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
4525999
label
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Rutherford, NJ, December 14, 1966
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525999
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Rutherford, NJ, December 14, 1966
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Inflation (Finance)
Poverty programs
Revenue sharing
Urban policy
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525999
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1966-12-31
month
12
year
1966
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-12-01
month
12
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
6e2553f6c72f0b57
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D21, folder "Fairleigh Dickinson University,
Rutherford, NJ, December 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY AT 10 A.M., wednesday, DECEMBER 14, 1966
note: Same
ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD (R-MICH.)
speech given
MINORITY LEADER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
in 2 places
AT FAIRLEIGH-DICKENSON UNIVERSITY, RUTHERFORD, M. J.
"INSIGHT INTO COMPLEX ISSUES OF THE DAY"
I have set myself a formidable task--to discuss with you the complex issues
of the day.
The American people today have many concerns, many problems, and they are
indeed complex.
Many of these concerns were dramatised as issues in the 1966 election campaign.
I shall seek to discuss these issues as I see them. If at times I seem partisan,
it is not with deliberate intent. It is simply a reflection of my own views on
these critical issues.
What are the major issues of the day? Chiefly, they are inflation, the outlook
for the economy, success or failure in the war on poverty, how best to deal with
the persistent urban problems of air and water pollution, mass transit, traffic
congestion, and rising crime rates, how best to achieve equal rights for all our
citizens, how to bring the Vietnam War to an honorable conclusion while thwarting
Communist aggression and expansion in Southeast Asia.
Perhaps I can shed some light on these problems for you. I will try.
Americans this year have been very much concerned about a disturbing rise in
the cost of living. Slice them any way you like, these sharp price increases add
up to inflation. We have seen the destruction of the relative price stability
this country has enjoyed in recent years.
(MORE)
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
Digitized from Box D21 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
For Release On Delivery at 4 D.S. Dec. 8 at Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD FORD (R-MICH.), MINORITY LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
IN THE DISTINGUISHED SPEAKERS SERIES, OHIO STATERS, INC.
"INSIGHT INTO COMPLEX ISSUES OF THE DAY"
I have set myself a formidable task--to discuss with you the complex issues
of the day.
The American people today have many concerns, many problems, and they are
indeed complex.
Many of these concerns were dramatized as issues in the 1966 election campaign.
X shall seek to discuss these issues as I ### them. If at times I seem partisan,
it is not with deliberateintent. It is simply a reflection of my own views on
these critical issues.
What are the major issues of the day? Chiefly, they are inflation, the outlook
for the economy, success or failure in the var on poverty, how best to deal with
the persistent urban problems of air and water pollution, mass transit, traffic
congestion, and rising crime rates, how best to achieve equal rights for all our
citizens, how to bring the Vietnam War to an honorable conclusion while thearting
Comunist aggression and expansion in Southeast Asia.
Perhaps I can shed some light on these problems for you. I will try.
Americans this year have been very much concerned about a disturbing rise in
the cost of living. Slice them any way you like, these sharp price increases add
up to inflation. We have seen the destruction of the relative price stability
this country has enjoyed in recent years.
GEBRUDA FORD GBRAFT
(MORE)
-2-
Evidence of this is contained in the Consumer Price Index figures for the
month of October as prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In October, the
cost of living rose for the ninth consecutive month. This means the pace of
inflation has not diminished.
The cost of living is going up 4 percent or more this year, and that is far
too much. It is byfer the steepest rise in prices since the Korean Wer.
Strong action to combat inflation should have been taken by the Administration
in late 1965. When the Administration failed to act, the Federal Reserve Board
triggered an increase in commercial interest rates and has been tightening the
screws ever since.
There are those who condemn the Reserve Board for this action, but the truth
is the Board was forced to act because the Administration failed to meet the
challenge of inflation.
The Administration did take some anti-inflationary actions in 1966-reimposition
of some Federal excise taxes and accelerated withholding of Federal income taxes--
but the effect was quite minimal. The general policy of the Administration was
one of watch and wait.
