Back to Ohio Republican Finance Committee, Cuyahoga - Lake Division, Breakfast Meeting, June 3, 1963
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
4525792
label
Ohio Republican Finance Committee, Cuyahoga - Lake Division, Breakfast Meeting, June 3, 1963
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525792
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ohio Republican Finance Committee, Cuyahoga - Lake Division, Breakfast Meeting, June 3, 1963
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Republican National Committee (U.S.)
Federal budget
National security
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525792
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1963-06-30
month
6
year
1963
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1963-06-01
month
6
year
1963
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
6471b1c6927ae1a3
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D16, folder "Ohio Republican Finance
Committee, Cuyahoga - Lake Division, Breakfast Meeting, June 3, 1963" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D16 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
CUYAHOGA-LAKE DIVISION
OHIO REPUBLICAN FINANCE COMMITTEE
BREAKFAST MEETING - PICK-CARTER HOTEL
June 3, 1963
6ONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD'S SPEECH
Thank you very much, Chappie, distinguished guests, Republicans. First I
to all 01 you POR
want to express my appreciation for all of you coming down for an early morning
breakfast the first day after Memorial Day. I think your presence here is only
of a trend
another example that I have found quite prominent throughout the country in the
becoming
concerned
last four or five months, where people are concerned politically, and they indicate
coming to
this apprehension and concern by their attendance at meetings which a few years
attended.
ago were sparsley populated. I am somewhat fearful that Chappie has "gilded the
lily" much too much in my introduction. I could tell you a few stories that
would set the record straight and probably make it much more comfortable for you
and for me, but time is somewhat limited and SO I'll just say that I'm grateful
Chappie, but please don't believe it all.
Now in order to make this as fine a meeting as I can, I would like to
make a few introductory remarks and leave at least ten minutes at the conclusion
will benefit both
for a period of questions and answers. I think this is wholesome for you and for
come up with
me, SD if you will be thinking about some questions, I'll
try
to
visualies
some answers; but first let me say that it is always a pleasure to come to
Cleveland - Cuyahoga and Lake Counties particularly. - because of my good friends
in the House of Representatives who come from this area - Frances Bolton, Bill
Minshall and Ollie Bolton, who in my judgment are all first-class, highly compe-
tent, conscientious members of the House of Representatives, and I hope and trust
that as you move down the line in the month's ahead that 1 you can expand
the representation from these two counties on the Republican side of the aisle.
Before we take a look at the future, I would like to make comment
at
ON
% the
this time about the recent past 00 the Republican Party. IS
QERALD R./FORD LIBRARY
- 2 -
Sometimes we tend to forget that in 1960 the margin for of victory for the
Demochats'
opposition was minimal - something like 112,000; actually - that the President
1962
himself got less than 50 per cent of the total vote cast nation-wide. When we
look at 1962 we did not do as well as we hoped we would. We had hoped to make
sizable gains in the House, to at least hold our own in the Senate and to make
some substantial achievements headway in the area of the Governorships. We did better
in the big states on the governorships Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania - we did
less well in some of the other states where we shouldn't have lost. In the
we did poorly in the Senate
Senate we did poorly and we did not do as well as we should have in the House.
out of the
But, when you take the total vote for the various governors, the Senate races and
the House races, you find that the Republican candidates got 49 per cent of the
on the basis a
total vote and the opposition got 51 per cent. You can't say, based on the narrow
you canned say
victory of 1960 and the relatively narrow victory on total vote in 1962, that there
is a mandate to the White House for the radical programs now being promoted by this
administration. As a matter of fact, these narrow victories should be a restraint
on the administration - unfortunately they have interpreted it differently. In
the White House, we have this radical element that is promoting this kind of
legislation and, But despite the fact that in the Senate the ratio is 66 Democrats to
34 Republicans and in the House 258 Democrats to 177 Republicans; despite their
the Derocrats'
control of the White House and the legislative branch; I think there is substantial
evidence today that Republicanism - a moderate, conservative viewpoint - is gaining
headway throughout the country.
and
In the last six months I traveled in some 21 states A made far too many
speeches, but I am convinced without any deabb that, given leadership, given
unity, the Republican cause will do extremely well in 1964. There is some evi-
dence that we are making real headway, and especially this is at the grass roots level.
