Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4526018",
    "label": "Associated Industries, Inc., Cleveland, OH, March 10, 1967",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526018"
}

{
    "id": "4526018",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526018",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Associated Industries, Inc., Cleveland, OH, March 10, 1967",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526018",
    "collections": [
        "Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
        "Speeches"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Economics",
        "Federal budget",
        "Inflation (Finance)",
        "Labor disputes",
        "Legislation",
        "Taxation"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526018.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526018.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526018.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526018",
    "naId": 4526018,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-03-31",
        "month": 3,
        "year": 1967
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-03-01",
        "month": 3,
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526018.pdf",
    "mediaId": "50b307a09acca197",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box D22, folder \"Associated Industries, Inc.,\nCleveland, OH, March 10, 1967\" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and\nSpeech 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 The Council donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain.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.\nHostony SPEECH Ungan\n1.8\na.\nTO THE ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES, INC., CLEVELAND, 0.\nBur. Great, great of Int. man Rw.\nnew brad\n1/2/126\nadam\nFRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1967\nTHERE IS GROWING ACCEPTANCE IN AMERICA TODAY OF A\nDANGEROUS MYTH. THAT MYTH IS THAT THE AMERICAN BUSINESSMAN\nTODAY NEED HAVE NO CARE FOR THE MORROW BECAUSE THE\nPRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES JUST WON'T LET THE ECONOMY\nGO SOUR.\nTHE TALK GOES THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS TOO BIG A STAKE\nIN PROSPERITY AS A POLITICAL ISSUE TO ALLOW EVEN A MILD\nRECESSION TO DEVELOP.\nTO BUY THIS KIND OF THINKING, YOU FIRST HAVE TO\nACCEPT TWO BASIC PREMISES.\nONE IS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE POWER TO AVERT\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\nDigitized from Box D22 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\n-2-\nA RECESSION AND TO KEEP THE ECONOMY HEALTHY. ANOTHER IS\nTHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE WILL AND THE WISDOM REQUIRED\nTO KEEP BOUNCE IN THE ECONOMY AND PREVENT IMBALANCE.\nTHE PRESIDENT DOES HAVE TREMENDOUS POWER, OF COURSE,\nBUT HIS POWER IS NOT UNLIMITED, AND IT WOULD BE EXCEEDINGLY\nDANGEROUS IF IT WERE.\nEVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THE FIRST PREMISE - - THAT THE PRESIDENT\nHAS THE POWER TO AVERT RECESSIONS, CONTROL INFLATION AND\nMAINTAIN ECONOMIC GROWTH--EVENTS OF THE RECENT PAST POINT\nUP A PERFORMANCE THAT HAS FALLEN FAR SHORT OF THE MARK.\nFORD LIBRARY\nTHE PAST IS PROLOGUE IN ECONOMICS AS IN OTHER ASPECTS\nOF OUR LIVES AND OUR HISTORY AS A NATION. WITH LIGHT FROM\nTHE PAST, LET US EXAMINE THE MYTH THAT AMERICAN BUSINESS\nask the question-based - on performance\nThe nation\n-3-\n20 Lite House at\nCAN ENTRUST THE HEALTH OF THE ECONOMY TO THE MAN NOW The Time Present\nHOLDING THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND.\nWE KNOW THAT THE MASSIVE TAX CUTS OF 1964 AND 1965\nTRIGGERED ONE OF THE GREATEST BOOMS THIS COUNTRY HAS\nEVER SEEN. REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE SUPPORTED\nTHESE TAX REDUCTIONS.\nI ALSO SUBMIT--AND IN MY VIEW THERE IS NO ARGUING\nTHIS--THAT THE JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION DOOMED THE BOOM\nBY FAILING TO SLOW DOWN THE ECONOMY SUFFICIENTLY WHEN\nIT BECAME OVERHEATED IN LATE 1965 AND EARLY 1966.\nLET'S REVIEW WHAT HAPPENED TO TAKE THE BLOOM FROM\nTHE BOOM AND TRANSFORM THE ECONOMY INTO A SHAKY CREATURE\nCURRENTLY AFFLICTED WITH ASSORTED ACHES AND PAINS.\n-4-\nINFLATION BECAME A DEFINITE THREAT IN LATE 1965. THE\nFEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, WHICH FORTUNATELY IS INDEPENDENT\nOF WHITE HOUSE POLITICAL INFLUENCE, RAISED THE REDISCOUNT\nRATE TO THROTTLE DOWN THE MONEY SUPPLY.\nINSTEAD OF WELCOMING THIS BLOW AGAINST INFLATIONARY\nPRESSURES, PRESIDENT JOHNSON COMPLAINED ABOUT THE RESERVE\nBOARD'S ACTION AND THEN PROCEEDED TO ACT AS THOUGH THE\nDANGER OF STABILITY-WRECKING PRICE INCREASES DIDN'T EXIST.\nHE DID THIS BY SENDING THE CONGRESS A GUNS-AND-BUTTER\nBUDGET WHICH CONTINUED AND ACCELERATED THE SHARPEST UPTREND\nIN FEDERAL SPENDING SINCE WORLD WAR 11. APPARENTLY, THAT'S\nWHAT HE MEANT WHEN HE SAID, \"LET US CONTINUE.\"\nTHE PRESIDENT DID NOT PROPOSE AN INCOME TAX INCREASE. GERAL FORD\nLIBRARY\n-5-\nIn 1966\nnatually\nHE SAID NOTHING ABOUT A FIGHT AGAINST INFLATION OR ABOUT\nSETTING WARTIME PRIORITIES. HE SPURNED ALL REPUBLICAN\nfrom Insuriors from Repoblicans & many others\nPLEAS THAT MON-ESSENTIAL DOMESTIC SPENDING BE CUT BECAUSE\nTHERE WAS A WAR ON, ONE WHICH HE AND HIS ADVISORS WELL\nKNEW WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY BE OF GROWING INTENSITY AND\nINCREASING COST.\nTHE PRESIDENT GAVE A TOKEN NOD IN THE DIRECTION OF\nAN INFLATION FIGHT, BUT IT WAS LIKE SPLASHING A CUP OF\nWATER ON A BONFIRE. HE PROPOSED--AND CONGRESS APPROVED--\nREIMPOSITION OF EXCISE TAX CUTS VOTED IN 1965. HE ALSO\nPROPOSED--AND CONGRESS AGREED--THAT COLLECTION OF\nCORPORATE INCOME TAXES BE ACCELERATED AND THAT RATES ON\nINDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING BE INCREASED.