Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4525995",
    "label": "Grocery Manufacturers of America, New York, NY, November 14, 1966",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525995"
}

{
    "id": "4525995",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525995",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Grocery Manufacturers of America, New York, NY, November 14, 1966",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525995",
    "collections": [
        "Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
        "Speeches"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "U.S. House of Representatives. 3/4/1789-",
        "Inflation (Finance)",
        "Right to labor"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525995.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525995.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525995.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525995",
    "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"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525995.pdf",
    "mediaId": "69019bd3736d64a8",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box D21, folder \"Grocery Manufacturers of\nAmerica, New York, NY, November 14, 1966\" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press\nSecretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nIn of Vargen 2sland\nREMARKS BEFORE GROCERY MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA, N.Y., N.Y.\nWnite any lamn place 2 please\nMONDAY, NOV. 14, 1966\nThe\nONE OF THE PHENOMENA OF 1966, A YEAR MARKED BY TURMOIL\nAND VIOLENCE IN AMERICA, WAS THE HOUSEWIVES' REBELLION.\nWE ARE NOT TALKING, OF COURSE, ABOUT ANY MOVEMENT BY\nTHE MARRIED WOMEN OF THIS COUNTRY TO QUIT WIELDING DUST\nMOPS OR GETTING HUBBY'S DINNER. WE ARE REFERRING TO THAT\nWIDESPREAD BOYCOTT OF THE SUPERMARKETS, SOMETIMES KNOWN AS\nTHE PETTICOAT PROTEST.\nTHIS REVOLT COULD HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED IN A YEAR\nWHEN PRICES SKYROCKETED AND THE JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION\nthe taxic canno\nDID LITTLE TO FIGHT INFLATION BUT BLAME SOMEBODY ELSE.\nNOW MANY AMERICANS ARE WONDERING IF AND WHERE THE\nPRICE RISES WILL STOP. WILL THERE BE WAGE AND PRICE\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\nDigitized from Box D21 of The Ford Congressional\nPapers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\n-2-\nCONTROLS? WILL THERE BE RATIONING?\nON THE QUESTION OF RATIONING I THINK THE ANSWER IS\nOBVIOUS. UNLESS WE ARE PLUNGED INTO FULLSCALE WAR THAT\nCREATES SHORTAGES AT HOME, WE WILL NOT HAVE RATIONING.\nWHAT IS IN SHORT SUPPLY? CERTAINLY NOT GROCERIES. THE\nINFLATIONARY SPIRAL WE ARE EXPERIENCING TODAY IS NOT DUE\nTO SHORTAGES. THE BASIS FOR IT IS AN OVER-ABUNDANCE OF\nCHEAP MONEY IN THE ECONOMY--AND ONLY THE GOVERNMENT CAN\nCORRECT THAT by of responsible frical & montary policio\nCertanity, most understy but\nI\nWAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS? THIS IS NOT ALTOGETHER OUT\nOF THE QUESTION, ALTHOUGH I CERTAINLY DON'T SEE IT AS JUST\nAROUND THE CORNER.\nas Nomething\nthis Congress will have on ther\nTHE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING DOES HAVE A STANDBY\naggenda\nGERALD R. GERALDR. FORD\nPROGRAM OF WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS CRANKED UP READY TO GO\n-3-\nIF IT IS NEEDED. THEY WOULDN'T BE DOING THEIR JOB IF THEY\nDIDN'T HAVE SUCH A CONTINGENCY PROGRAM ON PAPER. BUT I\nDON'T THINK IT WILL BE NEEDED, AND I AM CERTAIN NEARLY ALL\nMEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS VIEW IT AS A LAST-RESORT MEASURE.\nBryant\nONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS\nDO REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE CONGRESS.