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
4526313
label
National Retail Merchants Association, Washington, DC, September 17, 1970
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526313
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
National Retail Merchants Association, Washington, DC, September 17, 1970
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Federal budget
Inflation (Finance)
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
Vietnamization
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526313
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1970-09-30
month
9
year
1970
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1970-09-01
month
9
year
1970
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
48ebb622834f50bc
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D30, folder "National Retail Merchants
Association, Washington, DC, September 17, 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
no distribution
moffice Copy
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE NATIONAL RETAIL MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION
7:30 A.M. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1970
AT THE SHERATON PARK HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
FOR RELEASE IN AM's OF THURSDAY, SEPT. 17
Gentlemen, may I extend to you my personal welcome to Washington. You
have come to Washington at an excellent time of year. You have missed our hot
and muggy weather of mid-summer. And you have avoided our August dog-days.
Speaking of dogs, did it ever occur to you that a dog is a lot like a politician.
He manages to win friends and influence people without ever reading Dale Carnegie's
book.
I'm glad you've had your second cup of coffee by this time. That will make
you a lot easier to talk to. And since it's still early in the morning, maybe
you won't be keeping an eye on the clock. Some people say the United States has
become a country of clock-watchers. That's what's wrong with it, they say. My
own experience is that the only one who watches the clock during the coffee break
is the boss.
I wonder how many of you brought the wife along on this trip. I have
always felt that a man who takes his wife to a convention is like a hunter who
takes the game warden along on a hunting trip.
You probably expect me to talk about business this morning--and I do intend
to do just that.
The first thing I want to say is that things can't be too bad because
right now a customer can get almost anything for five bucks down and 12 uneasy
payments.
Seriously, business is getting better. The sales and profits outlook
thoughout the country seems to be improving. Individual income has increased in
recent months, and what we need now is an upsurge in consumer optimism. I
personally believe we will see a gradual but definite resurgence in consumer
spending in the near term.
You will not see a surge in Federal spending, however, despite the efforts
of certain members of the Congress. There is too great a risk of reviving
inflationary forces. I feel certain that President Nixon will impound recklessly
appropriated funds rather than refuel an inflation which now is being dampened
down.
Digitized from Box D30 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
The money supply is likely to rise at no more than a 4 to 5 per cent annual
rate for some time to come. That is the hint given us by the Federal Reserve Board.
The Fed appears determined that overexpansionism be avoided.
However, money is becoming easier. Short-term interest rates already are
down by about one percentage point from the start of the year. And we can now
expect a moderate easing in longterm interest rates. I therefore look for a sharp
advance in residential construction in 1971. And consumer spending for durable
goods including appliances and furniture should accelerate as consumer sentiment
and income improve.
Inflation is definitely slowing down. The cost of living increased at a
seasonally adjusted rate of 0.3 of one per cent in July. That is an annual rate
of 3.7 per cent or only about half of the rate of increase recorded last winter.
At the same time the earnings of the Nations rank and file workers rose
faster than the cost of living in July--for the third consecutive month. This
means the average worker's purchasing power is going up under the present
Administration.
I firmly believe that the Administration's policies of fiscal and monetary
restraint are producing a victory over inflation. This has been the Administration's
game plan all along. It is a game plan which is going to push the ball over the
goal line.
I have predicted that the Administration's policies will slow inflation
down to a 3 per cent rate. I renew that prediction today. As I see it, the
annual rate of consumer price advance will fall from the recent level of 6 per cent
to about 3 1/2 per cent by the end of this year and to 3 per cent by the summer
or fall of 1971.
Meantime profits are turning up and an economic recovery is getting
under way. An upswing in the economy is at hand. An upswing in the economy is
beginning because the Administration's policy of a deliberate anti-inflation
slowdown in the economy has left plenty of room for the economy to expand before
any price strains resume. Our present fiscal and monetary policies are designed
to produce a moderate expansion. That is what we can expect--a moderate expansion
without a rekindling of inflationary fires.
Now that we have turned the corner in the fight against inflation it is
all the more important that Congress refrain from mandatory overspending--refrain
from jeopardizing the economic gains that we have made in our transition from a
wartime to a peacetime economy.