This is fundamental in Baltimore, Maryland; in several municipalities in North
FORD is LIBRARY GERATO
- 3 -
Carolina; and in a number of municipalities in Connecticut. We did far better
than we have done in the last ten years. In the state of Florida this last winter,
the Republicans picked up a substantial number of seats in the State Legislature.
In Michigan we adopted a new constitution which was strictly a party issue. So as
you go around the country, you see visible evidence that the Republican Party and
the philosophy it epitomizes are getting more and more popular. This is indicated
too in the Various polls, by Gallup and others, that indicate that the President's
that
personal popularity is falling off. But let me say this, you don't win unless you
have good candidates, unless you have good party organization, unless you articulate
the issues; and unless the opposition makes mistakes.
to celustrate what I wean.
Non-just Let me take one or two of these points, if I might. I think we
are going to have the most interesting Republican convention in 1964 that we have
both
had in a long, long time. As I see it, we are going to have Governor Rockefeller
will go
and Senator Goldwater going/to the convention each with a substantial block of votes,
with
There be
but an insufficient number to prevail at the outset. You will have a number of
favorite son candidates. You will have your own Governor, I hope, as the favorite
son candidate. He should, because, after all, he's done from what I observe, ex-
tremely well in your state since taking over in January. We in Michigan will have
our Governor, for the same reason, as our favorite son. Bill Scranton from Pennsyl-
vania, Mark Hatfield from Oregon will all go - or in my judgment ought to go - as
that
favorite son candidates. The net result is the convention itself, the delegates
which you and others send to the convention, will make the selection, and I hope
and trust that we have an open free convention, and If we do) we, I think, will pick
I think we
that
a good candidate. I might add this forenate - I hope to be a delegate to the con-
vention in 1964, and naturally I will support one candidate over others. But let
that
me assure you, without hesitation or qualification, ,if my candidate or candidates
work
lose, I will whole heartedly work and vote for the candidate selected at the
GERALD FORD (IBRARY
4 -
National Convention. It seems to me that we as Republicans should not be so com-
mitted to a single personality or to so limited a Republican philosophy or ideal
that we would leave the fray in an hour of peril to insure victory for the radicals
that now control and run the Democratic Party. I say without hesitation that the
Republican Party in 1963, 164 and in the future is the only vehicle by which the
kind of philosophy we believe in can achieve success, and I feel that this philos-
ophy is vital not only as a party principle, but as a benefit to the country as a
whole.
Let me speak for just a moment about party organization. In Michigan we
In the political arena of OUR state,
finally learned that we had to organize as well as the opposition and the principle
opposition, the dominating force in the politicale ona in our state is called the
Democratic Party, but is really the J W-CIO, and they are masters at party organi-
zation. I have never seen a more competent political organization than the one
they run and we learned that if we were going to win, we had to organize do as well as the UAW.
organizati onally speaking, and that means meant a twelve-month maintaing a year a headquarters properly staffed,
a Orguately (marced it meant that
properly staffed, adequately financed and more importantly, this organization and
had to
this financing must be contributed in the off year, as well as in the political
coupaggn
IT have been active in english elections, and I have abserved
year. It is my observation from being active in eight elections that I get more
results from a dollar contributed in the off year than I do from four dollars con-
tributed in an election year. and let me assure you it is always nice to have a
good friend and & nice come in about a week before the election, or maybe
the Saturday night before the election and say "Can you use this money?". Sure
Prom the pour of new of achieving any Results,
you can, but it is a depreciated dollar from the point of view of achieving any
TP the money we
results./and your could have gotten at least four times the dividend from it, if the
money had been contributed in the off election year.
So all I can.say is that in
to be effective,
a city like Cleveland if you want to make your organization work, contribute now
as well as in '64, because this will give you a staff and an organization that
then you will have
produce some results.