When the heat from the inflation fire became unbearable, the Administration
sought and Congress approved a 15-month suspension of the 7 persent tax credit
allowed businesses on investments in plant expansion and improvement.
I said at the time that this was a case of "too little and too late" because
I believed than, and I still do, that the Administration had allowed the proper
time for strong anti-inflation medicine to slip by. Also, I doubted whether
suspension of the investment tax credit would accomplish the objective set for
it
because its impact would not be felt parceptibly until perhaps mid-1967.
Amount
-3-
I and others wanted the Administration to eliminate unnecessary Federal
spending to offset the tremendous cost of the Vietnam War, cool off the economy
and blunt the inflationary pressures which were damaging the economy. We also
felt that if spending cuts actually carried out would not do the job, an income
tax increase was another potential tool in the battle against inflation.
Many of us did not rule out a tax increase then--in the spring of 1966-but
I now feel a boost in income taxes might bring on adverse economic conditions.
There are signs that the economy is slowing down despite the continued rise in
the Consumer Price Index. It is still vitally important to make the Federal
spending cuts that Republican leaders advocated in January, 1966, and throughout
the second session of the 89th Congress. Reductions in non-essential Federal
spending would have been good medicine for the economy then. Spending cuts right
now would be an effective and beneficial antidote for the inflationary pressures
still present in the economy.
There will continue to be inflationary pressures in 1967. New contract talks
are coming up in nearly every American industry next year--steel, automobiles,
rubber, transportation, and chemicals. You can be sure the cost of living will
be a big talking point as Labor presses for more money.
You can be sure labor negotiators won't be thinking in terms of the Administra-
tion's discredited 3.2 percent wage and price guidelines. The Administration
itself torpedoed its wage guidepost during this year's airlines strike. Nov
Labor Secretary Willard Wirts is talking about a 5 percent increase as a reasonable
figure. I'm sure his 5 percent is just a hope and a prayer because labor will have
very much in mind next year what the worker's dollar will buy at the supermarket
and the clothing store. Like the cost of living, Labor's demands will be up.
-4-
I believe the economy can and should be guided by wisely used government
policies--both fiscal and nonetary. The Federal government, by its actions, can
keep the economy moving at a healthy pace or, through mistakes in judgment or
policy, can tip us into a recession.
The Administration made a serious mistake early this year in not acting
vigemously to halt inflation. That was the proper time to take such action--and
timing is of the greatest importance in managing the economy. Having allowed
that opportunity to slip by, the Administration has placed the economy--and the
pocketbooks of all Americans--in jeopardy. I said recently a Federal income tax
increase in 1967 would be a tragie mistake. So far there is no hard evidence to
change my views. The Administration certainly has the burden of proof and so far
has not presented a persuasive case.
While the Administration has failed to fight inflation with any vigor, it
has Launched a multi-billion-dollar war against poverty. I don't think the War
on Poverty has been very successful. I don't think the results to date have
justified the expenditure of more than $2 billion. The program has not been run
well, and the basic approach has been wrong. Where anti-poverty efforts have
succesded, as in Michigan, it is because local leadership has produced results
despite bungling at the Federal Level.
The need in the Poverty Var is a shift in emphasis away from the brain trust
in the Office of Economic Opportunity. Incentive grants should be offered to the
states on a matching basis, and states should be given more authority in the
operation of programs within their boundaries. At the same time, every effort
should be made to enlist the aid of private industry in local anti-poverty projects.
(MORE)
-5-
At the Federal level, overlapping should be eliminated and red tape should be cut
by shifting going programs like Head Start to older established agencies.
OEO Administrator Sargent Shriver has complained he doesn't have enough
money for fiscal 1967--only $1.6 billion. Money alone won't win the poverty war.
But perhaps a fresh approach and a genuine Federal-state-local-and-industry
partnership can.
Speeking of money and congressional appropriations, I am often asked where
I would cut Federal spending to hold down or eliminate the Federal deficit and to
fight inflation. One place I would cut is the space program. While I am just as
proud as every other American of our space accomplishments, I de not believe it
is essential that we do everything on a erash basis.