\nSPEAKING FOR HOUSE REPUBLICANS, I'M SURE YOU CAN\nEXPECT THAT WE WILL FIRST SEEK DEEP AND MEANINGFUL CUTS\nIN UNNECESSARY FEDERAL SPENDING AS A WEAPON AGAINST\nINFLATION. IF SPENDING IS NOT CUT SUBSTANTIALLY, THEN I\nBELIEVE THE ADMINISTRATION WILL ASK FOR AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD\nINCREASE IN PERSONAL AND CORPORATE INCOME TAXES. WAGE AND\nPRICE CONTROLS WOULD BE A DESPERATION MEASURE THROWN INTO\nTHE BREACH ONLY IF OTHER LESS DRASTIC MEASURES FAIL TO\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nHALT INFLATION. CONTROLS, WOULD ATTACK THE SYMPTOMS AND\nNOT THE CAUSE OF INFLATION.\nTHE ACTIONS OF LABOR WILL HAVE GREAT IMPORT FOR THE\nHEALTH OF THE ECONOMY IN 1967 AS CONTRACTS COVERING\nMILLIONS OF WORKERS COME UP FOR RENEWAL.\nWE CAN ALSO EXPECT THAT PRESIDENT JOHNSON WILL TRY\nAGAIN TO REDEEM HIS PROMISE TO ORGANIZED LABOR TO WIN multify\nREPEAL OF STATE RIGHT-TO-WORK LAWS. AS YOU KNOW, STATES\nNOW ARE PERMITTED BY SECTION 14B OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT\nTO PASS RIGHT-TO-WORK LAWS. YOU ALSO KNOW THAT MR. JOHNSON\nSOUGHT REPEAL OF SECTION 14B IN THE LAST CONGRESS. A BILL\nTO REPEAL 14B NARROWLY PASSED THE HOUSE BUT DIED IN THE\nSENATE.\nGEBALA FORD LIBRARY\n-5-\nWITH THE DEFEAT OF MANY NORTHERN DEMOCRATS IN THE\n1966 ELECTIONS, THERE IS LESS CHANCE FOR REPEAL OF 14B IN\nTHE 90TH CONGRESS THAN THERE WAS IN THE 89TH. IN FACT,\nam areal of\nI WOULD GUESS THAT 14B COULD NOT EVEN GET THROUGH THE HOUSE\nIN THE NEW CONGRESS.\nIN THE 89TH CONGRESS, THE ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL OF\nA FOUR-YEAR TERM FOR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE DIED ALONG WITH\n14B failed to REPEAL. IN FACT, A BILL TO AUTHORIZE A FOUR-YEAR TERM\nDIDN T EVEN WIN APPROVAL OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.\nI WAS OPPOSED TO IT, ALONG WITH MANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE\nHOUSE.\nIN ANALYZING WHAT'S WRONG WITH A FOUR-YEAR TERM FOR\nHOUSE MEMBERS, LET'S LOOK AT WHAT'S RIGHT WITH THE PRESENT\nSYSTEM.\n-6-\nLampargn\nOUR IMMEDIATE PAST POLITICAL HISTORY IS THE BEST\nEXAMPLE OF WHY WE SHOULD PRESERVE TWO-YEAR TERMS FOR CONGRESS\nMEN\nTHE 1966 ELECTION- IN WHICH ALL 435 HOUSE MEMBERS BUT\nONLY 35 MEMBERS OF THE SENATE STOOD BEFORE THE ELECTORATE\nWAS THE ONLY CHANCE THE VOTERS HAD TO EXPRESS THEIR\nFEELINGS ABOUT THE JONNSON ADMINISTRATION IN MID-TERM OF\nTHE PRESIDENCY.\nIF HOUSE MEMBERS WERE ELECTED TO FOUR-YEAR TERMS ALONG\nWITH THE PRESIDENT, THERE WOULD BE NO OPPORTUNITY FOR A\nMID-TERM PROTEST. VOTERS WOULD HAVE TO NURSE THEIR\nFRUSTRATIONS AND IRRITATIONS FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS. THE\nPOLICIES OF THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO NOTICEABLE\nCHANGE.\n-7-\nTHE BLESSING OF A TWO-YEAR TERM FOR CONGRESSMEN IS\nTHAT IT CONSTITUTES A SAFETY VALVE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE--\nA CHANCE TO BLOW OFF STEAM IN THE MIDDLE OF A PRESIDENT'S\nTERM.\nIT ALSO GIVES THE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LET THE\nADMINISTRATION KNOW THEY WANT A CHANGE IN POLICY, NEW\nDIRECTIONS, A SLOWDOWN OR MORE FORWARD THRUSI, A SHIFT TO\nTHE RIGHT, THE LEFT OR THE MIDDLE. I PERSONALLY FEEL THE\nAMERICAN PEOPLE ARE BASICALLY MIDDLE-OF-THE-ROAD, AND THE\nOFF-YEAR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS SERVE AS A REMINDER OF\nTHAT FACT. THAT IS JUST WHAT HAPPENED LAST NOV. 8 WHEN MY\nPARTY SCORED SIGNIFICANT GAINS IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE\nCOUNTRY.\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\nWILL FOUR-YEAR TERMS FOR CONGRESSMEN BE AUTHORIZED BY\n-8-\nTHE 90TH CONGRESS? NOT IF I CAN HELP IT--AND I WOULD GUESS\nTHERE WILL BE LESS PUSH BEHIND THE FOUR-YEAR TERM PROPOSAL\nIN THE 90TH CONGRESS THAN THERE WAS IN THE 89TH. THE\nREASON IS THAT WE CAME DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO ONE-MAN\nGOVERNMENT IN THE 89TH CONGRESS WHEN THE DEMOCRATS ENJOYED\nThe\nMOUNTAINOUS MAJORITIES OF MORE THAN 2 TO 1. the last 2 years\nhave have whither hown- The will\nbe more\nTHE LEGISLATIVE RUBBER-STAMPING WE WITNESSED IN THE competitive\nthe loght\n89TH CONGRESS WOULD HAVE CONTINUED FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS prodo\nIF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAD NOT HAD THE CHANCE TO CHANGE\nTHE COMPLEXION OF THE CONGRESS.