LIBRARY GERACE will
- -
discuss
Now I would like to talk, if I might, about two areas that are of partic-
ular interest to me, primarily because I serve on the committee that has jurisdiction
I also feel, however, that
over them, Is just so happens that H feel these are important issues to the coun-
that
will
try as a whole, and secondarily they have a strong political appeal in the 1964 pe-
riod. As a member on the Committee of Appropriations, I am on two sub-committees -
one that has centrol and jurisdiction over all of the money spent for the Army,
Navy and Air Force, and the second is the one that has control over funds for the
first
broad
Foreign Aid Program. But let me talk about the fiscal picture. broadly, at the out-
I believe
set. in my judgment, the Congress has the responsibility to do something
the current
about the fiscal situation we face in Washington. Certainly this administration in
(OR: the Executive Branch of the (10v't)
the Executive Branch of the Government won't do anything to correct the fiscal
irresponsibilities that prevail. I.HTO To get a proper perspective, I think we have to
look at the budget the President submitted in January. He called for expenditures
01 99 billion dollars with next Piscal year,
His budget
in the next fiscal year, which begins July 1st of 99 Uillion dellars. He asked
represents an increase of 4 1/2 billion dollars more
when he requested this much in expenditures for an increase of 4 billion 500 million
than the budget
dellars more than the current 12 month period, and If there is anybody in Govern-
budget for
ment who thinks the current fiscal year is an austere, budget, I would like to hear
Pre
CLEAR
him stand up and talk about it, but he wants to add 42 billion dollars more to
spending over and above the current year. I might add that we talk about a 99
the budget is
billion dollar budget but in reality it is a much larger one because this figure
NOT
does not include trust fund expenditures, the Social Security Program, Railroad
in addition,
Retirement and a number of others and it also does not include what we call new
obligational authority, which is the right of a department to draw on the treasurer,
and this figure is about 109 billion dollars. But just let us stick with the ex-
President's proposed budget
penditures because I think we all understand it a little better. 99 billion dollars
the proposed budget
for
is 99 billion dollars.
ITT the next fiscal year ordrevenues are expected to be 87 billion dollars, which
is a billion four n more than the current fiscal year, and this even taking takes
one
million dollars
FORD
BERALD account IBRARY
- 6 -
will be
some of the proposed tax reductions in fiscal 164. But the net result # a deficit
been $
of 12 billion dollars in the next twelve months on top of deficits of 3.8 in fiscal
billion
'61, 6.3 pin fiscal 162, and about 8 billion dollars in the current fiscal year.
I can only say, and THE this with some strong conviction, I don't care whether
this administration is in four years or eight years, or whether there is another
Kennedy administration after it, they will never balance the federal budget - never!
They don't plan it that way - they are not concerned about it. This isn't part of
the deficio is
bulion dollars
their philosophy - so whether its four, eight, twelve or sixteen n in my judgment
they will never balance the federal budget. They plan the deficit and they happen
to think its good for the country. But in the process of this increase in expend-
itures, I think we tend to lose sight of the fact that there is a substantial in-
crease in federal employment. As a matter of fact, from January 21st, 1961 to the
Is the President's
end of the next fiscal year, fiscal 164, there will have been, if all plans go
according to the way the President recommended, an increase of over 215,000 in the federal
recommer dations are followed, there will have been
government's employ, from Jan 21, 1961 to tend or the next escal year, fiscal 1964.
federal employment 1 and the average pay of the federal employee is between about $6,000 to and
only have to
to
out
about $6,500 a year, so you can just multiply and findA what the added cost in per-
alone, resulting from the
this
sonnel only is, in as the result of this fiscal program of the administration,
one of the points questions people inevitably ask - well, you shouldn't be
raise is that,the administration
has
so hard on this administration fiscally - after all they, spent a lot of additional
money on the Defense Program, and all of this increase can be related to more guns,
tanks, air craft, missiles, etc. for the Defense Program. Ladies and Gentlemen,
let me set the record straight - in fiscal '64, that is the next fiscal year, the
President has asked for 43 billion dollars for non-defense spending. program. This is 2
billion dollars more than /the current fiscal year, It is 9.3 billion dollars more
the depense program of
[or 27 peR cent]
SPENdING
than that spent for non-defense in fiscal 161, & 27 per cent increase, and it is
[or 111 per cent]
22 billion dollars more than was spent in 1954 for non-defense programs. a 111 per
FORD
cent increase in & ben year span. Now we could put it another way defense spending GERAT
LIBRARY
- 7 -
I you go back to fiscal '54 and compare the President's recommendations for fiscal
increased
'64, a ten year span, you will find that defense spending has gone up only 12 per
has mireased 111 peR cent
cent, compared whereas to 111 per cent increase in non-defense spending in the same span of
compake
time. Or we can put it another way If you took the last Eisenhower budget which
was submitted in January of 1961 for fiscal 162 and compane-it with the Kennedy
fiscal 164 budget, you will find there is a 27 billion dollar increase in what we
call obligation authority. Its a line of credit for the various agencies to draw
on the treasury for expenditures. There is a 27 billion dollar differential. ential. Only
the 27 billion dollar increase
10 billion dollars of that is related to increases for the Army, Navy and Air Force -
represents
17 billion dollars of it is related to non-defense spending A an increase in all the
civilian agencies of the Government. So it is not inaccurate accurate - it is-untrue to say
that this administration has increased spending primarily for the purpose of build-
AS a matter of eact, the emphasis
ing up our military strength. The emphasis as a matter of fact has been the other on
won -defense spending.