That reminds me of the crack that our irrepressible friend, Admirel Rickover,
once made about Federal spending. Adm. Rickover said that if the Soviet Union
should suddenly announce it was going to send a man to Hell, there would be at
least two Federal agencies up before the appropriations committees of Congress
the next day, demanding funds to make sure this country got there first.
It's often said that some members of Congress believe there's no problem
that can't be solved by appropriating a few more billion dollars. You may have
gathered that I an not one of them.
It is estimated that $96 billion in Federal funds has been poured into our
cities in an attempt to make them communities in which a man can be proud to live
and dream and reach for the stars.
We're all familier with the problems of the cities--bumper-to-humper traffic,
FORD
sir and water fouled with pollutants, high crime rates, slum conditions, inequality
LIBRARY
of opportunity for jobs, education and housing, and lack of adequate recreational
facilities.
-6-
The approach that has been used to attack these problems is Federal grants-
in-aid. The Federal government has become a shopping center where city officials
flock to try to pick up what Vice-President Hubert Humphrey calls Federal "goodies."
If municipal officials don't get what they want in one shop, they try another.
In many cases, more than one Federal agency dispenses money for the same problem area
I recently heard a freshman Democratic congressman remark that the duplication
of Federal programs in Washington didn't bother him a bit. It meant, he said,
that Lf city officials from his district ran into a roadblock in one federal agency
they could always try another one where the purse strings night be looser.
I want to see the problems of our cities solved. And it will take billions
of dollars. But X don't believe all the expertise resides in Washington, and I do
think there is a tremendous duplication of effort, much wheel-spinning and waste
motion. The emphasis now is on Federal solutions to local problems--and X don't
believe that is the only or best answer in the decade ahead.
Those who now make policy in Washington call the present Federal approach to
local problem-selving "creative federalism." I submit that it often is destructive
federalism in its existing form. The reason is that the Federal government sets
up the ground rules and makes the big decisions.
While local officials wait for the Washington bureaucracy to act, local
creativity often languishes or dies a-borning. And in the discouraging wait for
Federal funds, the line gets longer and longer, and local projects mark time for
years.
I feel certain that state and local officials can solve their problems, given
the proper resources to do the job. When I speak of resources, I speak of
money. FORD
(MORE)
-7-
The states and local units look to Washington because Washington is the giant
tax collector. Washington now collects substantially more than $100 billion a
year while the states struggle along with a property tax, perhaps a sales tax, and
possibly 8 minimal income tax grafted onto the Federal income tax system.
The cities and other local units, after relying principally on the property
tax for years, now are searching for new revenue sources, including municipal
income taxes.
Yet the states and cities run to Washington to try to grab off some of the
so-called "goodies."
This is a system which produces progress only in fits and starts and leads
in some cases to stall and delay in local projects. It is not getting the job
done. Our cities are continuing to deteriorate, and the flight to the suburbs--
for those able to flee--goes on.
What is the answer? Is it billions upon billions more in Federal grants-in-aid?
That is what President Johnson proposed in his speech last August in Syracuse,
N. Y. He said Federal aid to cities has been increasing at 4 rate of $4 billion
a year and promised more.
But the grants-in-aid approach doesn't appear to be working. We need something
better, something that will improve the qualify of American life in cities all
across America. I think that"something" is Federal revenue-sharing.
I believe Federal tax-sharing--diverting a percentage of Federal revenue to
the states and cities with a minimum of strings attached is a far better answer
to our urban ills. I believe it will do the job where categorical, specific
grants-in-aid have failed. I believe this because local officials are better
(MORE)
-8-
equipped to solve local problems than so-called Washington experts. This is so
because each community knows its own problems best, and no one comunity's problems
are exactly like those of any other.
While we struggle with inflation and urban ills at home, we find ourselves
locked in a seemingly endless conflict halfway around the world, caught up in a
war most Americans don't fully understand and some refuse to support.
Americans wish most fervently for an and to the Vietnam War. But because
we are a determined people and a noral people, we seek an end to that war only on
honorable terms and only if in ending it we can preserve freedom of choice for
the people of South Vietnam.
