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
4526264
label
Richmond Public Forum, Richmond, VA, March 21, 1970
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526264
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Richmond Public Forum, Richmond, VA, March 21, 1970
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Environmental protection
Legislation
Revenue sharing
Welfare
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526264
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1970-03-31
month
3
year
1970
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1970-03-01
month
3
year
1970
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
4e1b7c56b0c566d9
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D28, folder "Richmond Public Forum,
Richmond, VA, March 21, 1970" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
TEXT
RICHMOND, VA.
MAR. 21, 1970
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.
OFFICE OF THE MINORITY LEADER
PUBLIC DOCUMENT
Herald R. Ford
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
M.C.
me
P/no saw SATURDAY see 8j00 if
P.M.
RICHMOND PUBLIC FORUM propers
Great Tots check to on
Sendy any N
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Digitized from Box D28 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Distribution 20 copils Mr. Ford
Moffice Copy
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE RICHMOND PUBLIC FORUM
AT RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
8 P.M. SATURDAY, MARCH 21, 1970
FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 P.M. SATURDAY
In 1778, a French nobleman said of Americans, "They are the hope of the
world. They may become its model."
From that time forth, Americans have been envied and feared, seldom loved.
We have been much admired, much maligned, and much misunderstood. It might also
be said we have difficulty understanding ourselves.
It was another Frenchman, De Toqueville, who saw Americans clearly. In his
famous book, "Democracy in America," De Toqueville talked of the perpetual
dissatisfaction of Americans with their situation in life, their constant striving
for something better.
Said De Toqueville of Americans:
"They have all a lively faith in the perfectibility of man; they judge that
the diffusion of knowledge must necessarily be advantageous, and the consequences
of ignorance fatal; they all consider society as a body in a state of improvement,
humanity as a changing scene, in which nothing is, or ought to be, permanent; and
they admit that what appears to them today to be good, may be superseded by some-
thing better tomorrow."
De Toqueville put his finger on the key character trait of Americans --
their restlessness, their thirst for something better, their drive toward change,
the riveting of their eyes on tomorrow.
So it has always been in this great and glorious land we call America, and
so it is today.
We stand today on the threshold of great change. I am sure this is not
apparent to some, perhaps even to millions of Americans. I am not speaking of the
kind of changes sought by the violently revolutionary elements in our society but
of changes that are being wrought within and at the instigation of what is called
"The Establishment."
I am talking about the "new ecology." I am talking about welfare reform.
I am talking about population planning and population control. I am talking about
giving cities and states a percentage slice of Federal income tax revenue, and of
everything else that comes under the heading of "the New Federalism."
(more)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
These are revolutionary changes, and they are changes which I believe will
not only be acquiesced in but demanded by what has come to be known as The Silent
Majority.
So far "the kids" --- the college students -- have only taken hold of the
crusade to restore our environment and the population control movement, but there
is the fire of reform in all of these proposals.
In fact, if all of the exciting new programs now before the Congress are
enacted into law, we will see a greater reform of our political and social system
than at any time since the first administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I
might add they will have come about because of the new atmosphere of reform that
harkens back to another similar era -- the days of Teddy Roosevelt.
Some of these reforms stem from the fact that we have witnessed the demise
of the New Deal, as surely as if a curtain had been drawn across the spectacular
drama which began with the Great Depression.
We have reached a point where Federal programs have piled upon Federal
programs in a mix that constitutes a mess, duplication that has mounted to chaos,
a multiplicity of Federal programs that has mayors and State officials groping for
Federal help as in a maze.
We are now striving to straighten out that mess, bringing order out of chaos,
cutting a direct route through the maze. We are reversing the flow of power. Far
too much power has become concentrated in Washington. We are seeking to turn some
of that power back to the cities and states.
This is what we call "the New Federalism." It can be found in the
Administration's proposed new comprehensive Manpower Training Act, the proposed
Family Assistance Act which would turn welfare into "workfare," changes in the
unemployment insurance system, and a long overdue Revenue Sharing Act.
This is a fundamental change in Federal policy -- a new approach in
manpower training, income maintenance, and Federal aid to cities and States with
top priority to local priorities.