\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nBUT FOR THE MOST PART PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S FISCAL\n-6-\nPOLICIES LAST YEAR STIMULATED AN ALREADY OVERHEATED\nECONOMY AND BROUGHT ON THE UPSURGE IN PRICES WHICH\nCONTINUES TO PLAGUE ALL AMERICANS AND PROMISES A NEW\nROUND OF PRICE RISES--COST-PUSH INFLATION WHERE LAST\nYEAR WE HAD THE DEMAND-PULL VARIETY.\nAS WE MOVED THROUGH 1966, THE ADMINISTRATION FAILED\nTO ACT DECISIVELY TO HALT INFLATION. SEEING NO HELP\nFROM THE WHITE HOUSE, THE RESERVE BOARD CONTINUED TO\nTURN UP THE SCREWS ON INTEREST RATES. THE RESULT: THE\nHIGHEST INTEREST RATES IN 40 YEARS, DRYING UP OF MORTGAGE\nMONEY, GREATLY INCREASED PUBLIC BORROWING COSTS WHICH\nGERALD LIURAGE\nWILL BE A BURDEN TO TAXPAYERS FOR MANY YEARS TO COME,\nAND A VIRTUAL DEPRESSION IN THE HOMEBUILDING INDUSTRY.\nDETERMINED TO PUSH HIS GREAT SOCIETY PROGRAMS,\nPoverty\n-7-\nPRESIDENT JOHNSON PURSUED POLICIES THAT FED INFLATION\nAND HELPED PUSH UP INTEREST RATES. THE ADMINISTRATION\nSTEPPED UP ITS DOMESTIC AS WELL AS MILITARY SPENDING\nAND WENT INTO THE SHORT-TERM MONEY MARKET TO BORROW THE\nMONEY TO DO IT. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS USED THE DEVICE\nOF THE PARTICIPATION SALES CERTIFICATE, A NEW, HIGH-INTEREST\nBORROWING GIMMICK, AND THUS CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEMAND FOR\nSHORT-TERM MONEY AND THE UPWARD PUSH ON INTEREST RATES.\nHAVING IGNORED REPUBLICAN nesponsible DEMANDS THAT HE ELIMINATE\nNON-ESSENTIAL DOMESTIC SPENDING, PRESIDENT JOHNSON ALSO\nREJECTED THE SUGGESTION OF MOST PROMINENT ECONOMISTS AND\nHIS OWN ECONOMIC ADVISERS THAT HE SEEK AN INCOME TAX\nINCREASE.\nFORD i LIBRARY 09V839\nTREASURY SECRETARY HENRY FOWLER RECENTLY COMPLAINED\n-8-\nABOUT \"MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACKING\" WHEN FACED WITH\nCRITICISM FROM THE JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE OF THE\nCONGRESS ABOUT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL AND MONETARY\nPOLICIES IN 1966.\nMR. FOWLER SEEMS TO BE SAYING THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION\nCANNOT LEARN FROM ITS MISTAKES. THIS IS ALSO LIKE SAYING\nTHAT IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR A FOOTBALL COACH TO USE\nMOVIES OF LAST SATURDAY'S GAME SO THE BOYS CAN DO A\nBETTER JOB COME NEXT SATURDAY.\nWE'VE COME A LONG WAY IN FOOTBALL SINCE MY DAYS AT\nTHE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, WHEN THE STRATEGY WAS A\nPUNT, A PASS AND A PRAYER. AND I TRUST WE'VE COME A\nLONG WAY IN ECONOMICS AND THE ART OF MANAGING THE\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nECONOMY. BUT JUST AS THERE ARE GOOD COACHES AND BAD\n-9-\nCOACHES, THERE ARE GOOD MANAGERS AND BAD MANAGERS.\nI SAID AT THE OUTSET THAT YOU CAN ONLY TRUST THE\nHEALTH OF THE ECONOMY TO A CHIEF EXECUTIVE WITH THE\nWILL AND THE WISDOM TO KEEP ZIP IN IT AND AVOID SERIOUS\nECONOMIC DISLOCATIONS.\nIT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR TO ME WHY MR. JOHNSON DID NOT\nSEEK AN INCOME TAX INCREASE IN 1966. /IT JUST HAPPENED\nTO BE AN ELECTION YEAR There was an election last year.\nTHE PRESIDENT MOVED LAST SEPTEMBER TO SUSPEND THE\n7 PER CENT INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT AS AN ALLEGED BLOW\nAGAINST INFLATION. THAT MADE NOBODY MAD BUT BUSINESS.\nGERALD\nAS THE PRESIDENT'S AIDES HAVE REVEALED, HE BELIEVES\nTHE BEST POLITICS IS THE BEST ECONOMICS. I BELIEVE JUST\nAS FIRMLY THAT THE BEST ECONOMICS IS THE BEST POLITICS.\n-10-\nI SUGGEST THOSE WHO FEEL THE PRESIDENT JUST WONT\nLET ANYTHING BAD HAPPEN TO THE ECONOMY BEFORE THE 1968\nELECTION TAKE ANOTHER READING IN THE LIGHT OF PAST\nEXPERIENCE.\nLET'S LOOK AT THE CURRENT ECONOMIC PICTURE.\nTHERE IS SAG AND DRAG IN THE ECONOMY.\nWE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A NEW TREMENDOUS FEDERAL\nSPENDING SPLURGE.\n$2 billion increase in Great Sincerely\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS PROPOSED A 6 PER CENT SURTAX ON\nINDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE INCOME.\nBUSINESS PROFITS ARE CAUGHT JN A COST-PRICE SQUEEZE\nAND ARE SHOWING A GENERAL DECLINE.\nFORD LIBRARY\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS PROPOSED AN AVERAGE 20 PER CENT\n-11-\nINCREASE IN SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS, INVOLVING PAYROLL\nTAX INCREASES ULTIMATELY ADDING UP TO 11.6 PER CENT\n(COMBINED EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER RATE) ON $10,800 OF INCOME.\nEVEN ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS ADMIT THAT A SOCIAL SECURITY\nINCREASE OF THAT SIZE WOULD ADD TO INFLATIONARY PRESSURES.\nCONSUMERS ARE BUYING LESS AND SAVING MORE. AUTO-\nMOBILE SALES HAVE SLUMPED TO THE POINT WHERE MORE THAN\n25,000 WORKERS HAVE BEEN LAID OFF. MAY I REMIND YOU THAT\nTHE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY IS THE BELLWETHER OF THE ECONOMY.\nCREDIT IS EASING. WHILE THIS HELPS \"AT HOME,\" THE\n\"HOT MONEY\" THAT FLOWED INTO THIS COUNTRY FROM ABROAD\nLAST YEAR BECAUSE OF OUR HIGH INTEREST RATES PROBABLY\nWILL BEGIN SHIFTING BACK AND THUS AGGRAVATE OUR BAD\nBALANCE OF PAYMENTS SITUATION.\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\n-12-\nTHE SHARP RISE IN THE COST OF LIVING LAST YEAR HAS\nLAID THE FOUNDATION FOR A BIG UNION PUSH FOR WAGE INCREASES\nIN 1967. ALL INDICATIONS ARE THAT THESE WAGE BOOSTS WILL\nRUN GENERALLY FROM 5 TO 8 PER CENT.\nTHE AFL-CIO RECENTLY ANNOUNCED THAT LABOR WILL TRY\nTO KEEP WAGES RISING AT LEAST AS FAST AS LIVING COSTS.\nTHAT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE TO ANYBODY. THIS IS A\nNATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION'S\nFAILURE TO MAINTAIN PRICE STABILITY IN 1966.\nIN HIS ECONOMIC REPORT IN JANUARY, THE PRESIDENT\nPREDICTED THAT CONSUMER PRICES WOULD RISE ABOUT 2.5 PER CENT\nIN 1967 AS COMPARED WITH 3.5 PER CENT LAST YEAR. MY\nGUESS IS THERE WILL BE A FLAREUP OF COST-PUSH INFLATION\nTHAT WILL MAKE THE PRESIDENT'S FIGURE LOOK RIDICULOUS.