way. One of the best examples is just in agriculture. In 1961 the Department of
5Yn billion dollars
Agriculture had 5 billion for the various activities. Secretary Freeman is asking
for appropriations in the next fiscal year Df 8 billion 4* a 2 billion 9 hundred
which
million dollar increase in three years. I have made the comment and I think it is
accurate that Secretary Freeman is the most expensive commodity every produced by
About
days ago he lound out
the Department of Agriculture. And you know he found out just about days ago
that the farmers of America have a lot more intelligence and a lot more desire for
freedom than he ever thought. a It was one of the great victories of this country,
In my judgewent,
|
an independent
in my Judgment Independent victory for people who want to preserve the kind of
society that made us what we are today. People have said the farmers voted for
freedom rather than Freeman, and I think that is true.
wonder, suice I
Now you ought to ask, you have talked a lot about whats wrong with the
aRe
budget, what the Republicans, doing about it I would like to make these
budger
rather quick comments. We became concerned when the document came to our desk in
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 8 -
mid-January, and the members of the Republican Party in the Committee on Appropri-
ations decided we ought to do something about it. We set up a task force under
Frank Bow, one of your fine Republican Congressmen from the State of Ohio, a
member of the Committee. We called upon industry, we called upon technicians to
called in
come down and give us some help. We Maury Stans who was the Budget Director
under Eisenhower the last two or three years of his term of office and he got some
of the technical achisers who had helped him, and they sat down with those of us on
his
the Bow Sub-committee and we came up with some objective targets. Now these targets
I admit are probably a little too much for us to achieve. After all we
there only have are only
Republicans Members
177 members out of 435 in the House, and our friends from below the Mason-Dixon Line
are not doing as well by us as they used to. But anyhow we said we ought to cut
between 10 and 15 billion dollars and we pinpointed these areas of reduction. How
concesuing the
will we do it? Well, we had four appropriation bills since January// Department of
Post Office and Treasury and the Department of Interior, the supplemental and the
appropriation bill for HEW - Health, Education and Welfare, and Labor So far we
the appropriations buls 760 million, OR equr per cent
have reduced these Tengets by about 8 per cent, and reduced about 760 million
dollars below the President's request. In addition, the pressure from the Bow
aided by
Committee, with Maury Stans and others helping, has gotten the President himself to
withdraw about one-half a billion dollars in requested obligation authority, or
spending authority. In addition we have slowed down, and I think we can defeat,
These
most of the new programs or projects that the President has requested that must
ission dollars
first be authorized by law, and this would total one billion six
Fight
weare
now in the process of trying to mark up the appropriation bill for the Department
of Defense. The President has asked for about 50 billion dollars. I think that
by a billion Q help dollansing
we can reduce that appropriation bill without having any impact on our military
OR
preparedness our National security by a billion and one half dollars. I am con-
fident we can do that. I am certain that the Congress will reduce the Presidentis
GERALDO
LIBRARY
of
- 9 -
level requested by the
Foreign Aid Request by another billion dollars below the Clay Committee level, and
space
I think the Congress will face up to the program, in the Space AT car and I suspect
that we will make at least one-half billion dollar reduction in that program. Now
these reductions teach goal
this won't the target we talked about, but it will have this impact -
save
it ought to accumulate in about 5 to 6 billion dollars and, if so, it
p
will permit usvm reasonabl hold the line on overall expenditures to the level of
fiscal 1963 - that is this year - and if we do that, then I think we can say with
some honesty, with some legitimacy that we can take a look at a bona fide tax re-
duction program; but if we don't do something about expenditures, I don't think
that we can, in good conscience, consider making
in good conscience we can take look at making the kind of revisions and reduc-
tions that are needed in the overall tax picture.