\nTHE NATION IS FORTUNATE, INDEED, THAT MEMBERS OF THE\nHOUSE ARE KEPT CLOSE TO THE PEOPLE.\n----THANK YOU\nFORD i LIBRARY 070839\n---END---\nFOR RELEASE AT 3 P.M. MONDAY, NOV. 14, 1966\nREMARKS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD BEFORE GROCERY MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA, N. Y., N. Y.\nOne of the phenomena of 1966, a year marked by turmoil and violence in America,\nwas the housewives' rebellion.\nWe are not talking, of course, about any movement by the married women of this\ncountry to quit wielding dust mops or getting hubby's dinner. We are referring to\nthat widespread boycott of the supermarkets sometimes known as the petticoat protest.\nThis revolt could have been anticipated in a year when prices skyrocketed and\nthe Johnson Administration did little to fight inflation but blame somebody else.\nNow many Americans are wondering if and where the price rises will stop. Will\nthere be wage and price controls? Will there be rationing?\nOn the question of rationing I think the answer is obvious. Unless we are\nplunged into fullscale war that creates shortages at home, we will not have rationing.\nWhat is in short supply? Certainly not groceries. The inflationary spiral we are\nexperiencing today is not due to shortages. The basis for it is an over-abundance of\ncheap money in the economy--and only the government can correct that.\nWage and price controls? This is not altogether out of the question, although I\ncertainly don't see it as just around the corner.\nThe Office of Emergency Flanning does have a standby program of wage and price\ncontrols cranked up ready to go if it is needed. They wouldn't be doing their job\nif they didn't have such a contingency program on paper. But I don't think it will\nbe needed, and I am certain nearly all members of the Congress view it as a last-\nresort measure. One thing to keep in mind is that wage and price controls do require\napproval by the Congress.\nSpeaking for House Republicans, I'm sure you can expect that we will first seek\ndeep and meaningful cuts in unneeessary federal spending as a weapon against infla-\ntion. If spending is not cut substantially, then I believe the Administration will\nask for an across-the-board increase in personal and corporate income taxes. Wage\nand price controls would be a desperation measure thrown into the breach only if\nother less drastic measures fail to halt inflation. Controls would attack the\nsymptoms and not the cause of inflation.\nThe actions of labor will have great import for the health of the economy in\n1967 as contracts covering millions of workers come up for renewal.\nWe can also expect that President Johnson will try again to redeem his promise\nto organized labor to win repeal of state right-to-work laws. As you know, states\nnow are permitted by Section 14b of the Taft-Hartley Act to pass right-to-work laws.\nYou also know that Mr. Johnson sought repeal of Section 14b in the last Congress.\nA bill to repeal 14b narrowly passed the House but died in the Senate.\n(More)\n-2-\nWith the defeat of many northern Democrats in the 1966 elections, there is less\nchance for repeal of 14b in the 90ᵗʰ Congress than there was in the 89th. In fact,\nI would guess that 14b could not even get through the House in the new Congress.\nIn the 89th Congress, the Administration proposal of a four-year term for\nmembers of the House died along with 14b repeal. In fact, a bill to authorize a\nfour-year term didn't even win approval of the House Judiciary Committee. I was\nopposed to it, along with many other members of the House.