Perhaps the National Republican Coordinating Committee has best expressed
the general objective of the American people in Vietnam. The Committee in
December, 1965, stated: "We do not seek the unconditional surrender of North
Vietnam; we week the unconditional security of South Vietnam."
I have long felt that no matter how successfully we might prosecute the war
in Vietnam, we could not truly win it and we would not gain unconditional security
for the South Vietnamese unless we also win the war of pacification.
This is the key to ending the Vietnam Mar honorably and making it possible
for the South Vietnamese to live in peace under a government of their own choosing.
That is why I was pleased to learn recently that South Korea will send a
10,000-man Korean Peace Corps to South Vietnam by the end of next year to assist
in promoting the social and economic development of that war-torn country. It is
said that ultimately this Korean Peace Corps will number 20,000.
It also was announced recently that more than half of the South Vietnamese army
(MORE)
-9-
in time will be employed to hold areas cleared of the enemy and in pacification
efforts.
In addition, the Administration has just undertaken a thorough reorganization
of our AID organization in South Vietnam.
These moves, if they prove productive, are the basis on which peace and
progress can be achieved in Vietnam. These are hopeful signs.
But do not be deceived. Right now - are not winning what I call "the other
war"--the program of pacification. In areas presumably under government control,
the Vietcong moves back in at night and takes over.
Our best hope for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam lies in the success
of the pacification program.
If it does not succeed, it means nothing for the United States and six other
nations to meet at Menila and pledge a withdrawal of allied forces from Vietnam
once aggression ceases and violence subsides.
If the pacification program fails, U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam would soon
result in a takeover of the country by the Vietcong.
I have touched on some hard-core issues here today. Your impression may be
that the U.S. government is so beset with problems both foreign and domestic that
we don't know which way to burn.
You and I would all despair if we didn't fully appreciate the strength and
the wisdom of the American people.
We know that our nation is strong and vital, its people rugges and persevering,
its character one of indomitable courage and above all a saving sense of humor.
All this plus a form of government unmatched in the history of mankind!
And we know that whatever the crisis, our Nation will prevail because its people
are willing to take up the torch of sacrifice and to stand up for freedom. Thank you
....
FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY AT 10 A.M., wednesday. DECEMBER 14, 1966
note Same
ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD (R-MICH.)
speech given
in 2 places,
MINORITY LEADER OF THE U.S. HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES
AT FAIRLEIGH-DICKENSON UNIVERSITY, RUTHERFORD. N. J.
"INSIGHT INTO COMPLEX ISSUES OF THE DAY"
I have set myself a formidable task--to discuss with you the complex issues
of the day.
The American people today have many concerns, many problems, and they are
indeed complex.
Many of these concerns were dramatised as issues in the 1966 election campaign.
I shall seek to discuss these issues as I see them. If at times I seem partisan,
it is not with deliberate intent. It is simply a reflection of my own views on
these critical issues.
What are the major issues of the day? Chiefly, they are inflation, the outlook
for the economy, success, or failure in the war on poverty, how best to deal with
the persistent urban problems of air and water pollution, mass transit, traffic
congestion, and rising crime rates, how best to achieve equal rights for all our
citizens, how to bring the Vietnam Wax to an honorable conclusion while thwarting
Communist aggression and expansion in Southeast Asia.
Perhaps I can shed some light on these problems for you. I will try.
Americans this year have been very much concerned about a disturbing rise in
the cost of living. Slice them any way you like, these sharp price increases add
up to inflation. We have seen the destruction of the relative price stability
this country has enjoyed in recent years.
(MORE)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
For Release On Delivery at & p.m. Dec. 8 at Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
ADDRESS BY HEP. GERALD FORD (R-MICH.), MINORITY LEADER or THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
IN THE DISTINGUISHED SPRAKERS SERIES, OHIO STATERS, INC.
"INSIGHT INTO COMPLEX ISSUES OF THE DAY"
I have set myself a formidable task--to discuss with you the complex issues
of the day.
The American people today have many concerns, many problems, and they are
indeed complex.
Many of these concerns were dramatized as issues in the 1966 election campaign.