Now let me talk about taxes for just a moment. I think there is agreement
that tax
between Democrats and Republicans in three areas - any rates are too high, that
there are inequities in and that action is needed to reduce taxes in order to accel-
the tax structure,
erate our Nation's growth and to insure prosperity. There is general agreement
in these areas. However, after that there are definite differences. The Presi-
dent's program, as you know, is primarily aimed at reducing middle income and lower
He
income rates. The President has tied together the reform proposals and the rate
taxes, at the
reduction revisions. The President the one hand wants to reduce but on
same time
the other hand, he turns around and accelerates payments by corporate organiza-
As I understand this program,
tions to the Treasury Department. the net result for the first two or three years,
as I understand this program, is that no business organization would have more funds
on hand, and might conceivably have less, on hand and course, the President's pur-
of the President's program
pose in his total fiscal plan is not only to reduce rates and taxes, but to accel-
erate spending. the Republicans on the other hand definitely feel we definitely ought to
tax
divorce rate reduction from reform. Rate reduction is needed - tire is somewhat
of an essence, and if you tie it with reform you slow down the process. On the
GERALD FORD LIBRAR,
- 10 -
maintain
other hand the Republicans very that, if you are going to have a tax reduction, in
all honesty you ought to do something about expenditures. And I was delighted to
read the other day that somo an industrial group under Henry Ford camo out and strongly
Stated that
said it was practical as well as desirable to reduce expenditures if we were to get
the kind of rate reduction that was essential. Let me summarize this point aspect this
way - the more we are able to reduce expenditures, the more likely we are to get
tax reduction. I plead with you. to support people who are seeking to reduce ex-
penditures so that we can get a long-needed and greatly desired reduction in our
tax structure.
that POR 10 years- this is my
One or two quick comments about National Security. I indicated T have been
11th year -
I have been
ten years this is my 11th year - on the Appropriations Committee that has juris-
The Republicans' position,
diction over the Army, Navy and Air Force funds. Our total theory, whether too
whether ^ under Eisenhower or under Kennedy, is that we need have the kind of a program that WO will
and will
have to preserve peace by strength secondly to win any conflict if we should be
so engaged. Now under former President Eisenhower a very drastic change in our
Which
A
defense policy took place. Prior to Morld-War I, brior to World War II, we had
which
a feast and famine program, a peak and valley program would build up the Army, Navy,
Air Force in wartime and then starved them to death in peacetime, and this kind of
a program invited aggression, it was costly in dollars and was costly in lives, and
so, starting after the Korean War, President Eisenhower requested set out a relatively high
level of appropriations, melitary expenditures, manpower, weapon procurement, etc. This is
good policy. This administration, with some minor revisions, has carried it out.
Now, what generis a successful military program? First we you have to have
are the req impensents POR
the strength to prevail, and believe me, the under this administration or
under a previous administration, we have that strength. I have no doubtSwhatsoever
about OUR
about. our total complete capability to prevail in any conflict with the Soviet Union.
Second your enemy has to know that you we have that strength. He has to be cognizant
OUR
GERALD LIBRARY
- 11 -
of our ability to do what we say we can do - in this case to annihilate the Soviet
Union, even if we suffered the first strike. I think Mr. Krushchev knows this.
Third and this is the crux of the program, the enemy must know we will use that
strength under certain circumstances. We have a few examples in recent years that
indicated this is just as important as the first two. In 1958, Mr. Eisenhower sent
this action
troops to Lebanon - settled the Middle East, despite the efforts being made by
the Soviet Union. In 1958, Ike sent the 7th Fleet to Quemoy and Matsu, and we told
Red China - - you are not going to move into Formosa - period. This I think was
rather convincing to the opposition. In October of this year, President Kennedy
took the kind of action which convinced the Soviet Union we meant business. In
my opinion this administration has not done enough of this. The only time they
have done it is in Cuba. Unfortunately, I think they are indecisive, they are
vacilating in other areas. They should have learned from the Cuban illustration
and
that the way to prevail is through a show of strength a convincing attitude toward
the enemy. inless we have additional such shows of strength in the months ahead,
we could continue some of the reverses that we have suffered in recent months. It
is not because we lack the strength - it is not because the enemy doesn't believe
we have the strength - - the enemy just doesn't think we are willing to use it to
preserve what we all hold to be true and dear.
May I say it is a pleasure to be here - I am very grateful for your
attention - I would be delighted to answer any questions. Thank you very much.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD