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
4525995
label
Grocery Manufacturers of America, New York, NY, November 14, 1966
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525995
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Grocery Manufacturers of America, New York, NY, November 14, 1966
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
U.S. House of Representatives. 3/4/1789-
Inflation (Finance)
Right to labor
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525995
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1966-11-30
month
11
year
1966
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-11-01
month
11
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
69019bd3736d64a8
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D21, folder "Grocery Manufacturers of
America, New York, NY, November 14, 1966" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press
Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
In of Vargen 2sland
REMARKS BEFORE GROCERY MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA, N.Y., N.Y.
Wnite any lamn place 2 please
MONDAY, NOV. 14, 1966
The
ONE OF THE PHENOMENA OF 1966, A YEAR MARKED BY TURMOIL
AND VIOLENCE IN AMERICA, WAS THE HOUSEWIVES' REBELLION.
WE ARE NOT TALKING, OF COURSE, ABOUT ANY MOVEMENT BY
THE MARRIED WOMEN OF THIS COUNTRY TO QUIT WIELDING DUST
MOPS OR GETTING HUBBY'S DINNER. WE ARE REFERRING TO THAT
WIDESPREAD BOYCOTT OF THE SUPERMARKETS, SOMETIMES KNOWN AS
THE PETTICOAT PROTEST.
THIS REVOLT COULD HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED IN A YEAR
WHEN PRICES SKYROCKETED AND THE JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION
the taxic canno
DID LITTLE TO FIGHT INFLATION BUT BLAME SOMEBODY ELSE.
NOW MANY AMERICANS ARE WONDERING IF AND WHERE THE
PRICE RISES WILL STOP. WILL THERE BE WAGE AND PRICE
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Digitized from Box D21 of The Ford Congressional
Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
CONTROLS? WILL THERE BE RATIONING?
ON THE QUESTION OF RATIONING I THINK THE ANSWER IS
OBVIOUS. UNLESS WE ARE PLUNGED INTO FULLSCALE WAR THAT
CREATES SHORTAGES AT HOME, WE WILL NOT HAVE RATIONING.
WHAT IS IN SHORT SUPPLY? CERTAINLY NOT GROCERIES. THE
INFLATIONARY SPIRAL WE ARE EXPERIENCING TODAY IS NOT DUE
TO SHORTAGES. THE BASIS FOR IT IS AN OVER-ABUNDANCE OF
CHEAP MONEY IN THE ECONOMY--AND ONLY THE GOVERNMENT CAN
CORRECT THAT by of responsible frical & montary policio
Certanity, most understy but
I
WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS? THIS IS NOT ALTOGETHER OUT
OF THE QUESTION, ALTHOUGH I CERTAINLY DON'T SEE IT AS JUST
AROUND THE CORNER.
as Nomething
this Congress will have on ther
THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING DOES HAVE A STANDBY
aggenda
GERALD R. GERALDR. FORD
PROGRAM OF WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS CRANKED UP READY TO GO
-3-
IF IT IS NEEDED. THEY WOULDN'T BE DOING THEIR JOB IF THEY
DIDN'T HAVE SUCH A CONTINGENCY PROGRAM ON PAPER. BUT I
DON'T THINK IT WILL BE NEEDED, AND I AM CERTAIN NEARLY ALL
MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS VIEW IT AS A LAST-RESORT MEASURE.
Bryant
ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS
DO REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE CONGRESS.
SPEAKING FOR HOUSE REPUBLICANS, I'M SURE YOU CAN
EXPECT THAT WE WILL FIRST SEEK DEEP AND MEANINGFUL CUTS
IN UNNECESSARY FEDERAL SPENDING AS A WEAPON AGAINST
INFLATION. IF SPENDING IS NOT CUT SUBSTANTIALLY, THEN I
BELIEVE THE ADMINISTRATION WILL ASK FOR AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD
INCREASE IN PERSONAL AND CORPORATE INCOME TAXES. WAGE AND
PRICE CONTROLS WOULD BE A DESPERATION MEASURE THROWN INTO
THE BREACH ONLY IF OTHER LESS DRASTIC MEASURES FAIL TO
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
HALT INFLATION. CONTROLS, WOULD ATTACK THE SYMPTOMS AND
NOT THE CAUSE OF INFLATION.
THE ACTIONS OF LABOR WILL HAVE GREAT IMPORT FOR THE
HEALTH OF THE ECONOMY IN 1967 AS CONTRACTS COVERING
MILLIONS OF WORKERS COME UP FOR RENEWAL.