\nGERA FORD LIBRARY\n-13-\nIN THAT CONNECTION, IT SEEMS STRANGE THAT AFL-CIO\nPRESIDENT GEORGE MEANY SHOULD ENDORSE PRESIDENT JOHNSON\nMORE THAN 20 MONTHS BEFORE THE 1968 ELECTION.\nMR. JOHNSON, YOU MAY REMEMBER, PROMISED IN JANUARY\n1966 TO SEND CONGRESS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER HANDLING\nOF NATIONAL EMERGENCY STRIKES. NOTHING HAPPENED. AND\nLAST JANUARY, A YEAR LATER, THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T EVEN\nMENTION THE SUBJECT IN HIS 1967 STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE.\nMR. JOHNSON WAS UNABLE TO DELIVER TO ORGANIZED LABOR\nON HIS PROMISE TO REPEAL SECTION 14B OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY\nACT, THE RIGHT-TO-WORK PROVISION. PERHAPS HE IS TRYING\nTO BALANCE THE SCALES A BIT BY FORGETTING ABOUT NATIONAL\nEMERGENCY STRIKE LEGISLATION.\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n-14-\nREPUBLICANS DISLIKE COMPULSORY ARBITRATION JUST AS\nMUCH AS MR. MEANY. BUT WE DO BELIEVE SOME IMPROVEMENTS\nCAN BE MADE IN THE GOVERNMENTS MACHINERY FOR DEALING\nWITH NATIONAL EMERGENCY STRIKES. WE DO NOT ENVISAGE\nANTI-LABOR LEGISLATION OF ANY KIND. WE HAVE PROPOSED\nTHAT A BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS\nMAKE AN IMMEDIATE STUDY OF THE PROBLEM IN THE HOPE OF\nBETTER PROTECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE INTEREST\nOF ALL CONCERNED.\nTHIS MATTER IS PARTICULARLY URGENT AT THIS TIME BECAUSE\nORGANIZED LABOR'S PUSH FOR WAGE INCREASES TO OFFSET THE\nSHARP RISE IN LIVING COSTS MAY MAKE 1967 A YEAR OF\nABNORMAL LABOR-MANAGEMENT STRIFE.\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nTHE FAITH MANY BUSINESSMEN HAVE IN THE JOHNSON\n-15-\nADMINISTRATION ASTOUNDS ME IN VIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S\nHANDLING OF WAGE-PRICE GUIDELINES, NOW DECEASED AND\nUNLAMENTED.\nTHESE GUIDELINES WERE, OF COURSE, SIMPLY INFORMAL WAGE\nAND PRICE CONTROLS. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE CONTROLS\nWERE APPLIED IN ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY FASHION.\nTHE ADMINISTRATION USED A PICK-AND-CHOOSE TECHNIQUE,\nSINGLING SOME PARTICULAR INDUSTRY FOR ATTACK, LETTING\nOTHER PRICE INCREASES GO UNCENSORED AND GENERALLY IGNORING\nWAGE INCREASES IN EXCESS OF THE GUIDELINES.\nWHEN THE WAGE INCREASES WON BY THE AIRLINE MECHANICS\nEXPLODED THE FICTION OF THE GUIDELINES, THE WHEELS WERE\nREALLY OFF THE BUGGY.\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n-16-\nIS THE PRESIDENT DOING A GOOD JOB OF MANAGING THE ECONOMY?\nTHE FEDERAL BUDGET IS SUNK DEEP IN DEFICIT AND HAS\nBEEN FOR SIX FISCAL YEARS.\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS EXPRESSED A PREFERENCE FOR THE\nNATIONAL INCOME ACCOUNTS BUDGET BECAUSE THIS MAKES HIS\nPROJECTED FISCAL 1968 DEFICIT LOOK SMALLER. SO LET'S\nLOOK AT IT.\nACCORDING TO THAT BUDGET, FEDERAL SPENDING TOTALLED\n$118 BILLION IN FISCAL 1965 AND ROSE TO $132 BILLION IN\nFISCAL 1966. THIS FISCAL YEAR FEDERAL SPENDING IS\nPROJECTED AT $154 BILLION, AND FOR FISCAL 1968 IT'S\nFIGURED AT $169 BILLION. THINK OF IT! THOSE ARE\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nSUCCESSIVE ANNUAL SPENDING INCREASES OF $14 BILLION,\n$21 BILLION AND $16 BILLION--A GRAND TOTAL OF $51 BILLION\n-17-\nMORE SPENDING IN JUST THREE YEARS.\nIS ALL OF THIS INCREASED SPENDING DUE TO THE VIETNAM\nWAR? OH, NO! LAY ASIDE THE VIETNAM EXPENDITURES AND\nYOU STILL FIND AN INCREASE OF $29 BILLION IN FEDERAL\nSPENDING BETWEEN FISCAL 1965 AND FISCAL 1968--AN ANNUAL\nINCREASE OF ROUGHLY $10 BILLION. THIS IS TWO-AND-A-HALF\nTIMES THE INCREASE IN THE ANNUAL RATE OF SPENDING IN THE\nTHREE YEARS FROM FISCAL 1962 TO FISCAL 1965.\nREPUBLICANS HAVE CALLED FOR A NEW DIRECTION IN THE\nNATION'S AFFAIRS. FEDERAL SPENDING IS GROWING IN EVERY\nDIRECTION UNDER PRESIDENT JOHNSON.\nTHIS IS WHY THE CONGRESS MUST REEXAMINE EVERY FEDERAL\nSPENDING PROGRAM. IF WE DON'T BRING FEDERAL SPENDING\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n-18-\nUNDER CONTROL, THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF OUR ECONOMIC\nSYSTEM MAY BE WEAKENED.\nTHE PRESENT TREND IN WASHINGTON INFECTS PEOPLE WITH\nTHE DISINCENTIVE SICKNESS.\nA PHILOSOPHY OF GIVEAWAY AND HIGH TAXES, A FORMULA\nOF\nSPEND AND SPEND.\nTAX AND TAX\nELECT AND ELECT DISCOURAGES\nTHOSE OF OUR CITIZENS WHO WOULD LIKE TO KEEP A GOODLY\nPORTION OF WHAT THEY MAKE.\nWE ARE SPENDING BILLIONS TO FIGHT POVERTY. IT THEREFORE\nSHOCKED THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE LAST YEAR TO\nDISCOVER THE DIRECT WELFARE COSTS ARE CONTINUING TO CLIMB.\nFORD\nTHIRTY YEARS OF WELFARE HAVE ONLY SUSTAINED POVERTY.\nLIBRARY\nTHERE MUST BE A BETTER ANSWER.\n-19-\nTHERE IS GREAT NEED FOR INCENTIVE PROGRAMS IN THIS\nCOUNTRY IN PLACE OF GOVERNMENT GIVEAWAYS AND THE BIG STICK.\nREPUBLICANS HAVE FASHIONED A PROGRAM WHICH WE BELIEVE\nWOULD TRIGGER A MASSIVE ASSAULT ON URBAN ILLS AND ON\nSTRUCTURAL UNEMPLOYMENT, A TRUE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN\nGOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY.\nSHARING OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX REVENUE WITH THE CITIES\nAND STATES IS THE KEY. THIS WOULD REVITALIZE STATE AND\nLOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ALLOW LOCAL UNITS TO ATTACK THEIR\nPROBLEMS IN PROPER PRIORITY AND WITHOUT THE DELAY AND\nCRIPPLING CONTROLS BUILT INTO THE TRADITIONAL GRANT-IN-AID\nPROGRAM.\nGERALO FORD LIBRARY\nWE PROPOSE, Too, TAX CREDITS TO PROMOTE A NATIONWIDE\n-20-\nATTACK BY INDUSTRY ON THE PERILS OF AIR AND WATER POLLUTION\nIN COOPERATION WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT.\nWE ALSO PROPOSE A TAX CREDIT TO TOUCH OFF LARGESCALE\nON-THE-JOB TRAINING BY THE BEST TRAINER OF THEM ALL--\nINDUSTRY. THIS IS THE WAY TO ATTACK STRUCTURAL UNEMPLOYMENT\nAND TO MOVE UP MEN ALREADY ON THE JOB. WE CALL IT OUR\nHUMAN INVESTMENT ACT.