We cannot afford a Congress which adds billions of dollars to the Federal
-3-
budget at a time when American families are fighting inflation at the household
level and trying to live within their means.
This is a time for responsibility--a time for responsibility in domestic
affairs and in foreign affairs as well.
In foreign affairs I feel we have turned the corner into a new era.
This is what Vice-President Agnew was expounding when he made his recent
trip to the countries of the Far East. He was explaining the Nixon Doctrine, the
new foreign policy which can provide the framework for a durable peace. I
believe the Nixon Doctrine is a policy that contains great promise and hope for
future generations.
The Monroe Doctrine said to Europe, "Stay out of the western hemisphere."
The Truman Doctrine said to the Soviet Union, "Stay out of countries that want to
remain non-Communist." The Nixon Doctrine says to non-Communist nations: "Assume
the primary responsibility for staying free, and we will help you do it."
The Monroe, Truman and Nixon Doctrines were enunciated at various turning
points in our history. The Monroe and Truman Doctrines were right for their time;
the Nixon Doctrine is right for our time.
The Nixon Doctrine says: "We shall be faithful to our treaty commitments,
but we shall reduce our involvement and our presence in other nations' affairs."
Our Vietnam policy corresponds with the Nixon Doctrine. It is part and
parcel of it. It fits into a special niche in the general framework of our new
foreign policy.
Today there is much talk about reordering our priorities. We are doing
just that-both domestically and in our foreign affairs.
In 1961, for instance, we spent 48 per cent of our Federal budget for
defense and only 30 per cent for human resources. By 1969, we were still spending
44 per cent for defense and only 34 per cent for human resources. But in President
Nixon's budget for fiscal 1971 these priorities are dramatically reversed. Under
that budget we are spending #1 per cent for human resource programs and only 37
per cent for defense. This is the first time since 1950 that we are spending more
Federal funds on human resource programs than on defense.
One of the priorities that tops everyone's list is getting American
manpower and dollar commitments out of the war in Southeast Asia. Where Americans
disagree about this, the disagreement involves the speed and the circumstances
under which we should withdraw.
When President Nixon took office he was faced with three alternatives
in Vietnam. One was further escalation of the war in an effort to "win" it
-4-
The second was to build up the ability of the South Vietnamese to maintain their
own defense while American forces in Vietnam were withdrawn over a period of
months. The third was immediate withdrawal.
Escalation was out. Patience at home was thin. For that if for no other
reason, escalation was impossible. A policy of escalation would have destroyed
the new Administration before it even got started.
Immediate withdrawal would have destroyed South Vietnam. It would have
turned that nation over to North Vietnam as a reward for Communist aggression.
And it would have caused the collapse of American credibility among other nations
whether it calmed the American people or not.
The President chose the middle course--Vietnamization of the war. This
is a policy which does not write off the previous investment of American lives
and treasure in Vietnam. But it will end the U.S. ground combat role in Southeast
Asia as our allies take over.
It's true the policy of Vietnamization involved the ability of the North
Vietnamese to frustrate the plan. This is why the United States was forced to
make a sweep of the Communist sanctuaries in Cambodia even while a policy of
winding down the war was being followed in Vietnam itself.
The fighting in South Vietnam now has dropped to a very low level.
American casualties are at the lowest point in 3 1/2 years. We have withdrawn
115,000 men from Vietnam and will withdraw another 150,000 by next spring. We
will end our front-line ground combat role in Vietnam by May, 1971.
Vietnamization is not just a word. Those who wanted us to pull out
immediately have been proved wrong even while they continue their calls for
"peace now and never mind the price."
The Cambodian Operation was a tremendous success despite the domestic
furor it caused. The Communists lost vast stores of supplies, a fact which is
reflected in the current low level of fighting in Vietnam. And now the Communists
see a marshalling of South Vietnamese, Cambodian and Thai forces to resist the
reestablishment of Communist sanctuaries in Cambodia while U.S. air power continues
to interdict their supply routes.