WE CAN ALSO EXPECT THAT PRESIDENT JOHNSON WILL TRY
AGAIN TO REDEEM HIS PROMISE TO ORGANIZED LABOR TO WIN multify
REPEAL OF STATE RIGHT-TO-WORK LAWS. AS YOU KNOW, STATES
NOW ARE PERMITTED BY SECTION 14B OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT
TO PASS RIGHT-TO-WORK LAWS. YOU ALSO KNOW THAT MR. JOHNSON
SOUGHT REPEAL OF SECTION 14B IN THE LAST CONGRESS. A BILL
TO REPEAL 14B NARROWLY PASSED THE HOUSE BUT DIED IN THE
SENATE.
GEBALA FORD LIBRARY
-5-
WITH THE DEFEAT OF MANY NORTHERN DEMOCRATS IN THE
1966 ELECTIONS, THERE IS LESS CHANCE FOR REPEAL OF 14B IN
THE 90TH CONGRESS THAN THERE WAS IN THE 89TH. IN FACT,
am areal of
I WOULD GUESS THAT 14B COULD NOT EVEN GET THROUGH THE HOUSE
IN THE NEW CONGRESS.
IN THE 89TH CONGRESS, THE ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL OF
A FOUR-YEAR TERM FOR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE DIED ALONG WITH
14B failed to REPEAL. IN FACT, A BILL TO AUTHORIZE A FOUR-YEAR TERM
DIDN T EVEN WIN APPROVAL OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
I WAS OPPOSED TO IT, ALONG WITH MANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSE.
IN ANALYZING WHAT'S WRONG WITH A FOUR-YEAR TERM FOR
HOUSE MEMBERS, LET'S LOOK AT WHAT'S RIGHT WITH THE PRESENT
SYSTEM.
-6-
Lampargn
OUR IMMEDIATE PAST POLITICAL HISTORY IS THE BEST
EXAMPLE OF WHY WE SHOULD PRESERVE TWO-YEAR TERMS FOR CONGRESS
MEN
THE 1966 ELECTION- IN WHICH ALL 435 HOUSE MEMBERS BUT
ONLY 35 MEMBERS OF THE SENATE STOOD BEFORE THE ELECTORATE
WAS THE ONLY CHANCE THE VOTERS HAD TO EXPRESS THEIR
FEELINGS ABOUT THE JONNSON ADMINISTRATION IN MID-TERM OF
THE PRESIDENCY.
IF HOUSE MEMBERS WERE ELECTED TO FOUR-YEAR TERMS ALONG
WITH THE PRESIDENT, THERE WOULD BE NO OPPORTUNITY FOR A
MID-TERM PROTEST. VOTERS WOULD HAVE TO NURSE THEIR
FRUSTRATIONS AND IRRITATIONS FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS. THE
POLICIES OF THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO NOTICEABLE
CHANGE.
-7-
THE BLESSING OF A TWO-YEAR TERM FOR CONGRESSMEN IS
THAT IT CONSTITUTES A SAFETY VALVE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE--
A CHANCE TO BLOW OFF STEAM IN THE MIDDLE OF A PRESIDENT'S
TERM.
IT ALSO GIVES THE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LET THE
ADMINISTRATION KNOW THEY WANT A CHANGE IN POLICY, NEW
DIRECTIONS, A SLOWDOWN OR MORE FORWARD THRUSI, A SHIFT TO
THE RIGHT, THE LEFT OR THE MIDDLE. I PERSONALLY FEEL THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE BASICALLY MIDDLE-OF-THE-ROAD, AND THE
OFF-YEAR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS SERVE AS A REMINDER OF
THAT FACT. THAT IS JUST WHAT HAPPENED LAST NOV. 8 WHEN MY
PARTY SCORED SIGNIFICANT GAINS IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE
COUNTRY.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
WILL FOUR-YEAR TERMS FOR CONGRESSMEN BE AUTHORIZED BY
-8-
THE 90TH CONGRESS? NOT IF I CAN HELP IT--AND I WOULD GUESS
THERE WILL BE LESS PUSH BEHIND THE FOUR-YEAR TERM PROPOSAL
IN THE 90TH CONGRESS THAN THERE WAS IN THE 89TH. THE
REASON IS THAT WE CAME DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO ONE-MAN
GOVERNMENT IN THE 89TH CONGRESS WHEN THE DEMOCRATS ENJOYED
The
MOUNTAINOUS MAJORITIES OF MORE THAN 2 TO 1. the last 2 years
have have whither hown- The will
be more
THE LEGISLATIVE RUBBER-STAMPING WE WITNESSED IN THE competitive
the loght
89TH CONGRESS WOULD HAVE CONTINUED FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS prodo
IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAD NOT HAD THE CHANCE TO CHANGE
THE COMPLEXION OF THE CONGRESS.
