet Nam many times, and I believe
or through private investment, in view of India's determination
that the best way of guarding the freedom of that area is by the
to become a democratic socialist state?
countries being strengthened economically and socially and en-
MRS. GANDHI: I don't think the hesitations are because of
abling them to progress, SO that the people have a greater sense
the word "socialism." The hesitations are because private enter-
of security within their countries.
prise feels that perhaps the conditions for investment are not
MR. BRITTER: You speak of being strengthened economically
as they would like them to be. But I think this is due to a mis-
and socially. What about being strengthened militarily? If I may
conception. We are encouraging private investment and trying
put it in rather alarmist terms, can you see a set of circum-
to create very suitable conditions for it.
stances in which India might have to make common cause with,
MISS FREDERICK: To what extent would private investment
say, Russia and the United States, to defend itself against an
be free to carry out its programs in India?
aggressive China, which is seeking to overrun not only India
MRS. GANDHI: It is free to a large extent. We allow them
but the other countries of South Asia?
all the facilities which they need, practically. Naturally, this has
MRS. GANDHI: At the moment that is a very hypothetical
to be conditioned by national interest.
question. I don't think that either Russia or China will want to
MR. POTTER: Mrs. Gandhi, it has been suggested that the
rush into a war for sometime.
Congress Party bosses in India selected you because you are your
MR. BRITTER: China has already attacked India and may do
father's daughter and you bear the name "Gandhi," which was
made famous by Mahatma Gandhi, in order to win the elections
S0 again?
MRS. GANDHI: That is so, and she still continues to adopt a
coming up early next year. Do you have any plans for early
most menacing attitude on our northern frontier. Also in her
retirement thereafter?
protest notes, she is quite threatening. But it is difficult to say
MRS. GANDHI: I have no plans at the moment except to get
whether she will actually launch a large-scale attack.
on with the job.
MR. BRITTER: Now, China has the bomb. India has the ca-
MR. POTTER: I am not going to ask you how India takes to
pacity to make the bomb. Can you foresee a set of circumstances
2
3
in which you would have to be obliged to defend yourself by
lieve, for some time, and you have talked with her and you have
taking to nuclear armaments?
dealt with her. What good has it done you?
MRS. GANDHI: It will take a long time for China to have
MRS. GANDHI: Not much, I am sorry to say.
enough bombs, I think, to make a difference. And the position
MISS FREDERICK: Madame Prime Minister, you said a mo-
is the same with India. We may have the capacity, but the
ment ago as I understood it, the more Chinese aid to Pakistan,
financial burden of it is a very large one, and from the very
the greater the danger of war with India.
practical point of view, I don't really see what good it will do us.
Isn't the real possibility of war with India-doesn't it come
MR. HARRISON: Prime Minister Gandhi, something that is
from the Kashmir dispute, and wouldn't settlement of the Kash-
not hypothetical in the form of a Chinese problem in your area
mir dispute help to eliminate that cause of war regardless of
is that Pakistan has recently acquired military aid from Com-
what arms Pakistan has?
munist China in what appear to be rather substantial quantities.
MRS. GANDHI: Kashmir we think is a symptom rather than
We are told that there may be two squadrons of airplanes and
the cause of the disease. As far as arms go, obviously if Pakistan
fifty to one hundred tanks.
doesn't have the arms, she can't launch into a military venture.
Do you think that you are in danger of having a Chinese
It is only if she has the capacity to fight that she can think of
satellite at your doorstep?
such a thing.
MRS. GANDHI: It is true that we are rather alarmed at the
MISS FREDERICK: But do you see any possibility of working
fact that Pakistan does seem to be coming closer to China and is
out a settlement on Kashmir with Pakistan?
taking arms aid from China. It is a threat to India. Perhaps you
MRS. GANDHI: We have always felt that the first step to
will remember that we were against military aid to Pakistan
take is more friendly relations, more economic cooperation, cul-
earlier, also, beacuse we feared just this, that such aid might be
tural, social and SO on, and it is only when you have this basis
used against India.
of friendship and understanding that you can deal with as com-
MR. HARRISON: However, now it is said in the United States
plicated a question as Kashmir.
that if we don't continue to give Pakistan at least some military
MISS FREDERICK: What about carrying out the Security
aid, Pakistan will be compelled to go to China for an expanded
Council's recommendation for a plebiscite in the area?
military aid program.
MRS. GANDHI: If you go back to that resolution, you will
What would you like to see the United States do to offset this?
find that the first part of it was observance of the cease-fire,
MRS. GANDHI: The more aid Pakistan gets, the greater the
withdrawal of Pakistani troops, and only after that, was there
danger of her getting involved in a war with us, and I don't think
the plebiscite, and the first two have not yet been observed yet
that such a war can do good to either Pakistan or India or con-
by Pakistan.
tribute to peace and stability in that area.
MISS FREDERICK: Does this mean then that India refuses
MR. HARRISON: Then, you would just like the United States
to recognize the Security Council's resolution because one of the
parties hasn't lived up to the provisions of it?
to continue withholding military aid to Pakistan, as it has since
MRS. GANDHI: No, it is not that we don't recognize it, but
the suspension of military aid during the war?