Events in Cambodia have not widened the war. It has been an Indochina War
ever since the North Vietnamese violated the neutrality of Laos and Cambodia
to pursue their designs on South Vietnam. What has been widened is the commitment
of the people of Cambodia and Thailand to resist a threat to their own security
which had been tolerated too long.
Now we must place new and fresh emphasis on attempts to gain a negotiated
-5-
peace in Vietnam.
Perhaps a cease-fire and stand-down is the best beginning point, as proposed
recently by a bipartisan group of 14 senators. I would like to see the killing
end and genuine negotiations begin.
But let us be realistic about any cease-fire agreement entered into with
an enemy whose word means nothing. We have seen what happened in the Mideast--
how the Egyptians and Russians took advantage of the cease-fire with Israel to
build surface-to-air missile sites closer to the Suez Canal. We must therefore
make certain that in any standstill agreement in Vietnam there are adequate
guarantees that the cease-fire will not be used to the enemy's advantage. The
enemy could use the cease-fire to achieve military gains unless sufficient
supervision is written into the cease-fire agreement.
The cease-fire must also be the signal for serious discussions in Paris--
not simply a pause which permits the enemy to strengthen himself for renewed and
heavier conflict in the months ahead.
I sense increased confidence among the American people in President Nixon's
handling of the Vietaam problem. I think this is reflected in the recent Senate
defeat of the so-called Amendment to End the War. To me, the Amendment to End
the War was actually an Amendment to Lose the Peace. We will never advance the
cause of peace in the world by agreeing to peace at any price. Neville Chamberlain
did that at Munich in 1939, and this act of craven appeasement led to a horrible
world holocaust.
You can trust President Nixon. His every action in the Presidency has
demonstrated that, and nowhere is this more clear than in his conduct of the
Vietnam War. He has kept every promise he has ever made on Vietnam--on troop
withdrawals, on ending the incursion into Cambodia.
Let us persevere, and we will find that peace with honor is not a light
at the end of a tunnel but an achievable reality. Honor is not just a word. It
is at the root of the entire American experience. It is synonymous with five
other words-the United States of America.
National honor is also synonymous with national conscience, which simply
means "what the American people think is right."
I will gladly rely on what you think is right--you and you and you.
Relying on that national conscience, I do not think America will go wrong. I
freely leave the Nation's future in the hands of its citizens.
# # #
no distribution
a offict Copy
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE NATIONAL RETAIL MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION
7:30 A.M. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1970
AT THE SHERATON PARK HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
FOR RELEASE IN AM's OF THURSDAY, SEPT. 17
Gentlemen, may I extend to you my personal welcome to Washington. You
have come to Washington at an excellent time of year. You have missed our hot
and muggy weather of mid-summer. And you have avoided our August dog-days.
Speaking of dogs, did it ever occur to you that a dog is a lot like a politician.
He manages to win friends and influence people without ever reading Dale Carnegie's
book.
I'm glad you've had your second cup of coffee by this time. That will make
you a lot easier to talk to. And since it's still early in the morning, maybe
you won't be keeping an eye on the clock. Some people say the United States has
become a country of clock-watchers. That's what's wrong with it, they say. My
own experience is that the only one who watches the clock during the coffee break
is the boss.
I wonder how many of you brought the wife along on this trip. I have
always felt that a man who takes his wife to a convention is like a hunter who
takes the game warden along on a hunting trip.
You probably expect me to talk about business this morning--and I do intend
to do just that.
The first thing I want to say is that things can't be too bad because
right now a customer can get almost anything for five bucks down and 12 uneasy
payments.
Seriously, business is getting better. The sales and profits outlook
thoughout the country seems to be improving. Individual income has increased in
recent months, and what we need now is an upsurge in consumer optimism. I
personally believe we will see a gradual but definite resurgence in consumer
spending in the near term.
You will not see a surge in Federal spending, however, despite the efforts
of certain members of the Congress. There is too great a risk of reviving
inflationary forces. I feel certain that President Nixon will impound recklessly
appropriated funds rather than refuel an inflation which now is being dampened
down.
FORD DERALD LIBRARY
-2-
The money supply is likely to rise at no more than a 4 to 5 per cent annual
rate for some time to come. That is the hint given us by the Federal Reserve Board.