\nIn analyzing what's wrong with a four-year term for House members, let's look\nat what's right with the present system.\nOur immediate past political history is the best example of why we should\npreserve two-year terms for congressmen.\nThe 1966 election--in which all 435 House members but only 35 members of the\nSenate stood before the electorate--was the only chance the voters had to express\ntheir feelings about the Johnson Administration in mid-term of the Presidency.\nIf House members were elected to four-year terms along with the President, there\nwould be no opportunity for a mid-term protest. Voters would have to nurse their\nfrustrations and irritations for another two years. The policies of the government\nwould not be subject to noticeable change.\nThe blessing of a two-year term for congressmen is that it constitutes a safety\nvalve for the American people--a chance to blow off steam in the middle of a\nPresident's term.\nIt also gives the people an opportunity to let the Administration know they\nwant a change in policy, new directions, a slowdown or more forward thrust, a shift\nto the right, the left or the middle. I personally feel the American people are\nbasically middle-of-the-road, and the off-year congressional elections serve as a\nreminder of that fact. That is just what happened last Nov. 8 when my party scored\nsignificant gains in various parts of the country.\nWill four-year terms for congressmen be authorized by the 90th Congress? Not\nif I can help it--and I would guess there will be less push behind the four-year\nterm proposal in the 90th Congress than there was in the 89th. The reason is that\nwe came dangerously close to one-man government in the 89th Congress when the\nDemocrats enjoyed mountainous majorities of more than 2 to 1.\nThe legislative rubber-stamping we witnessed in the 89th Congress would have\ncontinued for another two years if the American people had not had the chance to\nchange the complexion of the Congress.\nThe nation is fortunate, indeed, that members of the House are kept close to\nthe people. Thank you.\n# # #\nFOR RELEASE AT 3 P.M. MONDAY, NOV. 14, 1966\nREMARKS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD BEFORE GROCERY MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA, N. Y., N. Y.\nOne of the phenomena of 1966, a year marked by turmoil and violence in America,\nwas the housewives' rebellion.\nWe are not talking, of course, about any movement by the married women of this\ncountry to quit wielding dust mops or getting hubby's dinner. We are referring to\nthat widespread boycott of the supermarkets sometimes known as the petticoat protest.\nThis revolt could have been anticipated in a year when prices skyrocketed and\nthe Johnson Administration did little to fight inflation but blame somebody else.\nNow many Americans are wondering if and where the price rises will stop. Will\nthere be wage and price controls? Will there be rationing?\nOn the question of rationing I think the answer is obvious. Unless we are\nplunged into fullscale war that creates shortages at home, we will not have rationing.\nWhat is in short supply? Certainly not groceries. The inflationary spiral we are\nexperiencing today is not due to shortages. The basis for it is an over-abundance of\ncheap money in the economy--and only the government can correct that.\nWage and price controls? This is not altogether out of the question, although I\ncertainly don't see it as just around the corner.\nThe Office of Emergency Planning does have a standby program of wage and price\ncontrols cranked up ready to go if it is needed. They wouldn't be doing their job\nif they didn't have such a contingency program on paper. But I don't think it will\nbe needed, and I am certain nearly all members of the Congress view it as a last-\nresort measure. One thing to keep in mind is that wage and price controls do require\napproval by the Congress.