We want to return more responsibilities to the States and local communities
and to help them with the fiscal burden of shouldering those responsibilities.
This is a sharp departure from the New Deal pattern of "the Federal bureaucrat
knows best and you'll do it our way or else."
As the President has stated, we want to do this "not as a way of avoiding
problems but as a better way of solving problems."
(more)
-3-
Last Sept. 24 I joined with more than 75 other members of the U.S. House of
Representatives to introduce legislation that will make federally-collected
revenues available for percentage sharing with the cities and states. The aim of
this legislation is to carry out a proposal made by President Nixon last August 13.
The introduction of this revenue-sharing bill marked the first time in
recent history that a concerted effort has been made to give states and local
governments funds that will allow them effectively to live up to their commitments
to their citizens.
Now, money flowing from the Federal Government to the states is being
dispensed in the form of categorical grants, with the Federal Government determin-
ing how and where the funds will be spent. The legislation we are seeking would
provide additional funds that states and cities could spend as they see fit.
There are those who lack confidence in the ability of states and local
governments to spend money effectively or properly. But we have no farther to
look than the Federal Government to see how great sums of money have been badly
spent on poorly devised programs devised for questionable reasons.
A majority of Americans have lost faith in heavily centralized government.
And the cause for that is not hard to find, for in the five years prior to 1969
we saw scores of new Federal programs enacted with tens of thousands of new
employees added to Federal payrolls and tens of billions of dollars spent with the
avowed aim of healing the Nation's grave social ills. Yet despite this massive
infusion of Federally-directed programs and dollars, the problems of our cities
deepened into flaming crisis.
I believe more and more Americans are turning away from the central
government to their local and State governments as the best way to deal with local
and State problems. Yet the Congress has not begun to move on revenue-sharing.
Earlier I mentioned manpower training in connection with the New Federalism.
I did so because at present mayors control none of the Federal manpower funds that
come into their cities under the Manpower Development and Training Act and the
Economic Opportunity Act.
In contrast, if the Administration's new Manpower Training Act was fully
implemented, the Nation's mayors would have administrative control over about
three-quarters of a billion dollars in Federal funds each year.
Instead of a large number of unrelated projects in a certain metropolitan
area, we would have one coherent program and one sponsor -- and the sponsor would
(more)
-4-
design a mix of services and program components uniquely suited to the needs of
the community.
What I am saying is that governors and mayors and their Federal partner all
have unique capabilities. They should all perform the roles best suited to them.
They must share power, for ours is a system which provides not only for checks and
balances but for constructive collaboration between the partners in the system.
The American people will be the beneficiaries.
I spoke at the outset about the insatiable desire of Americans to better
themselves. This has been translated throughout American history into what I
call the work ethic -- the idea that every man worth his salt works for a living
if he is able to do SO. At the same time Americans are most generous to those of
their countrymen who are so badly handicapped they can neither toil nor can they
spin.
One of the most dramatic stories of American heroism unfolded during the
Great Depression when millions of families throughout the country found some way
to piece together a living.
While Americans clung to the work ethic throughout the depression, millions
were forced onto the dole. Welfare became a way of life for them and for their
sons and daughters.
Today we have an opportunity to break the welfare cycle -- to make a viable
truth of the principle that it pays to work.
I am speaking of the proposal now before the Congress to wipe out the
scandalous welfare hangover of the depression days -- wipe it out by replacing it
with a new plan called "workfare." The new program is called workfare because it
encourages people to work.
Under the present welfare system, a poor man who is working can look
across the street at a family on welfare getting more for not working.
With workfare, the "disincentive" to work is removed. A poor family with a
working member will always get more than a family without a working member.
Under the present system, every dollar a welfare recipient earns is
subtracted from his welfare payments. But under the proposed new system, he
would keep 50 cents out of every dollar he earns as he works his way out of poverty.
What we want is to take people off welfare rolls and put them on payrolls.
We think these people would rather have a hand up than a handout. They will if
the incentive is there.