The Fed appears determined that overexpansionism be avoided.
However, money is becoming easier. Short-term interest rates already are
down by about one percentage point from the start of the year. And we can now
expect a moderate easing in longterm interest rates. I therefore look for a sharp
advance in residential construction in 1971. And consumer spending for durable
goods including appliances and furniture should accelerate as consumer sentiment
and income improve.
Inflation is definitely slowing down. The cost of living increased at a
seasonally adjusted rate of 0.3 of one per cent in July. That is an annual rate
of 3.7 per cent or only about half of the rate of increase recorded last winter.
At the same time the earnings of the Nations rank and file workers rose
faster than the cost of living in July--for the third consecutive month. This
means the average worker's purchasing power is going up under the present
Administration.
I firmly believe that the Administration's policies of fiscal and monetary
restraint are producing a victory over inflation. This has been the Administration's
game plan all along. It is a game plan which is going to push the ball over the
goal line.
I have predicted that the Administration's policies will slow inflation
down to a 3 per cent rate. I renew that prediction today. As I see it, the
annual rate of consumer price advance will fall from the recent level of 6 per cent
to about 3 1/2 per cent by the end of this year and to 3 per cent by the summer
or fall of 1971.
Meantime profits are turning up and an economic recovery is getting
under way. An upswing in the economy is at hand. An upswing in the economy is
beginning because the Administration's policy of a deliberate anti-inflation
slowdown in the economy has left plenty of room for the economy to expand before
any price strains resume. Our present fiscal and monetary policies are designed
to produce a moderate expansion. That is what we can expect--a moderate expansion
without a rekindling of inflationary fires.
Now that we have turned the corner in the fight against inflation it is
all the more important that Congress refrain from mandatory overspending--refrain
from jeopardizing the economic gains that we have made in our transition from a
wartime to a peacetime economy.
FORD
We cannot afford a Congress which adds billions of dollars to the Federal GLEATE
-3-
budget at a time when American families are fighting inflation at the household
level and trying to live within their means.
This is a time for responsibility--a time for responsibility in domestic
affairs and in foreign affairs as well.
In foreign affairs I feel we have turned the corner into a new era.
This is what Vice-President Agnew was expounding when he made his recent
trip to the countries of the Far East. He was explaining the Nixon Doctrine, the
new foreign policy which can provide the framework for a durable peace. I
believe the Nixon Doctrine is a policy that contains great promise and hope for
future generations.
The Monroe Doctrine said to Europe, "Stay out of the western hemisphere."
The Truman Doctrine said to the Soviet Union, "Stay out of countries that want to
remain non-Communist." The Nixon Doctrine says to non-Communist nations: "Assume
the primary responsibility for staying free, and we will help you do it."
The Monroe, Truman and Nixon Doctrines were enunciated at various turning
points in our history. The Monroe and Truman Doctrines were right for their time;
the Nixon Doctrine is right for our time.
The Nixon Doctrine says: "We shall be faithful to our treaty commitments,
but we shall reduce our involvement and our presence in other nations' affairs."
Our Vietnam policy corresponds with the Nixon Doctrine. It is part and
parcel of it. It fits into a special niche in the general framework of our new
foreign policy.
Today there is much talk about reordering our priorities. We are doing
just that-both domestically and in our foreign affairs.
In 1961, for instance, we spent 48 per cent of our Federal budget for
defense and only 30 per cent for human resources. By 1969, we were still spending
44 per cent for defense and only 34 per cent for human resources. But in President
Nixon's budget for fiscal 1971 these priorities are dramatically reversed. Under
that budget we are spending 41 per cent for human resource programs and only 37
per cent for defense. This is the first time since 1950 that we are spending more
Federal funds on human resource programs than on defense.
One of the priorities that tops everyone's list is getting American
manpower and dollar commitments out of the war in Southeast Asia. Where Americans
disagree about this, the disagreement involves the speed and the circumstances
under which we should withdraw.
When President Nixon took office he was faced with three alternatives
in Vietnam. One was further escalation of the war in an effort to "win" it.