I shall seek to discuss these issues as I ### them. If at times I seem partisan,
it is not with deliberate intent. It is simply a reflection of my own views on
these critical issues.
What are the major issues of the day? Chiefly, they are inflation, the outlook
for the economy, success or failure in the var on poverty, how best to deal with
the persistent urban problems of sir and water pollution, mass transit, traffic
congestion, and rising crime rates, how best to achieve equal rights for all our
eitizens, how to bring the Vietnam War to an honorable conclusion while thearting
Communist aggression and expansion in Southeast Asia.
Perhaps I can shed some light on these problems for you. I will try.
Americans this year have been very much concerned about 8 disturbing rise in
the cost of living. Slice them any way you like, these sharp price increases add
up to inflation. We have seen the destruction of the relative price stability
this country has enjoyed in recent years.
(MORE)
GERALD 19 R.FORD LIBRABY
-2-
Evidence of this is contained in the Consumer Price Index figures for the
month of October as prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In October, the
cost of living rose for the ninth consecutive month. This means the pace of
inflation has not diminished.
The cost of living is going up 4 percent or more this year, and that is far
too much. It is byfer the steepest rise in prices since the Korean War.
Strong action to combat inflation should have been taken by the Administration
in late 1965. When the Administration failed to act, the Federal Reserve Board
triggered an increase in commercial interest rates and has been tightening the
screws ever since.
There are those who condemn the Reserve Board for this action, but the truth
is the Board was forced to act because the Administration failed to meet the
challenge of inflation.
The Administration did take some anti-inflationary actions in 1966--reimposition
of some Federal excise taxes and accelerated withholding of Federal income taxes**
but the effect was quite minimal. The general policy of the Administration was
one of watch and wait.
When the heat from the inflation fire became unbearable, the Administration
sought and Congress approved a 15-month suspension of the 7 percent tax credit
allowed businesses on investments in plant expansion and improvement.
1 said at the time that this was a case of "too little and too late" because
z believed than, and I still do, that the Administration had allowed the proper
time for strong anti-inflation medicine to slip by. Also, I doubted whether
FORD
suspension of the investment tax credit would accomplish the objective set for it
because its impact would not be felt perceptibly until perhaps mid-1967.
(MORE)
-3-
I and others wanted the Administration to eliminate unnecessary Federal
spending to offset the tremendous cost of the Vietnam War, cool off the economy
and blunt the inflationary pressures which were damaging the economy. We also
felt that if spending cuts actually carried out would not do the job, an income
tax increase was another potential tool in the battle against inflation.
Many of us did not rule out # tax increase then--in the spring of 1966-but
I now feel a boost in income taxes might bring on adverse economic conditions.
There are signs that the economy is slowing down despite the continued rise in
the Consumer Price Index. It Le still vitally important to make the Federal
spending cuts that Republican leaders advocated in January, 1966, and throughout
the second session of the 89th Congress. Reductions in non-essential Federal
spending would have been good medicine for the economy then. Spending cuts right
now would be an effective and beneficial antidote for the inflationary pressures
still present in the economy.
There will continue to be inflationary pressures in 1967. New contract talks
are coming up in nearly every American industry next year--steal, automobiles,
rubber, transportation, and chemicals. You can be sure the cost of living will
be a big talking point as labor presses for more money.
You can be sure labor negotiators won't be thinking in terms of the Administre-
tion's discredited 3.2 percent wage and price guidelines. The Administration
itself torpedoed its wage guidepost during this year's airlines strike. Now
Labor Secretary Willard Wirts is talking about a 5 percent increase as a reasonable
figure. I'm sure his 5 percent is just a hope and a prayer because labor will have
very much in mind next year what the worker's dollar will buy at the supermarket
FORD is LIBRARY
and the clothing store. Like the cost of living, Labor's demands will be up.
-4-
I believe the economy can and should be guided by wisely used government
policies--both fiscal and monetary. The Federal government, by its setions, can
keep the economy moving at a healthy pace or, through mistakes in judgment or
policy, can tip us into a recession.