(more)
-5-
You will hear it said that the new workfare program will cost too much. We
admit it will initially cost more than the present welfare system, but these are
start-up costs of the kind you have when you start a new business. Ultimately we
will reap profits from workfare -- both in dollars and in the restoration of human
dignity.
The workfare program will save money in the long run. If the present
welfare program is not replaced and continues to grow as it has been burgeoning,
it will cost the taxpayer a billion dollars a year more than the workfare program.
Our program will be far more inclusive than the present system. It will
provide an income floor for the working poor. But it will also say to those on
welfare who are able to work, we are going to give you a chance to work and you'll
be glad we did. In fact, these people must work in order to receive government
payments.
The workfare program will show us what the dignity of work can do for a
human being. And it will help to keep families together. That, alone, will be
worth the price we must pay, for the family is the foundation on which our
republic is built. If the family is strong, the Nation will be strong.
And as we invest in human resources through the workfare program we must
also accept the expensive challenge of restoring the American environment --
cleaning up our air and water and dealing with the solid wastes that clutter up
our land.
The challenge of the "new ecology," as it is called, is being taken up by
government at all levels, the students in our colleges, and our forward-looking
industries.
It is a challenge that demands far more of us than putting a man on the
moon, magnificent as that mission was.
It is far more difficult because it involves far more than the assembling
of great brains and technology in pursuit of a clear-cut national goal. It does
involve the assembling of a complex technology but it also requires coordination of
effort on the part of the Federal, state and local governments.
I hope it will be possible to bring this crusade together with coherent and
coordinated policies and leadership. There inevitably will be varying plans of
attack. But although the troops will be attacking specific problems at local and
state levels, they will be fighting the common enemy under one commander-in-chief --
the President of the United States.
(more)
-6-
There is a blueprint for battle -- a 37-point battle plan submitted to
Congress by the President. The major thrust of it is a $10 billion attack on water
pollution, joined in by Federal, state and local units of government.
The new technology already is emerging, and the magic word is "recycling."
This is the key to the human waste treatment being employed in Muskegon County,
Mich., which uses the lagoon method of settling out solid wastes and then
spray-irrigating land with the waste water which is left. Recycling also is the
key to a new waste-cleansing method being used by one of the largest paper companies
in America.
So I believe we can win this fight to save our environment. We can
establish a bridgehead early in this decade and achieve victory within 10 years.
I am encouraged by the tremendous interest in the new ecology on our college
campuses. As you may know, ecology teach-ins are scheduled on campuses throughout
the country on April 22. The University of Michigan, my alma mater, recently
anticipated the nationwide teach-in with early bird sessions of its own.
Hundreds of students became excited about what they call "people pollution."
They believe we can never lick pollution without curbing population growth. To
show their devotion to the population control movement, they signed pledges of
social responsibility limiting themselves to two children.
I might mention at this point that the Congress recently passed and sent
to the President the Administration bill setting up a Commission on Population
Growth and the American Future, a step toward population control in the United
States.
There was a wide divergence of views among the U. of M. students on how to
make the world more livable but all felt that we must attack the basic environ-
mental ills of air and water pollution and the misuse of our land and natural
resources.
There were, of course, a few radicals who declared that the only way to
restore the American environment is to turn the Federal Government upside down.
But the majority favored waging the war against pollution within the system.
I think we will continue to see this majority support among students for
within-the-syster attacks on our problems as they become aware of the shift already
taking place in our national priorities. To use the language of the kids, the
shift in priorities is "now" -- not off somewhere in the future.
Let me point out to you that last year, as in every year since the Korean
War, national defense ate up the biggest part of the Federal dollar. In the
(more)
-7-
fiscal 1971 budget, by contrast, the largest share of the Federal budget goes to
the civilian sector, specifically to human resources programs -- education, health,
welfare, veterans and manpower projects.
The shift is quite dramatic. In fiscal 1969, 44 per cent of the budget
went to defense and 34 per cent to human resources. In fiscal 1971, nearly the
reverse is true -- 41 per cent to human resources and 37 per cent to defense.
We must reorder our priorities and advance the cause of reform in this
country or suffer the ravages of far greater violence.
But our aversion to violence should not be the most compelling motive for
righting wrongs wherever we find them.