-4-
The second was to build up the ability of the South Vietnamese to maintain their
own defense while American forces in Vietnam were withdrawn over a period of
months. The third was immediate withdrawal.
Escalation was out. Patience at home was thin. For that if for no other
reason, escalation was impossible. A policy of escalation would have destroyed
the new Administration before it even got started.
Immediate withdrawal would have destroyed South Vietnam. It would have
turned that nation over to North Vietnam as a reward for Communist aggression.
And it would have caused the collapse of American credibility among other nations
whether it calmed the American people or not.
The President chose the middle course--Vietnamization of the war. This
is a policy which does not write off the previous investment of American lives
and treasure in Vietnam. But it will end the U.S. ground combat role in Southeast
Asia as our allies take over.
It's true the policy of Vietnamization involved the ability of the North
Vietnamese to frustrate the plan. This is why the United States was forced to
make a sweep of the Communist sanctuaries in Cambodia even while a policy of
winding down the war was being followed in Vietnam itself.
The fighting in South Vietnam now has dropped to a very low level.
American casualties are at the lowest point in 3 1/2 years. We have withdrawn
115,000 men from Vietnam and will withdraw another 150,000 by next spring. We
will end our front-line ground combat role in Vietnam by May, 1971.
Vietnamization is not just a word. Those who wanted us to pull out
immediately have been proved wrong even while they continue their calls for
"peace now and never mind the price."
The Cambodian Operation was a tremendous success despite the domestic
furor it caused. The Communists lost vast stores of supplies, a fact which is
reflected in the current low level of fighting in Vietnam. And now the Communists
see a marshalling of South Vietnamese, Cambodian and Thai forces to resist the
reestablishment of Communist sanctuaries in Cambodia while U.S. air power continues
to interdict their supply routes.
Events in Cambodia have not widened the war. It has been an Indochina War
ever since the North Vietnamese violated the neutrality of Laos and Cambodia
to pursue their designe on South Vietnam. What has been widened is the commitment
of the people of Cambodia and Thailand to resist a threat to their own security
which had been tolerated too long.
Now we must place new and fresh emphasis on attempts to gain a negotiated
FORD LIBRARY
-5-
peace in Vietnam.
Perhaps a cease-fire and stand-down is the best beginning point, as proposed
recently by a bipartisan group of 14 senators. I would like to see the killing
end and genuine negotiations begin.
But let us be realistic about any cease-fire agreement entered into with
an enemy whose word means nothing. We have seen what happened in the Mideast--
how the Egyptians and Russians took advantage of the cease-fire with Israel to
build surface-to-air missile sites closer to the Suez Canal. We must therefore
make certain that in any standstill agreement in Vietnam there are adequate
guarantees that the cease-fire will not be used to the enemy's advantage. The
enemy could use the cease-fire to achieve military gains unless sufficient
supervision is written into the cease-fire agreement.
The cease-fire must also be the signal for serious discussions in Paris--
not simply a pause which permits the enemy to strengthen himself for renewed and
heavier conflict in the months ahead.
I sense increased confidence among the American people in President Nixon's
handling of the Vietnam problem. I think this is reflected in the recent Senate
defeat of the so-called Amendment to End the War. To me, the Amendment to End
the War was actually an Amendment to Lose the Peace. We will never advance the
cause of peace in the world by agreeing to peace at any price. Neville Chamberlain
did that at Munich in 1939, and this act of craven appeasement led to a horrible
world holocaust.
You can trust President Nixon. His every action in the Presidency has
demonstrated that, and nowhere is this more clear than in his conduct of the
Vietnam War. He has kept every promise he has ever made on Vietnam--on troop
withdrawals, on ending the incursion into Cambodia.
Let us persevere, and we will find that peace with honor is not a light
at the end of a tunnel but an achievable reality. Honor is not just a word. It
is at the root of the entire American experience. It is synonymous with five
other words-the United States of America.
National honor is also synonymous with national conscience, which simply
means "what the American people think is right."
I will gladly rely on what you think is right--you and you and you.
Relying on that national conscience, I do not think America will go wrong. I
freely leave the Nation's future in the hands of its citizens.
# # #
GERMLO FORD LIBRABY