The Administration made a serious mistake early this year in not acting
vigerously to helt inflation. That was the proper time to take such action--and
timing is of the greatest importance in managing the economy. Having allowed
that opportunity to slip by, the Administration has placed the economy--and the
pocketbooks of all Americans--in jeopardy. I said recently a Federal income tax
increase in 1967 would be a tragic mistake. So far there is no hard evidence to
change my views. The Administration certainly has the burden of proof and so far
has not presented a persuasive case.
While the Administration has failed to fight inflation with any vigor, it
has Launched a multi-billion-dollar war against poverty. 1 don't think the War
on Poverty has been very successful. I don't think the results to date have
justified the expenditure of more then $2 billion. The program has not been run
well, and the basic approach has been wrong. Where anti-poverty efforts have
succeeded, as in Michigan, it is because local leadership has produced results
despite bungling at the Federal level.
The need in the Poverty War is a shift in emphasis away from the brain trust
in the Office of Economic Opportunity. Incentive grants should be offered to the
states on a matching basis, and states should be given more authority in the
operation of programs within their boundaries. At the same time, every effort
FORD
should be made to onlist the aid of private industry in local anti-poverty projects.
SIBRARY
(HORE)
-5-
At the Federal level, overlapping should be eliminated and red tape should be cut
by shifting going programs like Head Start to older established agencies.
OHO Administrator Sargent Shriver has complained he doesn't have enough
money for fiscal 1967-only $1.6 billion. Money alone won't win the poverty war.
But perhaps a fresh approach and a genuine Federel-state-local-and-industry
partnership can.
Speaking of money and congressional appropriations, I an often asked where
I would cut Federal spending to hold down or eliminate the Federal deficit and to
fight inflation. One place I would cut is the space program. While I am just as
proud as every other American of our space accomplishments, I de not believe it
is essential that we do everything on a crash basis.
That reminds me of the crack that our irrepressible friend, Admiral Rickover,
once made about Federal spending. Adm. Rickover said that if the Soviet Union
should suddenly announce it was going to send a man to Holl, there would be at
least two Federal agencies up before the appropriations committees of Congress
the next day, demanding funds to make sure this country got there first.
It's often said that some members of Congress believe there's no problem
that can't be solved by appropriating a few more billion dollars. You may have
gathered that I an not one of them.
It is estimated that $96 billion in Federal funds has been poursed into our
cities in an attempt to make them communities in which a man can be proud to live
and dream and reach for the stars.
We're all familier with the problems of the cities--bumper-to-bumper traffic,
sir and water fouled with pollutants, high crime rates, slum conditions, inequality
of opportunity for jobs, education and housing, and lack of adequate recreational
facilities.
-6-
The approach that has been used to attack these problems is Federal grants-
in-aid. The Federal government has become a shopping center where city officials
flock to try to pick up what Vice-President Hubert Humphrey calls Federal "goodies."
If municipal officials don't get what they want in one shop, they try another.
In many cases, more than one Federal agency dispenses money for the same problem area.
I recently heard a freshman Democratic congressman remark that the duplication
of Federal programs in Washington didn't bother him a bit. It meant, he said,
that if city officials from his district ran into a readblock in one federal agency
they could always try another one where the purse strings night be looser.
I want to see the problems of our cities solved. And it will take billions
of dollars. But I don't believe all the expertise resides in Washington, and I do
think there is a tremendous duplication of effort, much wheel-spinning and vaste
motion. The emphasis now is on Federal solutions to local problems--and I don't
believe that is the only or best answer in the decade shend.
Those who now make policy in Washington call the present Federal approach to
local problem-solving "creative federalism." I submit that it often is destructive
federalism in its existing form. The reason is that the Federal government sets
up the ground rules and makes the big decisions.
While local officials wait for the Washington bureaucrecy to act, local
creativity often languishes or dies a-borning. And in the discouraging wait for
Federal funds, the line gets longer and longer, and local projects mark time for
years.
I feel certain that state and local officials can solve their problems, given
the proper resources to do the job. When I speak of resources, I speak of money.