Our only needful motive should be the rightness of the causes before us.
If we act in the right, as God gives us the power to see the right, we will
come out right in the end.
And we will perceive anew the great truth in the words of Plutarch when he
said:
"Perseverance is more prevailing than violence; and many things which
cannot be overcome when they are taken together, yield themselves up when taken
little by little."
Little by little, we shall work together toward that "perfectibility of
man" in which all Americans believe. Thank you.
###
20 copies to Mr. Ford only
00ffice Copy
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE RICHMOND PUBLIC FORUM
AT RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
8 P.M. SATURDAY, MARCH 21, 1970
FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 P.M. SATURDAY
In 1778, a French nobleman said of Americans, "They are the hope of the
world. They may become its model."
From that time forth, Americans have been envied and feared, seldom loved.
We have been much admired, much maligned, and much misunderstood. It might also
be said we have difficulty understanding ourselves.
It was another Frenchman, De Toqueville, who saw Americans clearly. In his
famous book, "Democracy in America," De Toqueville talked of the perpetual
dissatisfaction of Americans with their situation in life, their constant striving
for something better.
Said De Toqueville of Americans:
"They have all a lively faith in the perfectibility of man; they judge that
the diffusion of knowledge must necessarily be advantageous, and the consequences
of ignorance fatal; they all consider society as a body in a state of improvement,
humanity as a changing scene, in which nothing is, or ought to be, permanent; and
they admit that what appears to them today to be good, may be superseded by some-
thing better tomorrow."
De Toqueville put his finger on the key character trait of Americans --
their restlessness, their thirst for something better, their drive toward change,
the riveting of their eyes on tomorrow.
So it has always been in this great and glorious land we call America, and
so it is today.
We stand today on the threshold of great change. I am sure this is not
apparent to some, perhaps even to millions of Americans. I am not speaking of the
kind of changes sought by the violently revolutionary elements in our society but
of changes that are being wrought within and at the instigation of what is called
"The Establishment."
I am talking about the "new ecology." I am talking about welfare reform.
I am talking about population planning and population control. I am talking about
giving cities and states a percentage slice of Federal income tax revenue, and of
everything else that comes under the heading of "the New Federalism."
(more)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
These are revolutionary changes, and they are changes which I believe will
not only be acquiesced in but demanded by what has come to be known as The Silent
Majority.
So far "the kids" -- the college students -- have only taken hold of the
crusade to restore our environment and the population control movement, but there
is the fire of reform in all of these proposals.
In fact, if all of the exciting new programs now before the Congress are
enacted into law, we will see a greater reform of our political and social system
than at any time since the first administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I
might add they will have come about because of the new atmosphere of reform that
harkens back to another similar era -- the days of Teddy Roosevelt.
Some of these reforms stem from the fact that we have witnessed the demise
of the New Deal, as surely as if a curtain had been drawn across the spectacular
drama which began with the Great Depression.
We have reached a point where Federal programs have piled upon Federal
programs in a mix that constitutes a mess, duplication that has mounted to chaos,
a multiplicity of Federal programs that has mayors and State officials groping for
Federal help as in a maze.
We are now striving to straighten out that mess, bringing order out of chaos,
cutting a direct route through the maze. We are reversing the flow of power. Far
too much power has become concentrated in Washington. We are seeking to turn some
of that power back to the cities and states.
This is what we call "the New Federalism." It can be found in the
Administration's proposed new comprehensive Manpower Training Act, the proposed
Family Assistance Act which would turn welfare into "workfare," changes in the
unemployment insurance system, and a long overdue Revenue Sharing Act.
This is a fundamental change in Federal policy -- a new approach in
manpower training, income maintenance, and Federal aid to cities and States with
top priority to local priorities.
We want to return more responsibilities to the States and local communities
and to help them with the fiscal burden of shouldering those responsibilities.
This is a sharp departure from the New Deal pattern of "the Federal bureaucrat
knows best and you'll do it our way or else."
As the President has stated, we want to do this "not as a way of avoiding
problems but as a better way of solving problems."