\nSpeaking for House Republicans, I'm sure you can expect that we will first seek\ndeep and meaningful cuts in unnecessary federal spending as a weapon against infla-\ntion. If spending is not cut substantially, then I believe the Administration will\nask for an across-the-board increase in personal and corporate income taxes. Wage\nand price controls would be a desperation measure thrown into the breach only if\nother less drastic measures fail to halt inflation. Controls would attack the\nsymptoms and not the cause of inflation.\nThe actions of labor will have great import for the health of the economy in\n1967 as contracts covering millions of workers come up for renewal.\nWe can also expect that President Johnson will try again to redeem his promise\nto organized labor to win repeal of state right-to-work laws. As you know, states\nnow are permitted by Section 14b of the Taft-Hartley Act to pass right-to-work laws.\nYou also know that Mr. Johnson sought repeal of Section 14b in the last Congress.\nA bill to repeal 14b narrowly passed the House but died in the Senate.\n(More)\n-2-\nWith the defeat of many northern Democrats in the 1966 elections, there is less\nchance for repeal of 14b in the 90ᵗʰ Congress than there was in the 89th. In fact,\nI would guess that 14b could not even get through the House in the new Congress.\nIn the 89th Congress, the Administration proposal of a four-year term for\nmembers of the House died along with 14b repeal. In fact, a bill to authorize a\nfour-year term didn't even win approval of the House Judiciary Committee. I was\nopposed to it, along with many other members of the House.\nIn analyzing what's wrong with a four-year term for House members, let's look\nat what's right with the present system.\nOur immediate past political history is the best example of why we should\npreserve two-year terms for congressmen.\nThe 1966 election--in which all 435 House members but only 35 members of the\nSenate stood before the electorate--was the only chance the voters had to express\ntheir feelings about the Johnson Administration in mid-term of the Presidency.\nIf House members were elected to four-year terms along with the President, there\nwould be no opportunity for a mid-term protest. Voters would have to nurse their\nfrustrations and irritations for another two years. The policies of the government\nwould not be subject to noticeable change.\nThe blessing of a two-year term for congressmen is that it constitutes a safety\nvalve for the American people--a chance to blow off steam in the middle of a\nPresident's term.\nIt also gives the people an opportunity to let the Administration know they\nwant a change in policy, new directions, a slowdown or more forward thrust, a shift\nto the right, the left or the middle. I personally feel the American people are\nbasically middle-of-the-road, and the off-year congressional elections serve as a\nreminder of that fact. That is just what happened last Nov. 8 when my party scored\nsignificant gains in various parts of the country.\nWill four-year terms for congressmen be authorized by the 90th Congress? Not\nif I can help it--and I would guess there will be less push behind the four-year\nterm proposal in the 90th Congress than there was in the 89th. The reason is that\nwe came dangerously close to one-man government in the 89th Congress when the\nDemocrats enjoyed mountainous majorities of more than 2 to 1.\nThe legislative rubber-stamping we witnessed in the 89th Congress would have\ncontinued for another two years if the American people had not had the chance to\nchange the complexion of the Congress.\nThe nation is fortunate, indeed, that members of the House are kept close to\nthe people. Thank you.\n# # #"
}