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
4526465
label
Opening Statement for Debate, East Grand Rapids High School, East Grand Rapids, MI, November 1, 1972
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526465
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Opening Statement for Debate, East Grand Rapids High School, East Grand Rapids, MI, November 1, 1972
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Department of Defense. 9/18/1947-
Busing for school integration
Campaign debates
Economics
Federal budget
National security
Taxation
Transportation
Unemployment
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
Welfare
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526465
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1972-11-30
month
11
year
1972
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1972-11-01
month
11
year
1972
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
a0c3588aec56726d
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D34, folder "Opening Statement for Debate,
East Grand Rapids High School, East Grand Rapids, MI, November 1, 1972" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Maffice Copy
Suggested opening statement for debate Wednesday, November 1, 1972 at East
Grand Rapids High School.
Two years ago I appeared before you in this same forum and asked you to
look at the issues with the eyes of common sense. Tonight I renew that plea
in the light of 1972 and what has transpired in the last two years.
The Vietnam War is still an issue but it is fast becoming a non-issue.
We have brought back more than a half million men from Vietnam and we have
ended our ground combat role there. Now we are close to ending the Vietnam War
by negotiation
...
ending it in an honorable way and in a way that will allow
the South Vietnamese people to choose their own political future. The negotiated
settlement which is in prospect for Vietnam will bring American prisoners of war
back home and produce an accounting of our men missing in action.
In that connection, let me point out that my opponent in this election
favors an immediate and complete U. S. withdrawal from Vietnam. She probably
assumes that this would mean the return of American prisoners of war, as
Sen. George McGovern also assumes. It turns out that McGovern misinformed the
American people when he told them on October 10 that all French prisoners of war
were returned within 90 days after the French pulled out of Indochina in 1954.
It's just not true. The Library of Congress in Washington estimates that more
than 20,000 French Union forces missing in Indochina are still unaccounted for
today. And at the same time the French Embassy has advised the Library of
Congress that at least 1,000 French POW's are still missing and unaccounted for
from that war.
(more)
QERALOR FORD LIBRARY
Digitized from Box D34 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
This is in addition to the fact that an immediate and complete U. S.
pullout from Vietnam -- a drop-it-all and get-out action -- would simply mean
a surrender of South Vietnam to the Communists and would have a shockingly
adverse impact on U. S. allies all over the world.
My opponent has indicated she shares George McGovern's views -- not only
on Vietnam but on defense cuts. I assume, therefore, that she favors cutting
our defense budget by $32 billion. She would therefore embrace McGovern's formula
for defense of this Nation: Don't wait to negotiate; slash the defense budget;
strip away our strength; cut the Air Force by a third, the Navy by a quarter,
our aircraft carriers from 16 to 6, our Marines by a third; and bring more than
half of our forces in Europe home without even trying to negotiate a mutual force
reduction by the Russians.
McGovern actually has said: "I am convinced that we will some day rue
the phrase, 'negotiate from strength,' as one of the most damaging and dangerous
cliches in the American vocabulary." McGovern must believe it is dangerous to
negotiate from strength because his program would assure that we have no strength
to negotiate from. Is this also the position of my opponent? I believe in peace
through strength. Does my opponent stand with me or with George McGovern?
-- Incidentally, the $32 billion defense cut would eliminate 1.8 million jobs.
My opponent contends that I am not sufficiently interested in cutting the
defense budget where possible. It so happens I voted a few weeks ago to cut the
fiscal 1973 defense budget by $5.2 billion. But this didn't cut into the muscle
of our defense. I would have fought that.
(more)
-3-
What about the McGovern and McKee cut of $32 billion in defense funds?
McGovern says this would be "cutting the fat and waste out of our military
spending." And I assume Mrs. McKee agrees with him. What was Sen. Hubert
Humphrey's response to that during the Democratic presidential primary? Said
Hubert Humphrey: "I submit that the McGovern defense proposal cuts into the
very muscle of our defense. It isn't just cutting into waste; it isn't just
cutting into manpower. It's cutting into the very security of this country."
On this issue, I agree with Hubert Humphrey.
McGovern also favors a general amnesty for draft dodgers. I favor handling
this matter on a case-by-case basis and requiring every man who has shirked his
military duty to do two years of service in a peacetime capacity. Does my
opponent stand with me or with Sen. McGovern?
Let's turn now to domestic affairs. What has happened on the domestic
scene?
The Nixon Administration inherited 6 per cent inflation. The Administration
has cut inflation in half.
It's true that unemployment was at a rate of less than 4 per cent in 1968.
But the unemployment rate was low because we had 540,000 men in Vietnam,
3.5 million men in the military overall, and a boom in our defense plants.
We have reduced our forces in Vietnam to 34,000, have cut the size of our
armed forces overall to 2.3 million, and throttled back our defense plant
spending
thus eliminating 1.3 million defense-related jobs.
Despite this movement toward a peacetime economy, employment is at an
(more)
GERALD R. LIDRARY FORD
-4-
alltime high -- 82 million. We have generated 2.6 million jobs in just the last
12 months, the highest 12-month creation of jobs since 1955.
Unemployment is still too high but this is because of extraordinary
increases in the labor force. And unemployment is edging down while the economy
continues to exhibit solid, sound steady growth. Real growth this year will
easily top the Administration's prediction of 6 per cent.
What about Sen. McGovern's promise that if elected he would immediately
spend $10 billion to create 2 million jobs? Anyone knows that the projects
McGovern talks about would require many months of planning and would involve
deficit spending. And these jobs would simply offset the loss of jobs through
his defense cuts. By contrast, the Administration's new economic policy is
expanding the economy and building permanent new jobs.
My opponent is fond of talking about national priorities, asserting that
far too many dollars are going into national defense and too few into people
programs. The facts are that in 1968 defense spending totalled 39 per cent of
the budget -- that's while a Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, was President -- and in
fiscal 1973 defense spending takes only 30 per cent of the budget. At the same
time, outlays for human resources rose from 32 per cent of the budget in 1968
to 45 per cent in fiscal 1973. So a far larger chunk of the budget now is going
into human resource programs than into defense. And this shift in priorities
occurred under the present Administration.
My opponent talks about cost overruns, as though that's where all of
the defense money is going. In the first place, it was the previous Administration
(more)
-5-
which negotiated the contracts which resulted in the cost overruns. Also, more
than half of the Department of Defense budget - fully 56 per cent -- now is
people-related and not weapons-oriented. That compares with only 43 per cent
of the budget for personnel in fiscal 1964. In that 9-year period, manpower
costs have risen by $20.8 billion, nearly double the 1964 level. Other costs have
risen only 17 per cent.
Speaking of priorities, let me reiterate my resolve that the Highway Trust
Fund be kept intact. We should keep the Highway Trust Fund 100 per cent for
highways until we have eliminated every death trap like old US-131, here and
throughout the country. Meantime, we can and should provide sufficient funds for
our mass transit needs. In just the last 20 months, Grand Rapids has received
$400,000 in Federal aid for mass transit and on January 1 a program of
transportation on demand is going to start in the Inner City. Meantime a study
is being made of transportation needs of our elderly, and I am sure the resulting
program will be funded. We can get rid of our highway death traps and bottlenecks
and still meet our public transportation needs. In that connection, let me point
out that mass transit is one of the purposes for which Federal revenue sharing
allocations to local units of government can be used. And Grand Rapids will be
receiving roughly $2.7 million a year under revenue sharing.
Speaking of transportation, what about busing? And by that I mean forced
busing to achieve racial balance. My opponent says forced busing is a non-issue,
that the real question is one of complying with the 1964 Supreme Court ruling on
integration. I am opposed to busing for whatever reason. I favor the concept of
(more)
-6-
the neighborhood school. When a family buys a house in a particular neighborhood,
one of the reasons is that they want their children to go to school there. They
are entitled to have their children go to school there. Forced busing to achieve
racial balance is wrong. As you know, the United States Senate killed an
anti-busing bill passed by the House. This demonstrated that a Democratic-controlled
Congress is willing to defy the will of the majority of the American people on
this issue. Public opinion polls have shown that nearly 80 per cent of the
American people oppose forced busing of children to achieve racial balance in
the schools. It was the ultra-liberals in the Senate, the supporters of George
McGovern, who killed the anti-busing bill by filibustering it to death. Does my
opponent stand with George McGovern and those ultra-liberals on busing, or with
me?
What about welfare? George McGovern would greatly expand welfare rolls
and the costs of welfare and double the average citizen's taxes to pay for it.
I favor the Administration's workfare plan, designed to shift people from the
welfare rolls onto payrolls. McGovern originally embraced the Welfare Rights
Organization's proposal a guaranteed $6,500 a year minimum income which he
introduced in the National Welfare Rights Organization bill. He backed away
from that just as he backed away from his $1,000 for everybody scheme. Now he's
for $1,000 for everybody on welfare -- $4,000 for a family of four. Is my
opponent for that?
McGovern's for a lot of other things, too. In fact, taxes would have to
be increased by 46 to 100 per cent for all families with incomes of $12,000 or
(more)
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
-7-
more to balance the McGovern budget. The McGovern program would have an
especially severe tax impact on single individuals and small families.
But McGovern says he would just take it out of the hides of the rich.
That's a phony. McGovern wouldn't just wipe out the rich. He'd wipe out Middle
America. Is my opponent for that?
McGovern keeps talking about tax reform. I'm for tax reform. Isn't
everybody? The Democrats have been in control of the Congress for 36 of the last
40 years, and if we still need tax reform then the Democrats have falle down
on the job. We passed a Tax Reform Act in 1969. Within 90 days of his
inauguration, the President submitted major and fundamental tax reforms to
Congress. We are now beginning to see the effects of the 1969 Tax Reform Act.
In the last 3½ years, individual income taxes have declined by $22 billion.
Citizens in the lowest economic brackets have received major relief. For
example, a family of four with a $5,000 annual income has received a tax cut
of 66 per cent -- from $290 paid in 1969 to only $98 in 1972. Similarly, a
family of four with a $10,000-a-year income received a tax cut of 26 per cent --
from $1,225 paid in 1969 to $905 in 1972.
Excise taxes, which tend to hurt most those in the lower income brackets,
have declined $3.5 billion since 1969. This includes taxes on telephones and
cars.
Corporate taxes have increased by nearly $5 billion.
It is the individual citizen who has been relieved of some of the burden
of his Federal taxes.
(more)
-8-
Those who attack so-called tax loopholes must look at the effect some of
their proposals would have on individuals and the community. What about the
fact that the interest on municipal bonds is tax-free? If it were not, local
units of government would have to pay higher interest charges on the money they
borrow by selling such bonds, and the taxpayer would have to ante up to pay the
difference. What about the deduction for charitable contributions? What would
happen to many hospitals and community agencies if contributions to them were
not tax-deductible?
Tax reform needs an honest and calm evaluation by Congress -- not the
highly political election-year rhetoric we have been hearing.
Summing up, the key issues in any election campaign are peace and
prosperity.
I submit that the best path to peace is the path being taken by the present
Administration -- the path to an honorable peace in Vietnam, the path to a
detente with the major Communist powers in the world. We already have the SALT
agreement with Russia and the opening of communications with China as markers on
this path to peace.
The best proof that we are heading into prosperity is the Administration's
dividend of an extra 1½ paychecks for the American working man. By that I mean
the working man's real spendable earnings
how much he has left over after
reductions due to inflation and taxes.
Over the last four years of the Democratic Administration, the working
man's real spendable earnings rose by $1.19 per week -- from $90.32 to $91.51.
(more)
FORD LIBRARY "y BERRLD
-9-
If that same rate had continued, the working man would have gained another $1.08
by July of this year.
Instead, under the present Administration's economic policies, the working
man gained an additional $4.18 per week. That's an additional $161.20 on an
annual basis.
The present Administration's economic policies have paid off for the
working man in buying power -- an extra 1½ paycheck's worth. The President's
policies are working.
These are the issues. This is the record. I stand on it. I am proud
of it.
###
GERALD LISAVER TORD
Suggested opening statement for debate Wednesday, November 1,
a affice 1972 at East Copy
Grand Rapids High School.
Two years ago I appeared before you in this same forum and asked you to
OOK At the issues with the eyes of common sense. Tonight I renew that plea
the light of 1972 and what has transpired in the last two years.
The Vietnam War is still an issue but it is fast becoming a non-issue.
We have brought back more than a half million men from Vietnam and we have
ended our ground combat role there. Now we are close to ending the Vietnam War
by negotiation
ending it in an honorable way and in a way that will allow
the South Vietnamese people to choose their own political future. The negotiated
settlement which is in prospect for Vietnam will bring American prisoners of war
back home and produce an accounting of our men missing in action.
In that connection, let me point out that my opponent in this election
favors an immediate and complete U. S. withdrawal from Vietnam. She probably
assumes that this would mean the return of American prisoners of war, as
Sen. George McGovern also assumes. It turns out that McGovern misinformed the
American people when he told them on October 10 that all French prisoners of war
were returned within 90 days after the French pulled out of Indochina in 1954.
It's just not true. The Library of Congress in Washington estimates that more
than 20,000 French Union forces missing in Indochina are still unaccounted for
today. And at the same time the French Embassy has advised the Library of
Congress that at least 1,000 French POW's are still missing and unaccounted for
from that war.
(more)
GERALD FORD LIBBARY
-2-
This is in addition to the fact that an immediate and complete U. S.
pullout from Vietnam -- a drop-it-all and get-out action -- would simply mean
a surrender of South Vietnam to the Communists and would have a shockingly
adverse impact on U. S. allies all over the world.
My opponent has indicated she shares George McGovern's views - not only
on Vietnam but on defense cuts. I assume, therefore, that she favors cutting
our defense budget by $32 billion. She would therefore embrace McGovern's formula
for defense of this Nation: Don't wait to negotiate; slash the defense budget;
strip away our strength; cut the Air Force by a third, the Navy by a quarter,
our aircraft carriers from 16 to 6, our Marines by a third; and bring more than
half of our forces in Europe home ithout even trying to negotiate a mutual force
reduction by the Russians.