\nSUCH INCENTIVE PROGRAMS COUPLED WITH HEALTHY GROWTH\nIN THE ECONOMY CAN DO MORE TO LICK POVERTY THAN ALL OF\nTHE GOVERNMENT'S ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAMS ROLLED TOGETHER.\nWE WOULD SEEK TO PUT BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL TALENT\nTO WORK ON ALL OF OUR SOCIAL PROBLEMS, CREATING A KIND\nOF \"CITIES INDUSTRY\" WHICH WOULD APPLY THE PROBLEM-SOLVING\nTECHNIQUES OF THE SPACE INDUSTRY.\nBRARY\n-21-\nOUR NATION CAN ONLY BE AS STRONG AS ITS FREE-ENTERPRISE\nECONOMY. WE CANNOT SPEND OURSELVES RICH. THE NEW DEALERS\nTHREE DECADES AGO PROVED THE FALLACY OF THAT THEORY.\nLET US, THEN, FOLLOW THE TRUE PATH TO PROGRESS FOR\nAMERICA--PROGRESS THAT WILL BE REALIZED WHEN WE USE TO\nTHE FULLEST THE GOD-GIVEN TALENTS AND ABILITIES OF ALL\nOUR CITIZENS AND LEAVE TO EACH AN ADEQUATE MEASURE OF HIS\nREWARD.\n---END---\nERALD FORD LIDREST\nFOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY AT 12 NOON, FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1967\nAN ADDRESS BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.\nTO THE ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES, INC., AT CLEVELAND, OHIO\nThere is growing acceptance in America today of a dangerous myth. That myth is\nthat the American businessman today need have no care for the morrow because the\nPresident of the United States just won't let the economy go sour.\nThe talk goes that the President has too big a stake in prosperity as a politi-\ncal issue to allow even a mild recession to develop.\nTo buy this kind of thinking, you first have to accept two basic premises.\nOne is that the President has the power to avert a recession and to keep the\neconomy healthy. Another is that the President has the will and the wisdom required\nto keep bounce in the economy and prevent imbalance.\nThe President does have tremendous power, of course. But his power is not\nunlimited, and it would be exceedingly dangerous if it were.\nEven if you accept the first premise--that the President has the power to\navert recessions, control inflation and maintain economic growth-events of the\nrecent past point up a performance that has fallen far short of the mark.\nThe past is prologue in economics as in other aspects of our lives and our\nhistory as a Nation. With light from the past, let us examine the myth that American\nbusiness can entrust the health of the economy to the man now holding the highest\noffice in the land.\nWe know that the massive tax cuts of 1964 and 1965 triggered one of the greatest\nbooms this country has ever seen. Republicans and Democrats alike supported these\ntax reductions.\nI also submit--and in my view there is no arguing this--that the Johnson\nAdministration doomed the boom by failing to slow down the economy sufficiently when\nit became overheated in late 1965 and early 1966.\nLet's review what happened to take the bloom from the boom and transform the\neconomy into a shaky creature currently afflicted with assorted aches and pains.\nInflation became a definite threat in late 1965. The Federal Reserve Board,\nwhich fortunately is independent of White House political influence, raised the\nrediscount rate to throttle down the money supply.\nInstead of welcoming this blow against inflationary pressures, President\nJohnson complained about the Reserve Board's action and then proceeded to act as\nthough the danger of stability-wrecking price increases didn't exist. He did this\nby sending the Congress a guns-and-butter budget which continued and accelerated the\nsharpest uptrend in federal spending since World War II. Apparently, that's what he\nmeant when he said, \"Let us continue.\"\n(MORE)\n-2-\nThe President did not propose an income tax increase. He said nothing about a\nfight against inflation or about setting wartime priorities. He spurned all\nRepublican pleas that non-essential domestic spending be cut because there was a war\non, one which he and his advisors well knew would undoubtedly be of growing intensity\nand increasing cost.\nThe President gave a token nod in the direction of an inflation fight, but it\nwas like splashing a cup of water on a bonfire. He proposed--and Congress approved--\nreimposition of excise tax cuts voted in 1965. He also proposed--and Congress agreed\n--that collection of corporate income taxes be accelerated and that rates on indivi-\ndual income tax withholding be increased.\nBut for the most part President Johnson's fiscal policies last year stimulated\nan already overheated economy and brought on the upsurge in prices which continues to\nplague all Americans and promises a new round of price rises--cost-push inflation\nwhere last year we had the demand-pull variety.\nAs we moved through 1966, the Administration failed to act decisively to halt\ninflation. Seeing no help from the White House, the Reserve Board continued to turn\nup the screws on interest rates. The result: The highest interest rates in 40 years,\ndrying up of mortgage money, greatly increased public borrowing costs which will be\na burden to taxpayers for many years to come, and a virtual depression in the home-\nbuilding industry.\nDetermined to push his Great Society programs, President Johnson pursued\npolicies that fed inflation and helped push up interest rates. The Administration\nstepped up its domestic as well as military spending and went into the short-term\nmoney market to borrow the money to do it. Administration officials used the device\nof the participation sales certificate, a new, high-interest borrowing gimmick, and\nthus contributed to the demand for short-term money and the upward push on interest\nrates.\nHaving ignored Republican demands that he eliminate non-essential domestic\nspending, President Johnson also rejected the suggestion of most prominent economists\nand his own economic advisers that he seek an income tax increase.