MRS. GANDHI: I think that may be better, yes.
you can't take the third step before you have taken the first two.
MISS FREDERICK: Are any serious efforts being made to
MR. SPIVAK: Prime Minister Gandhi, may I ask you a ques-
take the first two steps?
tion: There has been increasing debate in this country about how
MRS. GANDHI: That is for the Security Council to do.
best to deal with Communists and China and their aggression.
MR. POTTER: Madame Gandhi, you have been sympathetic
From India's experience, would you say that Chinese aggres-
about our dilemma in Viet Nam while questioning our original
sion can effectively be handled by the hand of friendship and by
involvement, there. Do you see any prospect of an alliance among
recognition?
Asian nations, perhaps, including Japan, that could contain
MRS. GANDHI: Recognition perhaps may-I don't know if it
Chinese expansionism without our help?
will help, but, anyway, it may bring China more within-in a
MRS. GANDHI: I don't really think that such a thing is pos-
situation where it is easier to talk to her. China, as I have men-
sible just now. The Chinese desire is to spread her influence,
tioned-I don't think she is going to get herself involved in a
and she can do this not merely by a military adventure but by
war, straight off. I think her major interest is to try to get as
many other means, as she has been trying in the past. I think
many other countries involved as can happen, SO that she has
the best way for that is to encourage the nationalist movements
time in the meanwhile to strengthen herself from the inside.
in all the countries around China.
MR. SPIVAK: You have recognized Communist China, I be-
MR. POTTER: We note in this morning's paper that the Mos-
4
5
cow regime is relaxing its destalinization. Do you think that
in a country such as India, of American private or other foreign
perhaps enhances the prospect of a heal in the rift between
private capital?
MRS. GANDHI: You know our history, Mr. Harrison, and I
Russia and Red China?
think you can well imagine that a country which has been ex-
MRS. GANDHI: Not at this moment, no.
ploited economically from outside will always be very wary of
MR. POTTER: Do you anticipate they might come together
any such thing happening again.
again at some future time?
MR. HARRISON: Just how much scope is there, then, for the
MRS. GANDHI: Not in the near future.
influx of massive foreign private capital as a contribution to
MR. BRITTER: Mrs. Gandhi, would you agree that your pres-
India's development?
ent visit to the United States and the help you are getting from
MRS. GANDHI: There is plenty of scope within that.
Washington does amount in effect to a turning point in your
MR. SPIVAK: Prime Minister Gandhi, are there any steps
country's history, because what it means is that the United
which you think the United States can take unilaterally towards
States is now committed to helping you to tackle these problems,
a peace in Viet Nam?
which would otherwise be insurmountable, and that therefore
MRS. GANDHI: We appreciated President Johnson's stoppage
the United States has really committed itself to helping India
of the bombing, and I think that could have led to the next step,
to achieve its destiny? If that is so, what would be your reaction,
and we were very distressed and concerned that it did not. I
your response to such an interpretation?
can only say that perhaps if it had been extended, some new
MRS. GANDHI: I think that all the countries which have re-
possibility might have arisen.
sources should help those which don't have, because only that
MR. SPIVAK: Would you be in favor of another stoppage?
way can you make the world a better place for everybody to
MRS. GANDHI: I would, yes.
live in.
MISS FREDERICK: Madame Prime Minister, you have said
MR. BRITTER: But isn't this a very remarkable gesture which
that one way to try to contain the spread of Chinese expansion-
Mr. Johnson has made to your country? Very generous, I mean
ism is to have independent, economically and politically independ-
to say?
ent states in Asia. Would you include North Viet Nam in that
MRS. GANDHI: It is indeed. It is generous, it is bold, and I
group?
think it is in the right direction.
MRS. GANDHI: I would, yes.
MR. BRITTER: Do you think India will be able to respond by,
MISS FREDERICK: Do you think the bombing of North Viet
say, being less non-aligned than it has been in the past? More
Nam is helping to undermine the stability of North Viet Nam
friendly with the United States?
S0 that it might not be able to be that barrier to Chinese expan-
sionism?
MRS. GANDHI: I think we have been very friendly with the
United States, and I don't think it would help the United States
MRS. GANDHI: I don't know about affecting the stability, but
if we were regarded, say, as a satellite or as a follower. I think
certainly it may create greater friendship for China. I don't think
we would be much more helpful to the United States if we remain
that the people of North Vietnam are basically friendly to the
-not only remain but are known as independent-thinking.
Chinese because they have suffered in that area in the past. But
MR. HARRISON: Does that concern, to have it appear that
naturally if things happen which make them less friendly to the
United States or the other countries, then there is that much
you are independent, extend to our economic aid relations and
more danger of Chinese influence.
the flow of American private capital to India? You said earlier
that you welcomed private capital but it had to be consistent
MR. BRITTER: Mrs. Gandhi, I think during the recent riots
with the national interest. Right now one of our big oil companies
in India you and some of your government officials said that they
is negotiating for a fertilizer plant in India. You need fertilizer,
were inspired-the ones in West Bengal and the ones in the
and yet the President of your party, Mr. Kamaraj, has said that
southern state of Kerala-by Communist Chinese influence. Does
this deal would be atrocious and unacceptable. Do you agree with
that mean that you believe there is a sizeable fifth column of
him?