(MORE)
-7-
The states and local units look to Washington because Washington is the giant
tax collector. Washington now collects substantially more than $100 billion 8
year while the states struggle along with a property tax, perhaps a sales tax, and
possibly a minimal income tax grafted onto the Federal income tax system.
The cities and other local units, after relying principally on the property
tax for years, now are searching for new revenue sources, including municipal
income taxes.
Yet the states and cities run to Washington to try to grab off some of the
so-called "goodies."
This is a system which produces progress only in fits and starts and leads
in some cases to stall and delay in local projects. It is not getting the job
done. Our cities are continuing to deteriorate, and the flight to the suburbs--
for those able to flee--goes on.
What is the answer? Is it billions upon billions more in Federal grants-in-aid
That is what President Johnson proposed in his speech last August in Syracuse,
N. Y. He said Federal aid to cities has been increasing at 8 rate of $4 billion
a year and promised more.
But the grants-in-aid approach doesn't appear to be working. We need something
better, something that will improve the qualify of American life in cities all
across America. I think that"something" is Federal revenue-sharing.
I believe Federal tax-sharing--diverting a percentage of Federal revenue to
the states and cities with a minimum of strings attached is a for better answer
to our urban ills. I believe it will do the job where categorical, specific
grants-in-aid have failed. I believe this because local officials are better
FORD is LIBRARY 078835 39
(MORE)
-8-
equipped to solve local problems than so-called Washington experts. This is so
because each community knows its own problems best, and no one comunity's problems
are exactly like those of any other.
While ve struggle with inflation and urban ills at home, we find ourselves
locked in a seemingly endless conflict halfway around the world, caught up in a
war most Americans don't fully understand and some refuse to support.
Americans wish most fervently for an end to the Vietnam War. But because
we are a determined people and a moral people, we seek an and to that war only on
honorable terms and only if in ending it we can preserve freedom of choice for
the people of South Vietnam.
Perhaps the National Republican Coordinating Committee has best expressed
the general objective of the American people in Vietnam. The Committee in
December, 1965, stated: "We do not seek the unconditional surrender of North
Vietnam: we week the unconditional security of South Vietnam."
I have long felt that no matter how successfully we might prosecute the war
in Victnam, we could not truly win it and we would not gain unconditional security
for the South Vietnamese unless we also win the war of pacification.
This is the key to ending the Vietnam Mar honorably and making it possible
for the South Vietnamese to live in peace under a government of their own choosing.
That is why I was pleased to learn recently that South Korea will send a
10,000-man Korean Peace Corps to South Vietnam by the end of next year to assist
in promoting the social and sconomic development of that war-torn country. It is
said that ultimately this Korean Peace Corps will number 20,000.
It also was announced recently that more than half of the South Vietnamese
army FORD VERWAY
(MORE)
-9-
in time will be employed to hold areas cleared of the enemy and in pacification
efforts.
In addition, the Administration has just undertaken a thorough reorganization
of our AID organization in South Vietnam.
These moves, if they prove productive, are the basis on which peace and
progress can be achieved in Vietnam. These are hopeful signs.
But do not be deceived. Right now Be are not winning what I call "the other
wer"--the program of pacification. In areas presumably under government control,
the Vistcong moves back in at night and takes over.
Our best hope for withdrawel of U.S. forces from Vietnam lies in the success
of the pacification program.
If it does not succeed, it means nothing for the United States and six other
nations to meet at Menila and pledge a withdrawal of allied forces from Vietnam
once aggression ceases and violence subsides.
If the pacification program fails, U.S. withdrawel from Vietnam would soon
result in a takeover of the country by the Vietcong.
X have touched on some hard-core issues here today. Your impression may be
that the U.S. government is so beset with problems both foreign and domestic that
we don't know which way to burn.
You and I would all despair if we didn't fully appreciate the strength and
the wisdom of the American people.
We know that our nation is strong and vital, its people rugges and persevering,
its character one of indomitable courage and above all a saving sense of humor.
All this plus a form of government unmatched in the history of mankind!
FORD
And we know that whatever the crisis, our Nation will prevail because its people
LIBRARY
are willing to take up the toreh of secrifice and to stand up for freedom. Thank you
cose