THE NATION IS FORTUNATE, INDEED, THAT MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSE ARE KEPT CLOSE TO THE PEOPLE.
----THANK YOU
FORD i LIBRARY 070839
---END---
FOR RELEASE AT 3 P.M. MONDAY, NOV. 14, 1966
REMARKS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD BEFORE GROCERY MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA, N. Y., N. Y.
One of the phenomena of 1966, a year marked by turmoil and violence in America,
was the housewives' rebellion.
We are not talking, of course, about any movement by the married women of this
country to quit wielding dust mops or getting hubby's dinner. We are referring to
that widespread boycott of the supermarkets sometimes known as the petticoat protest.
This revolt could have been anticipated in a year when prices skyrocketed and
the Johnson Administration did little to fight inflation but blame somebody else.
Now many Americans are wondering if and where the price rises will stop. Will
there be wage and price controls? Will there be rationing?
On the question of rationing I think the answer is obvious. Unless we are
plunged into fullscale war that creates shortages at home, we will not have rationing.
What is in short supply? Certainly not groceries. The inflationary spiral we are
experiencing today is not due to shortages. The basis for it is an over-abundance of
cheap money in the economy--and only the government can correct that.
Wage and price controls? This is not altogether out of the question, although I
certainly don't see it as just around the corner.
The Office of Emergency Flanning does have a standby program of wage and price
controls cranked up ready to go if it is needed. They wouldn't be doing their job
if they didn't have such a contingency program on paper. But I don't think it will
be needed, and I am certain nearly all members of the Congress view it as a last-
resort measure. One thing to keep in mind is that wage and price controls do require
approval by the Congress.
Speaking for House Republicans, I'm sure you can expect that we will first seek
deep and meaningful cuts in unneeessary federal spending as a weapon against infla-
tion. If spending is not cut substantially, then I believe the Administration will
ask for an across-the-board increase in personal and corporate income taxes. Wage
and price controls would be a desperation measure thrown into the breach only if
other less drastic measures fail to halt inflation. Controls would attack the
symptoms and not the cause of inflation.
The actions of labor will have great import for the health of the economy in
1967 as contracts covering millions of workers come up for renewal.
We can also expect that President Johnson will try again to redeem his promise
to organized labor to win repeal of state right-to-work laws. As you know, states
now are permitted by Section 14b of the Taft-Hartley Act to pass right-to-work laws.
You also know that Mr. Johnson sought repeal of Section 14b in the last Congress.
A bill to repeal 14b narrowly passed the House but died in the Senate.
(More)
-2-
With the defeat of many northern Democrats in the 1966 elections, there is less
chance for repeal of 14b in the 90ᵗʰ Congress than there was in the 89th. In fact,
I would guess that 14b could not even get through the House in the new Congress.
In the 89th Congress, the Administration proposal of a four-year term for
members of the House died along with 14b repeal. In fact, a bill to authorize a
four-year term didn't even win approval of the House Judiciary Committee. I was
opposed to it, along with many other members of the House.
In analyzing what's wrong with a four-year term for House members, let's look
at what's right with the present system.
Our immediate past political history is the best example of why we should
preserve two-year terms for congressmen.
The 1966 election--in which all 435 House members but only 35 members of the
Senate stood before the electorate--was the only chance the voters had to express
their feelings about the Johnson Administration in mid-term of the Presidency.
If House members were elected to four-year terms along with the President, there
would be no opportunity for a mid-term protest. Voters would have to nurse their
frustrations and irritations for another two years. The policies of the government
would not be subject to noticeable change.
The blessing of a two-year term for congressmen is that it constitutes a safety
valve for the American people--a chance to blow off steam in the middle of a
President's term.
It also gives the people an opportunity to let the Administration know they
want a change in policy, new directions, a slowdown or more forward thrust, a shift
to the right, the left or the middle. I personally feel the American people are
basically middle-of-the-road, and the off-year congressional elections serve as a
reminder of that fact. That is just what happened last Nov. 8 when my party scored
significant gains in various parts of the country.
Will four-year terms for congressmen be authorized by the 90th Congress? Not
if I can help it--and I would guess there will be less push behind the four-year
term proposal in the 90th Congress than there was in the 89th. The reason is that
we came dangerously close to one-man government in the 89th Congress when the
Democrats enjoyed mountainous majorities of more than 2 to 1.
