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
4525513
label
Ford Press Releases - Budget, 1966-1968
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525513
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Budget, 1966-1968
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Federal budget
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525513
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1968-02-29
month
2
year
1968
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-01-01
month
1
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
27ae9025bb7256d6
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D6, folder "Ford Press Releases - Budget, 1966-
1968" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R.
Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D6 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
January 4, 1966
For immediate release
If President Johnson's budget is either $110 billion or
$115 billion next year it means he is financing both guns and
butter which will inevitably lead to a tax increase or runaway
inflation,
Republicans believe a better solution is a reduction in
non-essential domestic spending in order to avoid added taxes
or a skyrocketing cost of living.
#
#
#
FORD is LIBRARY
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 24, 1966
The President's budget should receive dareful and critical scrutiny
by the Appropriations Committees and by both houses of the Congress.
When President Johnson's proposed spending in Fiscal 1967 is
compared with the last Eisenhower budget of 1960, we find that the increase
in the administrative budget amounts to $36 billion and the increase in
total Federal spending comes to $51 billion. Expenditures for national
defense under the President's proposal would rise by 33-1/3%, or $15 billion
above the 1960 level. Expenditure for Jeon-defens proposals in the
administrative budget would rise by 68%, or $21 billion.
In two fiscal years, 1966 and 19.7, the President proposes to
increase spending for programs in the administrative budget by $26 billion.
In its decisions on the budget, Congress must consider the impact
of the sharp increase in Federal spending on an economy in which inflationary
pressures are already strong. The Administration admits its fiscal policies
will increase the cost of living by 1.9 percent. If the White House will not
tackle this problem with restraint on federal spending, the Congress must.
Republicans are deeply concerned and will maximize our efforts to reduce
non-military, non-essential spending.
I find it hard to understand how the national government can ask
business and labor to avoid price and wage increases which are measured in
terms of millions of dollars when it is increasing non-defense spending by
many billions.
I regret that the President did not see fit to indicate in his
budget any system of priority to assist Congress in reducing the less
essential and less urgent items of expenditure.
#
#
#
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
February 4, 1966
For Immediate Release
In our Republican appraisal of the State of the Union at the outset of this
session, we called upon President ohnson to set realistic priorities for
his legislative proposals which would enable the Congress to support a war
10,000 miles away and at the same time continue urgent domestic programs,
without an increase in taxes. If the President failed to do so, we called
upon our Democratic colleagues who outnumber us two to one in the Congress to
join us in cutting or eliminating low priority items.
So what is the first major law enacted by the 89th Congress this year?
Yesterday the House voted final passage of a $9.5 Million Interama project
in Florida, 201 to 160. It is somewhat of a coincidence that the "Noes" on
this boondoggle exactly equaled our Republican ranks in the House, because
in fact a few of our good Democrat friends also found this expenditure of
Federal money on an ambitious Florida touristaattraction too much to swallow.
But we were too few.
At the same time the House majority was voting $9.5 Million for this Interama
thing, the Veterans' Affairs Committee voted out a bill for limited GI benefits
for veterans of Vietnam and other cold war service. The Johnson Administration
has opposed any such action for a year, while Republicans in their State of
the Union proposals and through our House Republican Policy Committee have been
pressing for it as an act of simple justice.
Yesterday the committee rejected every Republican effort to increase the bene-
fits and bring them into line with those already extended to veterans of the
Korean war, Unfortunately the bill will be brought to the House Floor Monday
under a procedure which bars amendments, so that Vietnam veterans apparently
will have to be content with half a loaf, or none.
So the GI is still the forgotten man of the Great Society. "Interama" appar-
ently rates higher.
These two actions taken together clearly show that neither the Johnson Adminis-
tration nor Lyndon's Landslide Congress have any intention of applying real-
istic priorities to Federal projects and Federal spending this year. It is
incomprehensible that a Democrat-controlled House should shortchange American
soldiers in South Vietnam and at the same time subsidize a future dream in
Florida with $9.5 Million taxpayers' dollars -- and don't forget, servicemen
also pay taxes.
We Republicans may be too few to stop this sort of shameful steamrollering
but we intend to let the people know about it -- and in the next Congress
things will be different.
House Republican Policy Committee
Budget
John J. Rhodes, Chairman
For immediate release
140 Cannon House Office Building
March 22, 1966
Phone: 225-6168
Republican Policy Committee Statement on the Second Supplemental
Appropriations Bill for Fiscal 1966
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
is engaging in a tragic game with this Congress. Unfortunately, the stakes in
this game may be the American economic system that has produced unparalleled
opportunities and abundance for our people.
In recent weeks a combination of alarming factors have created grave
concern over this country's economic condition. In February the wholesale
price index increased .7 percent, the sharpest rise since the Korean War.
The cost of living continues to mount. A recent Gallup Poll reported that,
according to the American public's own appraisal of living costs, it takes a
family of 4 about $18.00 more a week to get along this year than it did a
year ago. And this is at a time when this country is experiencing the effects
of accumulated deficits of six years of unbalanced budgets and sharply
increasing defense demands.
In spite of this serious inflationary situation and the spiraling costs
of a massive war in Viet Nam, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has continued
to insist upon a large number of new programs.
For example, in this bill there is Money for rent supp. ement and for the
Federal Teachers Corps. This is money that was requested, considered, and
then rejected during the first session of this Congress.
Once an appropriation is made for rent supplements, the Federal Government
will be on its way to a 10-year, $6 billion program. Also, even though the
proposed regulations governing allowable income limits and assets have been
tightened since last year, if funds are appropriated, Congress will have little
or no control over future regulations.
The Federal Teachers Corps has had an even more checkered career. In the
House of Representatives, only one witness testified on this proposal.
It then was added to the Higher Education Act by the Senate. House
Republican conferees refused to sign the conference report and moved to
recommit the report with instructions to delete the Teachers Corps. Thereafter,
the $13.2 million that would have been used to finance the Teachers Corps was
removed from an appropriation measure.
Objections to the Teachers Corps center on the fact that it will be a
federally-financed project in which the U. S. Commissioner of Education has
the extraordinary authority to recruit, select, train, and pay the salary of
teachers and then choose the district, from among those that apply, in which
such teachers would be assigned. Certainly, this is a new and dangerous
extension of federal power into local school districts.
over
The record now reflects that in fiscal 1966 the Johnson-Humphrey
Administration underestimated the escalating Viet Nam military needs by
$15 billion. And this undoubtedly will be repeated in fiscal 1967. Until
such time as a realistic appraisal of the Viet Nam costs is forwarded to
Congress, all new and non-essential spending must be curtailed. Under the
circumstances, it is both reckless and dangerous to feed the fires of
inflation as this appropriations bill would do. Certainly, in this period
of grave uncertainty, new starts on broad and expensive programs should not
be called for in a supplemental appropriations bill. In times such as
these, new spending requests should be contained in a regular appropriation
request and given the careful scrutiny they deserve.