\nTreasury Secretary Henry Fowler recently complained about \"Monday morning\nquarterbacking\" when faced with criticism from the Joint Economic Committee of the\nCongress about Administration fiscal and monetary policies in 1966.\nMr. Fowler seems to be saying that this Administration cannot learn from its\nmistakes. This is also like saying that it doesn't make sense for a football coach\nto use movies of last Saturday's game so the boys can do a better job come next\nSaturday.\n(MORE)\n-3-\nWe've come a long way in football since my days at the University of Michigan,\nwhen the strategy was a punt, a pass and a prayer. And I trust we've come a long way\nin economics and the art of managing the economy. But just as there are good coaches\nand bad coaches, there are good managers and bad managers.\nI said at the outset that you can only trust the health of the economy to a\nChief Executive with the will and the wisdom to keep zip in it and avoid serious\neconomic dislocations.\nIt's crystal clear to me why Mr. Johnson did not seek an income tax increase\nin 1966. It just happened to be an election year.\nThe President moved last September to suspend the 7 per cent investment tax\ncredit as an alleged blow against inflation. That made nobody mad but business.\nAs the President's aides have revealed, he believes the best politics is the\nbest economics. I believe just as firmly that the best economics is the best politics.\nI suggest those who feel the President just won't let anything bad happen to\nthe economy before the 1968 election take another reading in the light of past\nexperience.\nLet's look at the current economic picture.\nThere is sag and drag in the economy.\nWe are in the midst of a new tremendous federal spending splurge.\nThe President has proposed a 6 per cent surtax on individual and corporate\nincome.\nBusiness profits are caught in a cost-price squeeze and are showing a general\ndecline.\nThe President has proposed an average 20 per cent increase in Social Security\nbenefits, involving payroll tax increases ultimately adding up to 11.6 per cent\n(combined employee-employer rate) on $10,800 of income. Even Administration\nofficials admit that a Social Security increase of that size would add to inflationary\npressures.\nConsumers are buying less and saving more. Automobile sales have slumped to\nthe point where more than 25,000 workers have been laid off. May I remind you that\nthe automobile industry is the bellwether of the economy.\nCredit is easing. While this helps \"at home,\" the \"hot money\" that flowed into\nthis country from abroad last year because of our high interest rates probably will\nbegin shifting back and thus aggravate our bad balance of payments situation.\nThe sharp rise in the cost of living last year has laid the foundation for a\nbig union push for wage increases in 1967. All indications are that these wage\nboosts will run generally from 5 to 8 per cent.\n(MORE)\n-4-\nThe AFL-CIO recently announced that labor will try to keep wages rising at\nleast as fast as living costs. That should come as no surprise to anybody. This\nis a natural consequence of the Johnson Administration's failure to maintain price\nstability in 1966.\nIn his Economic Report in January, the President predicted that consumer prices\nwould rise about 2.5 per cent in 1967 as compared with 3.5 per cent last year. My\nguess is there will be a flareup of cost-push inflation that will make the President's\nfigure look ridiculous.\nIn that connection, it seems strange that AFL-CIO President George Meany should\nendorse President Johnson more than 20 months before the 1968 election.\nMr. Johnson, you may remember, promised in January 1966 to send Congress\nrecommendations for better handling of national emergency strikes. Nothing happened.\nAnd last January, a year later, the President didn't even mention the subject in his\n1967 State of the Union Message.\nMr. Johnson was unable to deliver to organized labor on his promise to repeal\nSection 14B of the Taft-Hartley Act, the Right-To-Work provision. Perhaps he is\ntrying to balance the scales a bit by forgetting about national emergency strike\nlegislation.\nRepublicans dislike compulsory arbitration just as much as Mr. Meany. But we\ndo believe some improvements can be made in the government's machinery for dealing\nwith national emergency strikes. We do not envisage anti-labor legislation of any\nkind. We have proposed that a bipartisan committee of both Houses of Congress make\nan immediate study of the problem in the hope of better protecting the public\ninterest and the interest of all concerned.\nThis matter is particularly urgent at this time because organized labor's push\nfor wage increases to offset the sharp rise in living costs may make 1967 a year of\nabnormal labor-management strife.\nThe faith many businessmen have in the Johnson Administration astounds me in\nview of the Administration's handling of wage-price guidelines, now deceased and\nunlamented.\nThese guidelines were, of course, simply informal wage and price controls. The\nrecord shows that the controls were applied in arbitrary and discriminatory fashion.\nThe Administration used a pick-and-choose technique, singling some particular industry\nfor attack, letting other price increases go uncensored and generally ignoring wage\nincreases in excess of the guidelines.\nWhen the wage increases won by the airline mechanics exploded the fiction of\nthe guidelines, the wheels were really off the buggy.\n(MORE)\n-5-\nIs the President doing a good job of managing the economy?\nThe federal budget is sunk deep in deficit and has been for six fiscal years.\nThe President has expressed a preference for the National Income Accounts\nBudget because this makes his projected fiscal 1968 deficit look smaller. So let's\nlook at it.