The legislative rubber-stamping we witnessed in the 89th Congress would have
continued for another two years if the American people had not had the chance to
change the complexion of the Congress.
The nation is fortunate, indeed, that members of the House are kept close to
the people. Thank you.
# # #
FOR RELEASE AT 3 P.M. MONDAY, NOV. 14, 1966
REMARKS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD BEFORE GROCERY MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA, N. Y., N. Y.
One of the phenomena of 1966, a year marked by turmoil and violence in America,
was the housewives' rebellion.
We are not talking, of course, about any movement by the married women of this
country to quit wielding dust mops or getting hubby's dinner. We are referring to
that widespread boycott of the supermarkets sometimes known as the petticoat protest.
This revolt could have been anticipated in a year when prices skyrocketed and
the Johnson Administration did little to fight inflation but blame somebody else.
Now many Americans are wondering if and where the price rises will stop. Will
there be wage and price controls? Will there be rationing?
On the question of rationing I think the answer is obvious. Unless we are
plunged into fullscale war that creates shortages at home, we will not have rationing.
What is in short supply? Certainly not groceries. The inflationary spiral we are
experiencing today is not due to shortages. The basis for it is an over-abundance of
cheap money in the economy--and only the government can correct that.
Wage and price controls? This is not altogether out of the question, although I
certainly don't see it as just around the corner.
The Office of Emergency Planning does have a standby program of wage and price
controls cranked up ready to go if it is needed. They wouldn't be doing their job
if they didn't have such a contingency program on paper. But I don't think it will
be needed, and I am certain nearly all members of the Congress view it as a last-
resort measure. One thing to keep in mind is that wage and price controls do require
approval by the Congress.
Speaking for House Republicans, I'm sure you can expect that we will first seek
deep and meaningful cuts in unnecessary federal spending as a weapon against infla-
tion. If spending is not cut substantially, then I believe the Administration will
ask for an across-the-board increase in personal and corporate income taxes. Wage
and price controls would be a desperation measure thrown into the breach only if
other less drastic measures fail to halt inflation. Controls would attack the
symptoms and not the cause of inflation.
The actions of labor will have great import for the health of the economy in
1967 as contracts covering millions of workers come up for renewal.
We can also expect that President Johnson will try again to redeem his promise
to organized labor to win repeal of state right-to-work laws. As you know, states
now are permitted by Section 14b of the Taft-Hartley Act to pass right-to-work laws.
You also know that Mr. Johnson sought repeal of Section 14b in the last Congress.
A bill to repeal 14b narrowly passed the House but died in the Senate.
(More)
-2-
With the defeat of many northern Democrats in the 1966 elections, there is less
chance for repeal of 14b in the 90ᵗʰ Congress than there was in the 89th. In fact,
I would guess that 14b could not even get through the House in the new Congress.
In the 89th Congress, the Administration proposal of a four-year term for
members of the House died along with 14b repeal. In fact, a bill to authorize a
four-year term didn't even win approval of the House Judiciary Committee. I was
opposed to it, along with many other members of the House.
In analyzing what's wrong with a four-year term for House members, let's look
at what's right with the present system.
Our immediate past political history is the best example of why we should
preserve two-year terms for congressmen.
The 1966 election--in which all 435 House members but only 35 members of the
Senate stood before the electorate--was the only chance the voters had to express
their feelings about the Johnson Administration in mid-term of the Presidency.
If House members were elected to four-year terms along with the President, there
would be no opportunity for a mid-term protest. Voters would have to nurse their
frustrations and irritations for another two years. The policies of the government
would not be subject to noticeable change.
The blessing of a two-year term for congressmen is that it constitutes a safety
valve for the American people--a chance to blow off steam in the middle of a
President's term.
It also gives the people an opportunity to let the Administration know they
want a change in policy, new directions, a slowdown or more forward thrust, a shift
to the right, the left or the middle. I personally feel the American people are
basically middle-of-the-road, and the off-year congressional elections serve as a
reminder of that fact. That is just what happened last Nov. 8 when my party scored
significant gains in various parts of the country.
Will four-year terms for congressmen be authorized by the 90th Congress? Not
if I can help it--and I would guess there will be less push behind the four-year
term proposal in the 90th Congress than there was in the 89th. The reason is that
we came dangerously close to one-man government in the 89th Congress when the
Democrats enjoyed mountainous majorities of more than 2 to 1.
The legislative rubber-stamping we witnessed in the 89th Congress would have
continued for another two years if the American people had not had the chance to
change the complexion of the Congress.
The nation is fortunate, indeed, that members of the House are kept close to
the people. Thank you.
# # #