All too often, this Democratically-controlled Congress has earned its
rubber stamp characterization. It has winked when the occasion demanded
firmness. It has grinned when it should have gagged. We hope that this
time Congress will respond to the challenge.
PRESS CONFERENCE
Roll call Chart
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY AT 10:30 A.M.
THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1966
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER.
Yesterday was the birthday of Thomas Jefferson. Today is the anniversary
of Abraham Lincoln's death. Tomorrow, as most of us are unhappily aware
even without this reminder is Great Society Tax Day--the deadline for filing
your federal income tax returns for 1965.
President Johnson is in Mexico City today unveiling a statue of Abraham
Lincoln, so I suppose it will not be amiss for me to say a few words in praise
of Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson, though he called himself a Republican, is regarded now as the
Father of the Democratic Party. Lincoln, the first Republican president, was
himself a great admirer of Jefferson, saying that "the principles of Jefferson
are the definitions and axioms of free society." For his part, Jefferson
declared that "every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle
We are all Republicans; we are all Federalists."
So without quibbling about labels, let me merely note that we are all today
indebted to Thomas Jefferson for one major contribution to our system of
government. He was the Founding Father who started the Two-Party System. You
might say that, as Vice-President, he was the first minority leader here on
Capitol Hill. And the country has prospered under the two-party system which
developed--thanks to Jefferson--outside the provisions of the Constitution.
It added another and most important check and balance to our experiment in
self-government.
As to Jefferson's principles, during his presidency he cut federal spending,
reduced taxes, repaid $33 million of the national debt, and repealed the excise
tax on whisky. Whether he was the last Democrat or the first Republican to do
this I will leave for historians to argue.
There certainly can be no argument, however, about the differences of
principle that divide our two parties in this lopsided 89th Congress. There is
no doubt which is the spending party and which is the prudent party. Nevertheless,
we keep hearing noises from the direction of the White House that we 140
Republicans in the House of Representatives, outnumbered more than two to one,
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
(MORE)
-2-
FORD STATEMENT - APRIL 14, 1966
are wrecking the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's earnest efforts to economize
and head off higher taxes, The President pleads with us and with the housewives
and businessmen and the farmers and labor leaders to sharpen our pencils and help
him halt inflation.
Well, I have sharpened my pencil on my income tax forms, so let me show you
a little simple arithmetic:
At this moment, there are 293 Democrats and 140 Republicans in the House.
That is a two-to-one majority with 13 votes to spare. Even the liberal
"Democratic Study Group" in the House of Representatives boasts enough members
to outvote the Republican minority.
In the Senate there are 68 Democrats, including Wayne Morse, and 32
Republicans. That's also a two-to-one majority with four votes to spare.
In short, this is a Blank Check Democratic Congress which can do virtually
anything it pleases, or anything President Johnson pleases, whether the
Republican Loyal Opposition likes it or not. Such lopsided legislative majorities
can spend your money, raise your taxes--and that's exactly what this Blank Check
Democratic Congress is doing.
And remember, no matter what President Johnson says or how fervently he
pleads with the housewives to stop buying steaks, the responsibility for federal
spending and for federal taxing rests with the Congress. This Blank Check
Democratic Congress will have to face the American voter in November, and the
people will know who are the spenders and who are the savers.
They will know because there will be roll calls on every spending bill that
comes to the House of Representatives which offers any hope of saving a single
wasted dollar of your money.
We asked President Johnson at the outset of this session to put wartime
priorities on his wartime budget requests. So far he has refused. We have gone
along with our elected commander in chief on everything he has asked to support
our fighting men in South Vietnam--but when I read what is happening over there
and how we are running short of bombs despite all the billions we have voted
for defense, I wonder how long we can underwrite shocking mismanagement in the
name of national unity.
We are certainly going to take hard second looks at all the rest of the
Johnson-Humphrey spending proposals when the Congress resumes.
Now here is the record on nondefense spending rolled up by the Blank Check
Democratic Congress thus far this session: On six key money measures, an average
(MORE)
-3-
FORD STATEMENT - APRIL 14, 1966
of 82 per cent of the Democrats have voted for higher spending and, inevitably,
higher taxes. (See Table)
On the same six roll calls in the House of Representatives, an average of
93 per cent of my Republican minority colleagues have stood up for economy and
the now dwindling hope of holding off inflation and higher federal taxes for
future April fifteenths.
We were faced with 3 new spending proposals, all having some merit in normal
times but steamrollered through the Blank Check Democratic Congress by lopsided
majorities. Then we tried to trim excess fat from 3 appropriation bills which
came to us before the recess. Some of these proposals were worthy, and they had
powerful advocates. But we are at war--and not doing too well with it. So again
the roll was called. Again the result was the same. Ninety-three per cent of
the Republicans were for saving; 82 per cent of the Blank Check Democrats were
for more spending.
Who votes for higher taxes? Democrats--four out of five of them. We cannot
expect to stop this steamroller without substantial help from any Jeffersonian
Democrats still left in the Congress--and it doesn't look like there are very
many of them left.
But we are going to make the record clear for the people to judge in
November, and I predict that the next Congress will be known as the Check and
Balance Congress instead of the Blank Check Congress. I am confident that here
in the legislative branch, at least, this country will have the right kind of
leadership next year to meet the mounting array of dilemmas and disasters at
home and abroad.
# # #
TOTAL STRENGTH: 293 DEMOCRATS VS. 140 REPUBLICANS (Two seats vacant)
SIX ECONOMY ROLL CALLS IN THE HOUSE - 1966
DEMOCRATS VOTING
REPUBLICANS VOTING
FOR SPENDING MORE
FOR CUTS AND SAVING
82%
93%
(Average)
(Average)
88%
Five per cent cut in
95%
Interior Appropriations.
4/6/66
93%
Five per cent cut in
89%
Postal-Treasury Appro-
priations.
4/6/66
75%
$12,000,000 Supplemental
95%
for Rent Subsidies.
3/29/66
76%
$750,000 new authority
95%
for H.H.P. House.
3/22/66
79%
$4,600,000 new authority
94%
for Alaska Centennial.
3/2/66
83%
$9,500,000 new authority
87%
for Florida "Interama".
2/3/66
WHO VOTES FOR HIGHER TAXES?
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY AT 10:30 A.M.
THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1966
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER.
Yesterday was the birthday of Thomas Jefferson. Today is the anniversary
of Abraham Lincoln's death. Tomorrow, as most of us are unhappily aware
even without this reminder is Great Society Tax Day--the deadline for filing
your federal income tax returns for 1965.
President Johnson is in Mexico City today unveiling a statue of Abraham
Lincoln, so I suppose it will not be amiss for me to say a few words in praise
of Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson, though he called himself a Republican, is regarded now as the
Father of the Democratic Party. Lincoln, the first Republican president, was
himself a great admirer of Jefferson, saying that "the principles of Jefferson
are the definitions and axioms of free society." For his part, Jefferson
declared that "every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle
We are all Republicans; we are all Federalists."
So without quibbling about labels, let me merely note that we are all today
indebted to Thomas Jefferson for one major contribution to our system of
government. He was the Founding Father who started the Two-Party System. You
might say that, as Vice-President, he was the first minority leader here on
Capitol Hill. And the country has prospered under the two-party system which
developed--thanks to Jefferson--outside the provisions of the Constitution.
It added another and most important check and balance to our experiment in
self-government.
As to Jefferson's principles, during his presidency he cut federal spending,
reduced taxes, repaid $33 million of the national debt, and repealed the excise
tax on whisky. Whether he was the last Democrat or the first Republican to do
this I will leave for historians to argue.
There certainly can be no argument, however, about the differences of
principle that divide our two parties in this lopsided 89th Congress. There is
no doubt which is the spending party and which is the prudent party. Nevertheless,
we keep hearing noises from the direction of the White House that we 140
Republicans in the House of Representatives, outnumbered more than two to one,
(MORE)
-2-
FORD STATEMENT - APRIL 14, 1966
are wrecking the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's earnest efforts to economize
and head off higher taxes. The President pleads with us and with the housewives
and businessmen and the farmers and labor leaders to sharpen our pencils and help
him halt inflation.
Well, I have sharpened my pencil on my income tax forms, so let me show you
a little simple arithmetic:
At this moment, there are 293 Democrats and 140 Republicans in the House.
That is a two-to-one majority with 13 votes to spare. Even the liberal
"Democratic Study Group" in the House of Representatives boasts enough members
to outvote the Republican minority.
In the Senate there are 68 Democrats, including Wayne Morse, and 32
Republicans. That's also a two-to-one majority with four votes to spare.
In short, this is a Blank Check Democratic Congress which can do virtually
anything it pleases, or anything President Johnson pleases, whether the
Republican Loyal Opposition likes it or not. Such lopsided legislative majorities
can spend your money, raise your taxes--and that's exactly what this Blank Check
Democratic Congress is doing.
And remember, no matter what President Johnson says or how fervently he
pleads with the housewives to stop buying steaks, the responsibility for federal
spending and for federal taxing rests with the Congress. This Blank Check
Democratic Congress will have to face the American voter in November, and the
people will know who are the spenders and who are the savers.
They will know because there will be roll calls on every spending bill that
comes to the House of Representatives which offers any hope of saving a single
wasted dollar of your money.
We asked President Johnson at the outset of this session to put wartime
priorities on his wartime budget requests. So far he has refused. We have gone
along with our elected commander in chief on everything he has asked to support
our fighting men in South Vietnam--but when I read what is happening over there
and how we are running short of bombs despite all the billions we have voted
for defense, I wonder how long we can underwrite shocking mismanagement in the
name of national unity.
We are certainly going to take hard second looks at all the rest of the
Johnson-Humphrey spending proposals when the Congress resumes.
Now here is the record on nondefense spending rolled up by the Blank Check
Democratic Congress thus far this session: On six key money measures, an average
(MORE)
-3-
FORD STATEMENT - APRIL 14, 1966
of 82 per cent of the Democrats have voted for higher spending and, inevitably,
higher taxes. (See Table)
On the same six roll calls in the House of Representatives, an average of
93 per cent of my Republican minority colleagues have stood up for economy and
the now dwindling hope of holding off inflation and higher federal taxes for
future April fifteenths.
We were faced with 3 new spending proposals, all having some merit in normal
times but steamrollered through the Blank Check Democratic Congress by lopsided
majorities. Then we tried to trim excess fat from 3 appropriation bills which
came to us before the recess. Some of these proposals were worthy, and they had
powerful advocates. But we are at war--and not doing too well with it. So again
the roll was called. Again the result was the same. Ninety-three per cent of
the Republicans were for saving; 82 per cent of the Blank Check Democrats were
for more spending.
Who votes for higher taxes? Democrats-- four out of five of them. We cannot
expect to stop this steamroller without substantial help from any Jeffersonian
Democrats still left in the Congress--and it doesn't look like there are very
many of them left.
But we are going to make the record clear for the people to judge in
November, and I predict that the next Congress will be known as the Check and
Balance Congress instead of the Blank Check Congress. I am confident that here
in the legislative branch, at least, this country will have the right kind of
leadership next year to meet the mounting array of dilemmas and disasters at
home and abroad,
###
TOTAL STRENGTH: 293 DEMOCRATS VS. 140 REPUBLICANS (Two seats vacant)
SIX ECONOMY ROLL CALLS IN THE HOUSE - 1966
DEMOCRATS VOTING
REPUBLICANS VOTING
FOR SPENDING MORE
FOR CUTS AND SAVING
82%
93%
(Average)
(Average)
88%
Five per cent cut in
95%
Interior Appropriations.
4/6/66
93%
Five per cent cut in
89%
Postal-Treasury Appro-
priations.
4/6/66
75%
$12,000,000 Supplemental
95%
for Rent Subsidies.
3/29/66
76%
$750,000 new authority
95%
for H.H.H. House.
3/22/66
79%
$4,600,000 new authority
94%
for Alaska Centennial.
3/2/66
83%
$9,500,000 new authority
87%
for Florida "Interama".
2/3/66
WHO VOTES FOR HIGHER TAXES?
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE WEDNESDAY P. M.
APRIL 20, 1966
STATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
President Johnson today asked Congress to give its blessing to a government
debt refinancing scheme that resembles a gigantic crap game with the taxpayer
the only one who loses.
What the President proposes to do is to dump $4.2 billion in government loans
into a pot at the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and invite
investment firms to grab a piece of the action--put some money into a government
revolving fund and get paid off with interest by the taxpayer for their trouble.
The conventional way to handle this kind of debt is to sell government bonds.
But this would show up in President Johnson's budget. It also would be subject
to the debt limit. If Congress refuses to approve the President's refinancing
scheme, the projected Johnson deficit for fiscal 1967 will be not $1.8 billion
but $6 billion.
It costs more in interest to refinance as the President proposes. If Congress
rubber-stamps the President's refinancing bill, the taxpayer will pay off to
private investors to the tune of up to $210 million more over the 10-year life
of the refinancing game. The lid also will be off the national debt.
Why is Mr. Johnson willing to make a goat of the taxpayer with his refinancing
scheme?
He wants to spend more but make it look like less. He wants a budget that
looks smaller on the outside but is bigger on the inside. And he wants to get
out from under the debt ceiling with government agency loans.
This is the Great Deception of the Great Society. Mr. Johnson found himself
with a $6 billion fiscal 1967 deficit--not a $1.8 billion red ink figure--until
his budget director tucked the ball under his jersey and pulled a sneak run around
the budget. Congress has to stop this run around the budget before it crosses the
goal line.
This devious financing scheme is just another handle for backdoor spending.
Mr. Johnson is trying to treat the taxpayer like the spendthrift husband who
keeps his debts hidden from his wife. That chap runs up a lot of bills, consolidates
his debts by borrowing fresh money from a finance company at higher rates and then
blithely resumes his role of the big spender.
Unless Congress rejects the President's refinancing plan, the road to greater
inflation will be wide open. Congressional authorizing committees will have
no say in future lending operations of the agencies involved. The committees will
not be standing in the way to say this is as far as you go. They may as well hang
up a "gone fishing" sign over their doore.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR FRIDAY P.M.'s RELEASE--MAY 13, 1966
STATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
The Americans for Democratic Action are opposing President Johnson's plan to
sell shares in government-owned loans. This may be the one and only time the ADA
has ever subscribed to an official position of the Republican Party. In any case,
I am pleased to say that the ADA is right on this issue.
It is significant that the ADA is against Mr. Johnson's financing scheme for
several of the reasons I cited in declaring my opposition to it when the President
first sent his loan pool bill to Congress.
The ADA points out, as I did, that this plan will provide a windfall for
banking interests and that it will cost the taxpayer millions more a year because
it is an expensive way for the government to borrow needed funds.
It should be added that this move to channel private investors' funds to
various government agencies is a devious device to permit greater government
spending without having it show up in Mr. Johnson's demonstrably fictitious budget.
Groups which have previously come out against this bill include the National
Farmers Union, the Grange, and the National Association of Home Builders. The
latest from AFL-CIO President George Meany is that his organization has not taken
a position on it as yet.
It has been said that GOP opposition to this bill flies in the face of
traditional Republican philosophy. This is utter nonsense.
Republicans favor getting the government out of business. But this phoney
financing plan does not accomplish that objective. On the contrary, it is a
scheme to get business into government in order to promote bigger government
through deficit spending cloaked with the high-interest-cost use of private funds.
Under this loan pool proposal, the taxpayer will suffer and suffer grievously.
This is why Republicans oppose it. This is why it should be defeated if it comes
to the House Floor next week.
If it is not defeated, it will be because the taxpayer has no lobby in
Washington.
###
(Not printed at Government expense)
Congressional Record
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 89th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
Write, Wire, or Call the Big Spenders
SPEECH
guished chairman of the House Appro-
OF
priations Committee, the gentleman from
HON. FRANK T. BOW
Texas [Mr. MAHON], when the budget was
submitted to us.
OF OHIO
The Bow expenditure limitation
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
amendment has been offered on three
Wednesday, July 20, 1966
bills this year. Simply stated, this
amendment would have limited Federal
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, yesterday
spending to 95 percent of what the Pres-
morning the President held a conference
ident had proposed in his January budget
at the White House with House and Sen-
to spend on items included in these three
ate leaders and with members of the Ap-
bills. If the amendment had been
propriations Committees of both bodies.
adopted each time it was offered, Fed-
In short, the purpose of the meeting
eral spending in fiscal 1967 would have
was to let us know that Congress is ex-
been reduced by $1.5 billion.
ceeding the President's budget request
Let me tell you just how much support
for fiscal 1967 by $5 to $6 billion and if
I got from members of the President's
an effort is not made in Congress to cut
own party each time this amendment
back the result will be either a monu-
was offered.
mental deficit or a tax increase.
On the Department of Interior and re-
According to news stories on the Pres-
lated agencies appropriation bill, the
ident's background briefing of the press
amendment received the support of 30
after our meeting with him, he indicated
Democrats.
the following courses of action that
On the Departments of Treasury and
might be taken to curb our already over-
Post Office bill, Democrat votes totaled
heated economy:
only 16.
First, the imposition of wage and price
On the Departments of Labor and
controls;
Health, Education, and Welfare bill,
Second, the reduction of Federal ex-
Democrat votes for my amendment went
penditures; and
up to the grand total of 36.
Third, face the alternative of a monu-
With a present House membership of
mental Federal deficit or a tax increase.
294 Democrats and 139 Republicans, it
These are precisely the same hard
is a pretty sorry economy effort when
choices that I have pointed to here in the
only 30 Democrats, and 16 Democrats,
well of the House ever since January 24,
and 36 Democrats vote to support a
when the President submitted his fiscal
modest cut of 5 percent in Federal spend-
1967 budget to us.
ing on three bills. We all know very well
I have tried to cut the budget for 1967
that such a cut could be absorbed by al-
and failing that effort I have tried to re-
most any Department or agency of the
duce appropriation bills back to the level
Government without adverse effect on
of the President's requests. Republi-
any essential program.
cans have supported my efforts but I am
On my motion to recommit the second
sorry to say that most members of the
supplemental appropriation bill for 1966
President's own party have rejected his
to the House Appropriations Committee
leadership on budget matters and have
with instructions to eliminate the initial
failed to support my efforts to curtail
funding of the rent supplement program,
1967 appropriations and spending. They
only 65 Democrats voted in the affirma-
have even refused to follow the thought-
tive. Of course, the initial funding of
ful admonitions uttered by our distin-
the rent supplement program, as well as
226-036-4199
2
the National Teachers Corps was much
is causing this alarming increase in the
desired by the President and, as a con-
inflation of prices? Well, I can tell you
sequence thereof, Larry O'Brien and his
the greatest single cause is the astro-
legislative liaison troops marched up
nomical Federal spending binge which we
here and twisted enough arms to assure
have been on for the past 2 years. And
its approval.
that binge has been made worse by the
On six economy rollcalls in the House
fact that we are now incurring rapidly
this year, an average of 82 percent of the
and sharply rising expenditures for the
Democrats voted for more spending while
war effort in Vietnam.
an average of 93 percent of the Repub-
If the majority party in this House
licans voted for cuts or savings. A tabu-
sincerely wants to curtail nondefense
lation of the percentages on these six
spending and will offer amendments to
rollcalls appears at the end of my re-
effect such economies, I am certain mem-
marks.
bers of the minority party will give over-
After I had tested the temper of the
whelming support to such efforts. But,
House and had found almost no support
these efforts will have to go down the
among Democrats for cutting the appro-
line on all nondefense spending because
priation requests for 1967, I offered
we can ill afford a policy of political
amendments to cut individual appropria-
picking and choosing which programs are
tion items back to the level of the Presi-
to be fully funded or which are to be
dent's requests. And even then, the
cut back.
majority party refused to support my
efforts.
This afternoon at 4 o'clock, the Presi-
dent will be holding a press conference
I have suggested here in the well of
the House that the President veto those
with live radio and television coverage.
authorization and appropriation bills
I would like to suggest that during that
that exceed his requests. And, I might
conference he make an appeal to the
public to write, wire, or call their Mem-
note that he failed to mention that alter-
bers of Congress and demand across-
native at his press briefing yesterday.
the-board economies in nondefense
Up to this time, he has not seen fit to
follow my suggestion but I do hope that
spending. Such an appeal might awaken
in the days ahead he will give this seri-
the big spenders here in Congress to the
ous consideration. Earlier Presidents
fact that we cannot spend and spend
have vetoed such bills and, insofar as I
and tax and tax without doing irrepa-
am concerned, there is no reason why
rable damage to the economy of our
President Johnson should not do SO.
beloved country.
The President has taken great pride in
6 economy rollcalls in the House, 1966
the fact that the budget deficit for fiscal
1966, which ended 2 weeks ago, was only
Demo-
Repub-
$2.3 billion. That small deficit did not
crats
licans
come about as the result of any general
voting
voting
for
for cuts
economy efforts by the administration,
spending
or sav-
or the Congress. It was occasioned in-
more
ings (93-
(82-per-
percent
stead by growth in the economy and by
cent
average)
the acceleration of corporate and indi-
average)
vidual tax payments.
In the calendar quarter that ended
5-percent cut in Interior appropri-
Percent
Percent
just 2 weeks ago on June 30, the gross
ations, Apr. 6, 1966
88
95
5-percent cut in Treasury-Post
national product increased by only $10.8
Office appropriations, Apr. 6,
billion, the smallest gain since the fall
1966
93
89
$12,000,000 supplemental for rent
of 1964. But more alarming than this
subsidies, Mar. 29, 1966
75
95
small gain, is the fact that $6.5 billion
$750,000 new authority for H.H.H.
house, Mar. 22, 1966
76
95
of the gain was eaten up by inflation.
$4,600,000 new authority for Alaska
Thus, the real gain in the output of
Centennial, Mar. 2, 1966
79
94
goods and services in that quarter was
$9,500,000 new authority for Flor-
ida "Interama," Feb. 3, 1966
83
87
only $4.3 billion. What do you think
226-036-4199
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:196
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR THURSDAY P.M.'S RELEASE
JULY 21, 1966
STATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
The federal deficit for fiscal 1967 will run between $10 and $15 billion
because President Johnson and the Democrats have refused to make allowances for
the cost of the Vietnam War.
Last January we Republicans asked that the President assign priorities to
federal spending in view of the war's tremendous cost. We were appalled when
Mr. Johnson chose instead to ask Congress for an additional $3.2 billion for
Great Society programs. We were amazed when Mr. Johnson told Congress the nation
could afford both ruffles and rifles.
It is because the President let them loose last January that the spendthrift
Democrats in the House and Senate have gone wild with the people's money and that
of American children still unborn.
My prediction of a $10 to $15 billion deficit this fiscal year is not
something picked out of the air. It is based on the Democrats' own figures.
The President originally predicted a $1.8 billion deficit. He says
Democrats in Congress already have added a billion dollars to his non-defense
budget requests and threaten to add on a total of $6 billion. Now comes House
Appropriations Chairman George Mahon, D-Tex., with the statement that the Defense
Department will ask for as much as $10 billion extra for the Vietnam War in
January.
Even if we were charitable with the Democrats and figured there would be
no add-ons to non-defense spending besides the billion dollars, the projected
(OVER)
-2-
LBJ AND ECONOMY STATEMENT
deficit for this fiscal year would run to nearly $13 billion. This assumes that
the supplemental appropriation for the Vietnam War is $10 billion and is charged
entirely to the fiscal 1967 budget.
Mr. Johnson's pose as a champion of economy would be believable if he had
assumed it last January when he sent his 1966-67 budget to Congress and had acted
accordingly. But it is only now that the big-spending Democrats in Congress have
added a billion to his non-defense spending requests that the gentleman from
Texas says whoa. It is Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats who have put the
federal government on a wild spending spree. Is the President now to be hailed
as a hero for applying the checkrein to his Democratic foremen--straw bosses who
have threatened to inflate his spending requests by $6 billion?
If the President were sincere about spending cutbacks, he would veto one of
the appropriations bills in excess of his budget and toss it back at Democrats
in Congress. He also could freeze federal spending in various non-defense
categories.
At the opening of this session of Congress, we Republicans sought priorities
on federal spending. Now that the cost of the Vietnam War is approximating
$2 billion a month, the President is belatedly admitting we were right by tardily
trying to hold back free-spending Democrats in Congress.
###
FOR THE HOUSE
FOR THE SENATE:
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
Thomas H. Kuchel
of California
Leslie C. Arends
of Illinois
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of lowa
Melvin R. Laird
Press Release
of Wisconsin
Margaret Chase Smith
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
of Arizona
George Murphy
of California
H. Allen Smith
of California
Milton R. Young
of North Dakota
Bob Wilson
of California
Hugh Scott
Issued following a
of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Goodell
Leadership Meeting
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
February 2, 1967
of Virginia
The National Chairman
William C. Cramer
Ray C. Bliss
of Florida
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
Every American family knows the meaning of the word "budget".
Every American family knows what it is to try to make ends meet --
especially these days. Every American family knows that, while it
can perhaps for a little while live beyond its means, it cannot do
so for very long without finding itself on the short and rocky road
to the poor house.
A government -- any government -- is no exception for a govern-
ment is, after all, nothing more nor less than a collection of
families. Like a family, a government cannot rely on hoped-for
income nor can it endure economically for very long if needless
expenditures which it can afford are permitted I suggest, there-
fore, that rather than dealing in countless billions of dellars and
confusing ourselves with endless strings of acros, we think hereafter
of the operation of this government in family terms.
As has been emphasized already by the news media throughout the
country and as has been emphasized already by members of the Congress,
this Administration's budget for the coming fiscal year is difficult
to comprehend. It contains sums that are astronomical. It contains,
to be sure, provision for necessities -- especially as regards the
fearful conflict in Viet Nam -- but it contains also a large number
of absolutely non-essential items which, in aggregate, can and should
and will be eliminated if the still-heavy Democratic majorities in
the Congress will cooperate with us.
The budget of the United States, as submitted to the Congress by
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
Senator Dirksen
- 2 -
the Johnson-Humphrey Administration, is as big as a metropolitan
telephone directory and every page contains print just as small. The
Republican members of the Congress will, without exception, in the
days immediately ahead, be examining every line and item of this
budget with clear and knowledgable eyes. We are determined to vote
to retain every item of necessity both in domestic and defense
programs but are equally determined, if the Democrat majorities in the
Congress can be so persuaded, to eliminate every single item, large,
middling or small, that should be cut. Our recommendations in the
days ahead will be specific, clear and unmistakable. In this area
of non-essential expenditures, we are prepared to wield a swinging
meat-cleaver or use a delicate scalpel as the operation may require.
From our school-day reading we have ever more occasion to recall,
from Dicken's "David Copperfield", the timeless and timely lesson in
budgeteering given young Copperfield by the seasoned and sensible
Mr. Micawber:
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure
nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual
income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty
pounds ought and six, result misery, The blossom
is blighted, the leaf is withered, the God of
day goes down upon the dreary scene and you are,
in short, flat."
If the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and its still dominant
Democrat majorities in the Congress persist in the course they have
now mapped out for the American people we too will be "in short,
flat". This the Republican members of the Congress will do every-
thing within their minority power to prevent. Let those in the
seats of majority and authority be advised.
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD
The "Big If" budget of the United States for the coming fiscal
year, as presented to this Congress by the Jonnson-Humphrey Adminis-
tration, is a bid budget. It should be returned to the President by
the Congress immediately, with the demand that it be reviewed and
revised into a document that makes sense to the Congress and to the
American people.
This budget is misleading. We don't believe in it. The people
don't believe in it. At a time when the living costs of every
American family have never been higher -- at a time when family
income just can't keep up -- at a time when we are Fighting the
third largest war in our history -- this budget tries to provide
for both guns and butter. It actually contains a great deal of lard.
The American people will not tolerate such fiscal manipulation.
They will no longer permit such insults to their intelligence and
raids on their pocketbooks. The budget is agonizing table-talk in
every American home. The press is already echoing the same angry
feeling. One illustration -- shown here from a recent column in
the Washington Daily News --- makes the point dramatically. By any
estimate hundreds of dollars will be added to each family's burden.
This budget should be labelled the "Big If" budget. It is
the biggest and the "iffiest"in American history:
if the Administration's estimate of the cost of Viet Nam is
anywhere near accurate;
if the Congress votes a postal fee increase;
if the Congress approves an income tax increase;
if the Congress approves the various tax measures the
Administration recommends;
if the program cutbacks promised actually occur;
if the economy, despite the Administration's manipulations.
proves healthy.
Rep. Ford
-2-
We cannot as a people, gamble on so many and such big "ifs".
If a business were operated with a budget like this, it would
go bankrup in a week. If a family budget depended on any such
reasoning, the family would be cold, hungry and without a roof
almost overnight.
What must be done can be done by this Congress to make this
bad budget a good one. What must be done can be done by the Congress
if the Democrat majorities in the Congress will heed the people's
demand for economy. The Republican minorities in the Congress are
determined to act. Let the Democrat leadership take heed.
For Release Friday A.M.s
June 9, 1967
JOINT STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVES
GERALD R. FORD (R-MICH.) HOUSE MINORITY LEADER, AND
JOHN J. RHODES (R-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
On March 22, 1967, we introduced identical House Resolutions, (H. Res. 406
and H. Res. 407) respectfully requesting the President to reconsider his fiscal
1968 budget and to indicate where substantial reductions in spending could best
be made. (See text.)
These resolutions were referred to the Committee on Appropriations which
has taken no action upon them. Meanwhile the Administration's own estimates of
the probable deficit under the 1968 budget have increased and the House of
Representatives, by yesterday's vote of 210 to 197 rejecting the Administration's
request to raise the national debt ceiling to a record $365 billion, has emphatie
cally reflected the strong sentiment of the American people that ever-rising
deficits and runaway spending must be curbed in this time of international and
fiscal crisis.
We are therefore today introducing a Special House Resolution under Rule 27,
Section 4 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, calling for immediate
floor consideration of our earlier proposal to send the budget back to President
Johnson for revision downward. Under this rule, when a public bill or resolution
has remained in a standing committee 30 days or more without action, members may
file a special resolution with the Rules Committee to bring the bill or resolu-
tion up for immediate consideration by the Committee of the Whole House. (See
text.)
***
SPECIAL RESOLUTION
That upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall immediately resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of H. Res. 406, requesting the President to submit to the House of
Representatives recommendations for budget reductions. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the resolution and shall continue not to exceed 3 hours,
to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Appropriations, the resolution shall be read for amendment
under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the resolu-
tion for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be con-
sidered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
***
H. RES. 406
Whereas the House of Representatives must, in the public interest, make
substantial reductions in the President's budget for the fiscal year 1968: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the President be respectfully requested to indicate the
places and amounts in his budget for the fiscal year 1968 where he
thinks substantial reductions may be made.
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be submitted to the President.
For Release Friday A.M.s
June 9, 1967
JOINT STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVES
GERALD R. FORD (R-MICH.) HOUSE MINORITY LEADER, AND
JOHN J. RHODES (R-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
On March 22, 1967, we introduced identical House Resolutions, (H. Res. 406
and H. Res. 407) respectfully requesting the President to reconsider his fiscal
1968 budget and to indicate where substantial reductions in spending could best
be made. (See text.)
These resolutions were referred to the Committee on Appropriations which
has taken no action upon them. Meanwhile the Administration's own estimates of
the probable deficit under the 1968 budget have increased and the House of
Representatives, by yesterday's vote of 210 to 197 rejecting the Administration's
request to raise the national debt ceiling to a record $365 billion, has emphatie
cally reflected the strong sentiment of the American people that ever-rising
deficits and runaway spending must be curbed in this time of international and
fiscal crisis.
We are therefore today introducing a Special House Resolution under Rule 27,
Section 4 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, calling for immediate
floor consideration of our earlier proposal to send the budget back to President
Johnson for revision downward. Under this rule, when a public bill or resolution
has remained in a standing committee 30 days or more without action, members may
file a special resolution with the Rules Committee to bring the bill or resolu-
tion up for immediate consideration by the Committee of the Whole House. (See
text.)
***
SPECIAL RESOLUTION
That upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall immediately resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of H. Res. 406, requesting the President to submit to the House of
Representatives recommendations for budget reductions. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the resolution and shall continue not to exceed 3 hours,
to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Appropriations, the resolution shall be read for amendment
under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the resolu-
tion for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be con-
sidered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
* * *
H. RES. 406
Whereas the House of Representatives must, in the public interest, make
substantial reductions in the President's budget for the fiscal year 1968: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the President be respectfully requested to indicate the
places and amounts in his budget for the fiscal year 1968 where he
thinks substantial reductions may be made.
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be submitted to the President.
21 June 1967
IIIII
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON PUBLIC DEBT CEILING - H.R. 10867
We are opposed to H.R. 10867. It is in substance and effect the same bill
which was rejected by the House of Representatives on June 7, 1967. It would even-
tually increase the borrowing authority of the Treasury to a maximum of $365 billion.
Cleverly camouflaged by step increases and a "sliding scale" debt ceiling, the
proposed bill is again designed to accommodate prospective deficits of $29 billion.
It represents on the part of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration, an arrogant demand
that the House repudiate its earlier position and without any additional information
sanction the Administration's dangerous and irresponsible approach to federal
spending and budget deficits.
The vote on the earlier Debt Ceiling Bill reflected a strong sentiment on
the part of the American people that ever-rising deficits must be curbed. Despite
this fact, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has refused to heed the request of
House Republicans to revise its 1968 Budget, and to cut back on nonessential spend-
ing. It has once again resorted to juggling and gimmickry, evasiveness and fiscal
sleight-of-hand.
Following the rejection of the earlier request for a $29 billion increase
in the Debt Ceiling, a member of the Federal Reserve Board cautioned that spending
on the war in Vietnam "undoubtedly" would exceed the figure contained in President
Johnson's Budget.
An editorial in the June 11, 1967 New York Times pointedly stated:
"There is sound basis for criticizing the Administration's handling
of the debt. Its estimates for the new fiscal budget are clearly
unrealistic; spending will be well above estimates, largely because
of Vietnam, while receipts will be lower, largely because of the
slowdown in domestic business activity The Administration ought to
present a revised Budget.
(over)
A June 14, 1967 release by the Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee
warned:
"The Joint Economic Committee is and has been very much concerned
about the state of the economy and the growing prospects that the
Nation faces, the largest Budget deficit since World War II in the
coming fiscal year.
Deficits of these magnitudes, if realized, coming on top of the
built-in cost-push inflationary pressures caused by wage and price
increases over and above the guidelines, would in all probability
bring about a return of excessively high interest rates and tight
money conditions similar to, if not worse than, last year. This
is a meat-axe approach to the solution of the problems of the Nation
which could produce great harm to just those sections of the economy
least able to bear its burdens, namely, consumers, small businessmen,
farmers and home buyers. "
And on June 15, 1967, the former Commissioner of Internal Revenue in
the Johnson-Humphrey Administration predicted that an escalating Budget deficit
may require an income tax increase as high as 10% for 1968.
In this fiscal crisis, the Pepublican Resolution which would return the
1968 Budget to the President and request that he indicate the places and amounts
where he believes that reductions can be made, should receive priority consideration.
To date the Democratic Leadership has refused to schedule this important measure
even though the Republican Leadership has introduced a special Discharge Resolution
under Rule 27, Section 4 of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Until the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has reviewed and reassessed
its fiscal policies and forwarded to Congress up-to-date and credible information
regarding anticipated expenditures and revenues, the requested Debt Ceiling increase
should not be granted. The Debt Limit should be continued at the present $336
billion level. This will be adequate to finance the Covernment expenditures
through September 30, 1967. The Republican Leadership and the Republican Members
of the Ways and Means Committee have introduced a bill (H.P. 10661) which would
accomplish this result. We urge its enactment and the rejection of H.R. 10867.
--FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT--
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich.
January 9, 1968
The President currently is working on the fiscal 1969 budget, which as I
understand it will be submitted to the Congress about Jan. 29 in an entirely new
format.
The new budget ostensibly will be a consolidation of the three budgets
formerly presented to Congress by the President--the Administrative Budget with
which most of us are familiar, the National Income Accounts Budget and the Cash
Budget.
I would sound a note of caution concerning the new budget for fiscal 1969.
It should be remembered that the Johnson Administration nas a habit of changing
the rules of the game whenever the score starts to against it. Too often in
the past we have found the Johnson Administration tending to fuzz up what it
does not conceal and making estimates fantastically far from the mark.
The budgetary record of the Johnson Administration has been abysmally poor--
and the proposed budget for fiscal 1969 must be viewed in the light of that record.
Let us not forget that President Johnson forecast a fiscal 1968 deficit of
$8.1 billion in January, 1967, only to raise that deficit estimate in August to
$23.6 billion with a tax increase and $29 billion without it. Currently, as you
know, the outlook is for a $19 to $20 billion fiscal 1968 deficit without a tax
increase--pared down as a result of congressional pressure for spending reductions.
Let us not forget, either, that President Johnson predicted a fiscal 1967
deficit of only $1.8 billion in January of 1966 but wound up that fiscal year with
an actual deficit of $9.9 billions.
This scorecard indicates you have to take a Johnson deficit estimate and
multiply by at least three.
This is President Johnson budgetary record as he persists in pursuing his
mistaken guns-and-butter policy. Whether looked upon as promises or projections,
the most recent annual forecasts made by the President in his budget documents
appear hardly to be worth the paper they are written on. If a housewife managed
the family budget that way, her husband would say she was suffering from a
Credibility Gap.
This is tragicin time when the federal budget--a financial report to the
American neople--should be looked upon as the most important financial document
in the world.
President Johnson's budget should be a model of integrity. It affects the
lives and pocketbooks of all Americans and the financial underpinnings of the
western world. Its standards should be the highest.
The Johnson Administration's budgetary record can only fill us with misgivings.
###
--FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT--
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich.
January 9, 1968
The President currently is working on the fiscal 1969 budget, which as I
understand it will be submitted to the Congress about Jan. 29 in an entirely new
format.
The new budget ostensibly will be a consolidation of the three budgets
formerly presented to Congress by the President--the Administrative Budget with
which most of us are familiar, the National Income Accounts Budget and the Cash
Budget.
I would sound a note of caution concerning the new budget for fiscal 1969.
It should be remembered that the Johnson Administration has a habit of changing
the rules of the game whenever the score starts to go against it. Too often in
the past we have found the Johnson Administration tending to fuzz up what it
does not conceal and making estimates fantastically far from the mark.
The budgetary record of the Johnson Administration has been abysmally poor--
and the proposed budget for fiscal 1969 must be viewed in the light of that record.
Let us not forget that President Johnson forecast a fiscal 1968 deficit of
$8.1 billion in January, 1967, only to raise that deficit estimate in August to
$23.6 billion with a tax increase and $29 billion without it. Currently, as you
know, the outlook is for a $19 to $20 billion fiscal 1968 deficit without a tax
increase--pared down as a result of congressional pressure for spending reductions.
Let us not forget, either, that President Johnson predicted a fiscal 1967
deficit of only $1.8 billion in January of 1966 but wound up that fiscal year with
an actual deficit of $9.9 billions.
This scorecard indicates you have to take a Johnson deficit estimate and
multiply by at least three.
This is President Johnson's budgetary record as he persists in pursuing his
mistaken guns-and-butter policy. Whether looked upon as promises or projections,
the most recent annual forecasts made by the President in his budget documents
appear hardly to be worth the paper they are written on. If a housewife managed
the family budget that way, her husband would say she was suffering from a
Credibility Gap.
This is tragic in a time when the federal budget--a financial report to the
American people--should be looked upon as the most important financial document
in the world.
President Johnson's budget should be a model of integrity. It affects the
lives and pocketbooks of all Americans and the financial underpinnings of the
western world. Its standards should be the highest.
The Johnson Administration's budgetary record can only fill us with misgivings.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
January 29, 1968
President Johnson is overcommitting the American people in his 1969 budget.
He is trying to do too much domestically at a time when the Nation is
sorely overburdened by the Vietnam War and the people are shouldering a growing
tax load at the state and local levels.
This is the fifth Johnson budget which fails to set spending priorities.
That is a mistake. We can move this country ahead even in time of war, but we
should do it without pushing the country to the edge of bankruptcy. This
budget must be reduced.
President Johnson says he wants to fight inflation but he is going off in
all directions at once. He talks of taxing more to fight inflation but at the
same time he seeks to spend more. There is no joy for the taxpayer in the
President's budget and not much reassurance for the Nation. America deserves
a better deal.
The better way to fight inflation and high interest rates is to use
restraint in federal spending. There is no belt-tightening in this budget--the
kind we need to avoid a tax increase.
Johnson uses the old theme that every bit of his $10.4 billion spending
increase is unavoidable and that his budget can't be cut. That's absurd and
incredible. He said the same about his 1968 budget, yet Congress reduced it
substantially. Small wonder the American people just don't believe this
Administration any more. That's the kind of presidential talk that dug and then
widened the credibility gap.
Nowhere in this budget is there an attempt to re-tailor federal programs
and raise the level of efficiency in the federal government.
This is an unbelievable budget.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
January 29, 1968
President Johnson is overcommitting the American people in his 1969 budget.
He is trying to do too much domestically at a time when the Nation is
sorely overburdened by the Vietnam War and the people are shouldering a growing
tax load at the state and local levels.
This is the fifth Johnson budget which fails to set spending priorities.
That is a mistake. We can move this country ahead even in time of war, but we
should do it without pushing the country to the edge of bankruptcy. This
budget must be reduced.
President Johnson says he wants to fight inflation but he is going off in
all directions at once. He talks of taxing more to fight inflation but at the
same time he seeks to spend more. There is no joy for the taxpayer in the
President's budget and not much reassurance for the Nation. America deserves
a better deal.
The better way to fight inflation and high interest rates is to use
restraint in federal spending. There is no belt-tightening in this budget--the
kind we need to avoid a tax increase.
Johnson uses the old theme that every bit of his $10.4 billion spending
increase is unavoidable and that his budget can't be cut. That's absurd and
incredible. He said the same about his 1968 budget, yet Congress reduced it
substantially. Small wonder the American people just don't believe this
Administration any more. That's the kind of presidential talk that dug and then
widened the credibility gap.
Nowhere in this budget is there an attempt to re-tailor federal programs
and raise the level of efficiency in the federal government.
This is an unbelievable budget.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
February 1, 1968
President Johnson declares in his 1968 Economic Report issued today: "Now
restraint is essential to our economic health." I could not agree with him more.
The question is what kind of restraint.
The President proposes to increase federal spending by $10.4 billion in
fiscal 1969, to tax the American people an additional $12 billion, to incur a
fiscal 1969 deficit of $20 to $30 billion without an income tax increase and an
$8 to $15 billion deficit with one. Where is the restraint?
The President says in his Economic Report: "Sharply rising Federal spending
was a strong expansionary force in the economy between mid-1965 and mid-1967."
He says nothing about the fact that the steep climb in Federal spending during
that period was an inflationary force. He says nothing about the fact that
Federal spending should have been sharply reduced beginning in late 1965 and
early 1966 because the economy had become over-heated and a price rise spiral had
been touched off by the Administration's over-expansionary policies.
Some of the current observations in the President's Economic Report are
clearly more accurate than his review of the past. He states that "because of
the already high level of defense outlays, total Federal expenditures are too
large to be piled on top of private normal demand without overheating our economy.
It is because private demand has now returned to normal after its temporary
weakness that we now need new measures of fiscal restraint."
I agree with the President that the total expenditures he proposes for fiscal
1969 are too huge to be piled on top of private spending. His proposed budget
clearly is inflationary and must be substantially reduced.
The President describes demand in the private sector as "normal." We
certainly do not need an income tax increase to dampen normal demand. In fact,
leading economists are predicting that the economy will slow down after mid-year
without a tax increase.
The following conclusion is inescapable from the President's own Economic
Report: The first place that restraint must be applied if the economy is to be
restored to health is in the federal government--in the White House itself.
I applaud the President's appeal for wage and price restraint on the part
of labor and management. I believe he would be more successful in such efforts
if he himself would demonstrate a sense of responsibility through genuine
restraint in federal spending.
# # #