\nAccording to that budget, federal spending totalled $118 billion in fiscal 1965\nand rose to $132 billion in fiscal 1966. This fiscal year federal spending is pro-\njected at $154 billion, and for fiscal 1968 it's figured at $169 billion. Think of\nit! Those are successive annual spending increases of $14 billion, $21 billion and\n$16 billion--a grand total of $51 billion more spending in just three years.\nIs all of this increased spending due to the Vietnam War? Oh, no! Lay aside\nthe Vietnam expenditures and you still find an increase of $29 billion in federal\nspending between fiscal 1965 and fiscal 1968--an annual increase of roughly $10\nbillion. This is two-and-a-half times the increase in the annual rate of spending\nin the three years from fiscal 1962 to fiscal 1965.\nRepublicans have called for a New Direction in the Nation's affairs. Federal\nspending is growing in every direction under President Johnson.\nThis is why the Congress must reexamine every federal spending program. If we\ndon't bring federal spending under control, the very foundations of our economic\nsystem may be weakened.\nThe present trend in Washington infects people with the Disincentive Sickness.\nA philosophy of giveaway and high taxes, a formula of spend and spend, tax and\ntax, elect and elect discourages those of our citizens who would like to keep a\ngoodly portion of what they make.\nWe are spending billions to fight poverty. It therefore shocked the House\nAppropriations Committee last year to discover the direct welfare costs are con-\ntinuing to climb.\nThirty years of welfare have only sustained poverty. There must be a better\nanswer.\nThere is great need for incentive programs in this country in place of govern-\nment giveaways and the big stick.\nRepublicans have fashioned a program which we believe would trigger a massive\nassault on urban ills and on structural unemployment, a true partnership between\ngovernment and industry.\nSharing of federal income tax revenue with the cities and states is the key.\nThis would revitalize state and local government and allow local units to attack\ntheir problems in proper priority and without the delay and crippling controls built\ninto the traditional grant-in-aid program.\n(MORE)\n-6-\nWe propose, too, tax credits to promote a nationwide attack by industry on the\nperils of air and water pollution in cooperation with local and regional units of\ngovernment.\nWe also propose a tax credit to touch off largescale on-the-job training by\nthe best trainer of them all, industry. This is the way to attack structural\nunemployment and to move up men already on the job. We call it our Human Investment\nAct.\nSuch incentive programs coupled with healthy growth in the economy can do more\nto lick poverty than all of the government's anti-poverty programs rolled together.\nWe would seek to put business and industrial talent to work on all of our\nsocial problems, creating a kind of \"cities industry\" which would apply the problem-\nsolving techniques of the space industry.\nOur Nation can only be as strong as its free-enterprise economy. We cannot\nspend ourselves rich. The New Dealers three decades ago proved the fallacy of that\ntheory.\nLet us, then, follow the true path to progress for America--progress that will\nbe realized when we use to the fullest the God-given talents and abilities of all\nour citizens and leave to each an adequate measure of his reward.\n###\nFOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY AT 12 NOON, FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1967\nAN ADDRESS BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.\nTO THE ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES, INC,, AT CLEVELAND, OHIO\nThere is growing acceptance in America today of a dangerous myth. That myth is\nthat the American businessman today need have no care for the morrow because the\nPresident of the United States just won't let the economy go sour.\nThe talk goes that the President has too big a stake in prosperity as a politi-\ncal issue to allow even a mild recession to develop.\nTo buy this kind of thinking, you first have to accept two basic premises.\nOne is that the President has the power to avert a recession and to keep the\neconomy healthy. Another is that the President has the will and the wisdom required\nto keep bounce in the economy and prevent imbalance.\nThe President does have tremendous power, of course. But his power is not\nunlimited, and it would be exceedingly dangerous if it were.\nEven if you accept the first premise that the President has the power to\navert recessions, control inflation and maintain economic growth-events of the\nrecent past point up a performance that has fallen far short OF the mark.\nThe past is prologuè in economics as in other aspects of our lives and our\nhistory as a Nation With light from the past, let us examine the myth that American\nbusiness can entrust the health of the economy to the man now holding the highest\noffice in the land.\nWe know that the massive tax cuts of 1964 and 1965 triggered one of the greatest\nbooms this country has ever seen. Republicans and Democrats alike supported these\ntax reductions.\nI also submit--and in my view there is no arguing this--that the Johnson\nAdministration doomed the boom by failing to slow down the economy sufficiently when\nit became overheated in late 1965 and early 1966.\nLet's review what happened to take the bloom from the boom and transform the\neconomy into a shaky creature currently afflicted with assorted aches and pains.\nInflation became a definite threat in late 1965. The Federal Reserve Board,\nwhich fortunately is independent of White House political influence, raised the\nrediscount rate to throttle down the money supply.