(more)
-3-
Last Sept. 24 I joined with more than 75 other members of the U.S. House of
Representatives to introduce legislation that will make federally-collected
revenues available for percentage sharing with the cities and states. The aim of
this legislation is to carry out a proposal made by President Nixon last August 13.
The introduction of this revenue-sharing bill marked the first time in
recent history that a concerted effort has been made to give states and local
governments funds that will allow them effectively to live up to their commitments
to their citizens.
Now, money flowing from the Federal Government to the states is being
dispensed in the form of categorical grants, with the Federal Government determin-
ing how and where the funds will be spent. The legislation we are seeking would
provide additional funds that states and cities could spend as they see fit.
There are those who lack confidence in the ability of states and local
governments to spend money effectively or properly. But we have no farther to
look than the Federal Government to see how great sums of money have been badly
spent on poorly devised programs devised for questionable reasons.
A majority of Americans have lost faith in heavily centralized government.
And the cause for that is not hard to find, for in the five years prior to 1969
we saw scores of new Federal programs enacted with tens of thousands of new
employees added to Federal payrolls and tens of billions of dollars spent with the
avowed aim of healing the Nation's grave social ills. Yet despite this massive
infusion of Federally-directed programs and dollars, the problems of our cities
deepened into flaming crisis.
I believe more and more Americans are turning away from the central
government to their local and State governments as the best way to deal with local
and State problems. Yet the Congress has not begun to move on revenue-sharing.
Earlier I mentioned manpower training in connection with the New Federalism.
I did so because at present mayors control none of the Federal manpower funds that
come into their cities under the Manpower Development and Training Act and the
Economic Opportunity Act.
In contrast, if the Administration's new Manpower Training Act was fully
implemented, the Nation's mayors would have administrative control over about
three-quarters of a billion dollars in Federal funds each year.
Instead of a large number of unrelated projects in a certain metropolitan
area, we would have one coherent program and one sponsor -- and the sponsor would
(more)
-4-
design a mix of services and program components uniquely suited to the needs of
the community.
What I am saying is that governors and mayors and their Federal partner all
have unique capabilities. They should all perform the roles best suited to them.
They must share power, for ours is a system which provides not only for checks and
balances but for constructive collaboration between the partners in the system.
The American people will be the beneficiaries.
I spoke at the outset about the insatiable desire of Americans to better
themselves. This has been translated throughout American history into what I
call the work ethic -- the idea that every man worth his salt works for a living
if he is able to do SO. At the same time Americans are most generous to those of
their countrymen who are so badly handicapped they can neither toil nor can they
spin.
One of the most dramatic stories of American heroism unfolded during the
Great Depression when millions of families throughout the country found some way
to piece together a living.
While Americans clung to the work ethic throughout the depression, millions
were forced onto the dole. Welfare became a way of life for them and for their
sons and daughters.
Today we have an opportunity to break the welfare cycle -- to make a viable
truth of the principle that it pays to work.
I am speaking of the proposal now before the Congress to wipe out the
scandalous welfare hangover of the depression days -- wipe it out by replacing it
with a new plan called "workfare." The new program is called workfare because it
encourages people to work.
Under the present welfare system, a poor man who is working can look
across the street at a family on welfare getting more for not working.
With workfare, the "disincentive" to work is removed. A poor family with a
working member will always get more than a family without a working member.
Under the present system, every dollar a welfare recipient earns is
subtracted from his welfare payments. But under the proposed new system, he
would keep 50 cents out of every dollar he earns as he works his way out of poverty.
What we want is to take people off welfare rolls and put them on payrolls.
We think these people would rather have a hand up than a handout. They will if
the incentive is there.
(more)
-5-
You will hear it said that the new workfare program will cost too much. We
admit it will initially cost more than the present welfare system, but these are
start-up costs of the kind you have when you start a new business. Ultimately we
will reap profits from workfare -- both in dollars and in the restoration of human
dignity.
The workfare program will save money in the long run. If the present
welfare program is not replaced and continues to grow as it has been burgeoning,
it will cost the taxpayer a billion dollars a year more than the workfare program.
Our program will be far more inclusive than the present system. It will
provide an income floor for the working poor. But it will also say to those on
welfare who are able to work, we are going to give you a chance to work and you'll
be glad we did. In fact, these people must work in order to receive government
payments.
The workfare program will show us what the dignity of work can do for a
human being. And it will help to keep families together. That, alone, will be
worth the price we must pay, for the family is the foundation on which our
republic is built. If the family is strong, the Nation will be strong.
And as we invest in human resources through the workfare program we must
also accept the expensive challenge of restoring the American environment ---
cleaning up our air and water and dealing with the solid wastes that clutter up
our land.
The challenge of the "new ecology," as it is called, is being taken up by
government at all levels, the students in our colleges, and our forward-looking
industries.
It is a challenge that demands far more of us than putting a man on the
moon, magnificent as that mission was.
It is far more difficult because it involves far more than the assembling
of great brains and technology in pursuit of a clear-cut national goal. It does
involve the assembling of a complex technology but it also requires coordination of
effort on the part of the Federal, state and local governments.
I hope it will be possible to bring this crusade together with coherent and
coordinated policies and leadership. There inevitably will be varying plans of
attack. But although the troops will be attacking specific problems at local and
state levels, they will be fighting the common enemy under one commander-in-chief ---
the President of the United States.
(more)
-6-
There is a blueprint for battle -- a 37-point battle plan submitted to
Congress by the President. The major thrust of it is a $10 billion attack on water
pollution, joined in by Federal, state and local units of government.
The new technology already is emerging, and the magic word is "recycling."
This is the key to the human waste treatment being employed in Muskegon County,
Mich., which uses the lagoon method of settling out solid wastes and then
spray-irrigating land with the waste water which is left. Recycling also is the
key to a new waste-cleansing method being used by one of the largest paper companies
in America.
So I believe we can win this fight to save our environment. We can
establish a bridgehead early in this decade and achieve victory within 10 years.
I am encouraged by the tremendous interest in the new ecology on our college
campuses. As you may know, ecology teach-ins are scheduled on campuses throughout
the country on April 22. The University of Michigan, my alma mater, recently
anticipated the nationwide teach-in with early bird sessions of its own.
Hundreds of students became excited about what they call "people pollution."
They believe we can never lick pollution without curbing population growth. To
show their devotion to the population control movement, they signed pledges of
social responsibility limiting themselves to two children.
I might mention at this point that the Congress recently passed and sent
to the President the Administration bill setting up a Commission on Population
Growth and the American Future, a step toward population control in the United
States.
There was a wide divergence of views among the U. of M. students on how to
make the world more livable but all felt that we must attack the basic environ-
mental ills of air and water pollution and the misuse of our land and natural
resources.
There were, of course, a few radicals who declared that the only way to
restore the American environment is to turn the Federal Government upside down.
But the majority favored waging the war against pollution within the system.
I think we will continue to see this majority support among students for
within-the-system attacks on our problems as they become aware of the shift already
taking place in our national priorities. To use the language of the kids, the
shift in priorities is "now" --- not off somewhere in the future.
Let me point out to you that last year, as in every year since the Korean
War, national defense ate up the biggest part of the Federal dollar. In the
(more)
-7-
fiscal 1971 budget, by contrast, the largest share of the Federal budget goes to
the civilian sector, specifically to human resources programs -- education, health,
welfare, veterans and manpower projects.
The shift is quite dramatic. In fiscal 1969, 44 per cent of the budget
went to defense and 34 per cent to human resources. In fiscal 1971, nearly the
reverse is true -- 41 per cent to human resources and 37 per cent to defense.
We must reorder our priorities and advance the cause of reform in this
country or suffer the ravages of far greater violence.
But our aversion to violence should not be the most compelling motive for
righting wrongs wherever we find them.
Our only needful motive should be the rightness of the causes before us.
If we act in the right, as God gives us the power to see the right, we will
come out right in the end.
And we will perceive anew the great truth in the words of Plutarch when he
said:
"Perseverance is more prevailing than violence; and many things which
cannot be overcome when they are taken together, yield themselves up when taken
little by little."
Little by little, we shall work together toward that "perfectibility of
man" in which all Americans believe. Thank you.
###