Chinese-inclined Communists in your country, and is Peking more
MRS. GANDHI: Not entirely. We have accepted this fertilizer
likely to succeed by subversion than by outright attack?
agreement, because we consider that it is necessary for our
MRS. GANDHI: No, Mr. Britter, I don't think this had any-
country to have fertilizer in as large a quantity and as soon as
thing to do with China. It did have to do with our Indian Com-
possible.
munist Party. This, as you know, is pre-election year in India,
MR. HARRISON: Why do you think there is S0 much suspicion
and in such a year there is a tendency of opposition parties to
7
6
try and exploit any issue. And the shortage of food is an issue
MISS FREDERICK: Mrs. Gandhi, what do you believe are the
which is exploitable at any time.
chances of Communist China coming into the war in Viet Nam?
MR. BRITTER: In other words, there is no large fifth column
Under what conditions would this come about?
of communist Peking-
MRS. GANDHI: I don't think that China will come in, unless
MRS. GANDHI: I wouldn't call it a fifth column. There are
something very drastic happens. She may, of course, want to
pockets where we have Communists. There is a district in Bengal;
involve perhaps the Soviet Union more deeply into the fighting.
there is Kerala. They are not large areas, but there are areas
MR. SPIVAK: We have about a minute. Mr. Britter.
where they have influence and where they can arrange these big
MR. BRITTER: Mrs. Gandhi, do you feel that the signing of
demonstrations.
this Tashkent Declaration is a turning point too because Russia
MR. HARRISON: Prime Minister Gandhi, when you arrived at
is now directly concerned with preserving peace between India
the White House, you said in your prepared statement that you
and Pakistan and is taking a positive role in the affairs of your
felt that India and the United States should not take each other
subcontinent?
for granted and let their relations drift. What did you mean by
MRS. GANDHI: The Tashkent agreement is like the opening
that? In what way have our relations been drifting and what
of a door, an opening of new opportunities for India and Pakistan
are some of the misunderstandings that you must have had in
to get together, and perhaps having the Soviet Union also in-
your mind when you said that?
volved may help, but this depends very much on the attitudes
MRS. GANDHI: I was thinking more of the future than of the
of the two countries. India on her part will do everything possible
past, Mr. Harrison.
to implement the declaration.
MR. HARRISON: Looking back to the past, did the war pro-
MR. POTTER: Mrs. Gandhi, the spirit of Tashkent seems to
duce very deep problems between India and the United States in
be evaporating, if you can judge by the statements coming out
terms of our involvement with Pakistan?
of Pakistan and India. Do you have any plans to revive it by
MRS. GANDHI: In the public mind there was a certain amount
perhaps visiting with President Ayub?
of disturbance because of American arms, but I don't think that
MRS. GANDHI: I would certainly like to meet President Ayub.
friendship with America suffered.
I don't think it is evaporating as far as we are concerned. We
MR. POTTER: Madam Gandhi, you said in your National Press
have not made any such statements, but it is true that state-
Club speech the other day that you would like to see a modest
ments have been made in Pakistan. This may be due to the visit
increase in aid-India consortium aid to India, including that from
of the Chinese leaders, there.
our own country. Would you be willing to have the World Bank,
MR. SPIVAK: I am sorry to interrupt, but our time is up.
which sort of sponsors this program, make a ceiling on arms
Thank you Prime Minister Gandhi, for being with us today on
expenditures by India and Pakistan a condition for further
MEET THE PRESS.
extension of aid to both countries?
MRS. GANDHI: I am not happy about any conditions.
MR. POTTER: You used to be noted for nonviolence, and yet
you have had numerous recent riots in which there has been a
good deal of violence. Have you exported all of your nonviolence
to our civil rights workers, here?
MRS. GANDHI: I hope not. We have-a certain amount of
violence that is always present in all countries, and whatever
high ideals or principles we might have, unfortunately, man
cannot always live up to them.
MR. SPIVAK: Prime Minister Gandhi, India is for the admis-
sion of Communist China to the United Nations. What is your
position on what to do about Taiwan, if Communist China is
admitted?
MRS. GANDHI: Our position has been that there should be
only one China.
MR. SPIVAK: That means that you would put Taiwan out
of the United Nations?
MRS. GANDHI: This will have to be worked out.
8
9
The Proceedings of
MEET THE PRESS
as broadcast nationwide by the National Broadcasting Com-
pany, Inc., are printed and made available to the public to
further interest in impartial discussions of questions affect-
ing the public welfare. Transcripts may be obtained by send-
ing a stamped, self-addressed envelope and ten cents for each
copy to:
Merkle Press Inc. Box 2111, Washington, D. C. 20013
(Division Publishers Co., Inc.)
MEET THE PRESS is telecast every
Sunday over the NBC Television Net-
work. This program originated from
the NBC Studios in New York City.
Television Broadcast 1:00 P.M. EST
Radio Broadcast 6:30 P.M. EST
17
17