\nInstead of welcoming this blow against inflationary pressures, President\nJohnson complained about the Reserve Board's action and then proceeded to act as\nthough the danger of stability-wrecking price increases didn't exist. He did this\nby sending the Congress a guns-and-butter budget which continued and accelerated the\nsharpest uptrend in federal spending since World War II. Apparently, that's what he\nLIBRARY\nmeant when he said, \"Let us continue.\"\n(MORE)\n-2-\nThe President did not propose an income tax increase. He said nothing about a\nfight against inflation or about setting wartime priorities. He spurned all\nRepublican pleas that non-essential domestic spending be cut because there was a war\non, one which he and his advisors well knew would undoubtedly be of growing intensity\nand increasing cost.\nThe President gave a token nod in the direction of an inflation fight, but it\nwas like splashing a cup of water on a bonfire. He proposed--and Congress approved--\nreimposition of excise tax cuts voted in 1965. He also proposed--and Congress agreed\n--that collection of corporate income taxes be accelerated and that rates on indivi-\ndual income tax withholding be increased.\nBut for the most part President Johnson's fiscal policies last year stimulated\nan already overheated economy and brought on the upsurge in prices which continues to\nplague all Americans and promises a new round of price rises--cost-push inflation\nwhere last year we had the demand-pull variety.\nAs we moved through 1966, the Administration failed to act decisively to halt\ninflation. Seeing no help from the White House, the Reserve Board continued to turn\nup the screws on interest rates. The result: The highest interest rates in 40 years,\ndrying up of mortgage money, greatly increased public borrowing costs which will be\na burden to taxpayers for many years to come, and a virtual depression in the home-\nbuilding industry.\nDetermined to push his Great Society programs, President Johnson pursued\npolicies that fed inflation and helped push up interest rates. The Administration\nstepped up its domestic as well as military spending and went into the short-term\nmoney market to borrow the money to do it. Administration officials used the device\nof the participation sales certificate, a new, high-interest borrowing gimmick, and\nthus contributed to the demand for short-term money and the upward push on interest\nrates.\nHaving ignored Republican demands that he eliminate non-essential domestic\nspending, President Johnson also rejected the suggestion of most prominent economists\nand his own economic advisers that he seek an income tax increase.\nTreasury Secretary Henry Fowler recently complained about \"Monday morning\nquarterbacking\" when faced with criticism from the Joint Economic Committee of the\nCongress about Administration fiscal and monetary policies in 1966.\nMr. Fowler seems to be saying that this Administration cannot learn from its\nmistakes. This is also like saying that it doesn't make sense for a football coach\nto use movies of last Saturday's game so the boys can do a better job come next\nSaturday.\n(MORE)\n-3-\nWe've come a long way in football since my days at the University of Michigan,\nwhen the strategy was a punt, a pass and a prayer. And I trust we've come a long way\nin economics and the art of managing the economy. But just as there are good coaches\nand bad coaches, there are good managers and bad managers.\nI aaid at the outset that you can only trust the health of the economy to a\nChief Executive with the will and the wisdom to keep zip in it and avoid serious\neconomic dislocations.\nIt's crystal clear to me why Mr. Johnson did not seek an income tax increase\nin 1966. It just happened to be an election year.\nThe President moved last September to suspend the 7 per cent investment tax\ncredit as an alleged blow against inflation. That made nobody mad but business.\nAs the President's aides have revealed, he believes the best politics is the\nbest economics. I believe just as firmly that the best economics is the best politics.\nI suggest those who feel the President just won't let anything bad happen to\nthe economy before the 1968 election take another reading in the light of past\nexperience.\nLet's look at the current economic picture.\nThere is sag and drag in the economy.\nWe are in the midst of a new tremendous federal spending splurge.\nThe President has proposed a 6 per cent surtax on individual and corporate\nincome.\nBusiness profits are caught in a cost-price squeeze and are showing a general\ndecline.\nThe President has proposed an average 20 per cent increase in Social Security\nbenefits, involving payroll tax increases ultimately adding up to 11.6 per cent\n(combined employee-employer rate) on $10,800 of income. Even Administration\nofficials admit that a Social Security increase of that size would add to inflationary\npressures.\nConsumers are buying less and saving more. Automobile sales have slumped to\nthe point where more than 25,000 workers have been laid off. May I remind you that\nthe automobile industry is the bellwether of the economy.\nCredit is easing. While this helps \"at home,\" the \"hot money\" that flowed into\nthis country from abroad last year because of our high interest rates probably will\nbegin shifting back and thus aggravate our bad balance of payments situation.\nThe sharp rise in the cost of living last year has laid the foundation for a\nbig union push for wage increases in 1967. All indications are that these wage\nboosts will run generally from 5 to 8 per cent.\n(MORE)\n-4-\nThe AFL-CIO recently announced that labor will try to keep wages rising at\nleast as fast as living costs. That should come as no surprise to anybody. This\nis a natural consequence of the Johnson Administration's failure to maintain price\nstability in 1966.\nIn his Economic Report in January, the President predicted that consumer prices\nwould rise about 2.5 per cent in 1967 as compared with 3.5 per cent last year. My\nguess is there will be a flareup of cost-push inflation that will make the President's\nfigure look ridiculous.\nIn that connection, it seems strange that AFL-CIO President George Meany should\nendorse President Johnson more than 20 months before the 1968 election.\nMr. Johnson, you may remember, promised in January 1966 to send Congress\nrecommendations for better handling of national emergency strikes. Nothing happened.\nAnd last January, a year later, the President didn't even mention the subject in his\n1967 State of the Union Message.\nMr. Johnson was unable to deliver to organized labor on his promise to repeal\nSection 14B of the Taft-Hartley Act, the Right-To-Work provision. Perhaps he is\ntrying to balance the scales a bit by forgetting about national emergency strike\nlegislation.\nRepublicans dislike compulsory arbitration just as much as Mr. Meany. But we\ndo believe some improvements can be made in the government's machinery for dealing\nwith national emergency strikes. We do not envisage anti-labor legislation of any\nkind. We have proposed that a bipartisan committee of both Houses of Congress make\nan immediate study of the problem in the hope of better protecting the public\ninterest and the interest of all concerned.\nThis matter is particularly urgent at this time because organized labor's push\nfor wage increases to offset the sharp rise in living costs may make 1967 a year of\nabnormal labor-management strife.\nThe faith many businessmen have in the Johnson Administration astounds me in\nview of the Administration's handling of wage-price guidelines, now deceased and\nunlamented.\nThese guidelines were, of course, simply informal wage and price controls. The\nrecord shows that the controls were applied in arbitrary and discriminatory fashion.\nThe Administration used a pick-and-choose technique, singling some particular industry\nfor attack, letting other price increases go uncensored and generally ignoring wage\nincreases in excess of the guidelines.\nWhen the wage increases won by the airline mechanics exploded the fiction of\nthe guidelines, the wheels were really off the buggy.\n(MORE)\n-5-\nIs the President doing a good job of managing the economy?\nThe federal budget is sunk deep in deficit and has been for six fiscal years.\nThe President has expressed a preference for the National Income Accounts\nBudget because this makes his projected fiscal 1968 deficit look smaller. So let's\nlook at it.\nAccording to that budget, federal spending totalled $118 billion in fiscal 1965\nand rose to $132 billion in fiscal 1966. This fiscal year federal spending is pro-\njected at $154 billion, and for fiscal 1968 it's figured at $169 billion. Think of\nit! Those are successive annual spending increases of $14 billion, $21 billion and\n$16 billion--a grand total of $51 billion more spending in just three years.\nIs all of this increased spending due to the Vietnam War? Oh, no! Lay aside\nthe Vietnam expenditures and you still find an increase of $29 billion in federal\nspending between fiscal 1965 and fiscal 1968--an annual increase of roughly $10\nbillion. This is two-and-a-half times the increase in the annual rate of spending\nin the three years from fiscal 1962 to fiscal 1965.\nRepublicans have called for a New Direction in the Nation's affairs. Federal\nspending is growing in every direction under President Johnson.\nThis is why the Congress must reexamine every federal spending program. If we\ndon't bring federal spending under control, the very foundations of our economic\nsystem may be weakened.\nThe present trend in Washington infects people with the Disincentive Sickness.\nA philosophy of giveaway and high taxes, a formula of spend and spend, tax and\ntax, elect and elect discourages those of our citizens who would like to keep a\ngoodly portion of what they make.\nWe are spending billions to fight poverty. It therefore shocked the House\nAppropriations Committee last year to discover the direct welfare costs are con-\ntinuing to climb.\nThirty years of welfare have only sustained poverty. There must be a better\nanswer.\nThere is great need for incentive programs in this country in place of govern-\nment giveaways and the big stick.\nRepublicans have fashioned a program which we believe would trigger a massive\nassault on urban ills and on structural unemployment, a true partnership between\ngovernment and industry.\nSharing of federal income tax revenue with the cities and states is the key.\nThis would revitalize state and local government and allow local units to attack\ntheir problems in proper priority and without the delay and crippling controls built\ninto the traditional grant-in-aid program.\n(MORE)\n-6-\nWe propose, too, tax credits to promote a nationwide attack by industry on the\nperils of air and water pollution in cooperation with local and regional units of\ngovernment.\nWe also propose a tax credit to touch off largescale on-the-job training by\nthe best trainer of them all, industry. This is the way to attack structural\nunemployment and to move up men already on the job. We call it our Human Investment\nAct.\nSuch incentive programs coupled with healthy growth in the economy can do more\nto lick poverty than all of the government's anti-poverty programs rolled together.\nWe would seek to put business and industrial talent to work on all of our\nsocial problems, creating a kind of \"cities industry\" which would apply the problem-\nsolving techniques of the space industry.\nOur Nation can only be as strong as its free-enterprise economy. We cannot\nspend ourselves rich. The New Dealers three decades ago proved the fallacy of that\ntheory.\nLet us, then, follow the true path to progress for America--progress that will\nbe realized when we use to the fullest the God-given talents and abilities of all\nour citizens and leave to each an adequate measure of his reward.\n# # #"
}