McGovern actually has said; "I am convinced that we will some day rue
the phrase, 'negotiate from strength,' as one of the most damaging and dangerous
cliches in the American vocabulary." McGovern must believe it is dangerous to
negotiate from strength because his program would assure that we have no strength
to negotiate from. Is this also the position of my opponent? I believe in peace
through strength. Does my opponent stand with me or with George McGovern?
-- Incidentally, the $32 billion defense cut would eliminate 1.8 million jobs.
My opponent contends that I am not sufficiently interested in cutting the
defense budget where possible. It so happens I voted a few weeks ago to cut the
fiscal 1973 defense budget by $5.2 billion. But this didn't cut into the muscle
of our defense. I would have fought that.
(more)
-3-,
What about the McGovern and McKee cut of-$32 billion in defense funds?
McGovern says this would be "cutting the fat and waste out of our military
spending. And I assume Mrs. McKee agrees with him. What was Sen. Hubert
Humphrey's response to that during the Democratic presidential primary? Said
Hubert Humphrey: "I submit that the McGovern defense proposal cuts into the
very muscle of our defense. It isn't just cutting into waste; it isn't just
cutting into manpower. It's cutting into the very security of this country."
On this issue, I agree with Hubert Humphrey.
McGovern also favors a general amnesty for draft dodgers. I favor handling
this matter on a case-by-case basis and requiring every man who has shirked his
military duty to do two years of service in a peacetime capacity. Does my
opponent stand with me or with Sen. McGovern?
Let's turn now to domestic. affairs. What has happened on the domestic
scene?
The Nixon Administration inherited 6 per cent inflation. The Administration
has cut inflation in half.
It's true that unemployment was at a rate of less than 4 per cent in 1968.
But the unemployment rate was low because we had 540,000 men in Vietnam,
3.5 million men in the military overall, and a boom in our defense plants.
We have reduced our forces in Vietnam to 34,000, have cut the size of our
armed forces overall to 2.3 million, and throttled back our defense plant
spending
thus eliminating 1.3 million defense-related jobs.
Despite this movement toward a peacetime economy, employment is at an
(more)
BERALD FORD RART
alltime high -- 82 million. We have generated 2.6 million jobs in just the last
12 months, the highest 12-month creation of jobs since 1955.
Unemployment is still too high but this is because of extraordinary
increases in the labor force. And unemployment is edging down while the economy
continues to exhibit solid, sound steady growth. Real growth this year will
easily top the Administration's prediction of 6 per cent.
What about Sen. McGovern's promise that if elected he would immediately
spend $10 billion to create 2 million jobs? Anyone knows that the projects
McGovern talks about would require many months of planning and would involve
deficit spending. And these jobs would simply offset the loss of jobs through
his defense cuts. By contrast, the Administration's new economic policy is
expanding the economy and building permanent new jobs.
My opponent is fond of talking about national priorities, asserting that
far too many dollars are going into national defense and too few into people
programs. The facts are that in 1968 defense spending totalled 39 per cent of
the budget -- that's while a Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, was President -T and in
fiscal 1973 defense spending takes only 30 per cent of the budget. At the same
time, outlays for human resources rose from 32 per cent of the budget in 1968
to 45 per cent in fiscal 1973. So a far larger chunk of the budget now is going
into human resource programs than into defense: And this shift in priorities
occurred under the present Administration.
My opponent talks about cost overruns, as though that's where all of
the defense money is going. In the first place, it was the previous Administration
(more)
GERALD
-5-
which negotiated the contracts which resulted in the cost overruns. Also, more
than half of the Department of Defense budget LL fully 56 per cent -- now is
people-related and not weapons-oriented, That compares with only 43 per cent
of the budget for personnel in fiscal 1964. In that 9-year period, manpower
costs have risen by $20.8 billion, nearly double the 1964 level, Other costs have
risen only 17 per cent.
Speaking of priorities, let me reiterate my resolve that the Highway Trust
Fund be kept intact. We should keep the Highway Trust Fund 100 per cent for
highways until we have eliminated every death trap like old US-131, here and
throughout the country. Meantime, we can and should provide sufficient funds for
our mass transit needs. In just the last 20 months, Grand Rapids has received
$400,000 in Federal aid for mass transit and on January 1 a program of
transportation on demand is going to start in the Inner City. Meantime a study
is being made of transportation needs of our elderly, and I am sure the resulting
program will be funded. We can get rid of our highway death traps and bottlenecks
and still meet our public transportation needs. In that connection, let me point
out that mass transit is one of the purposes for which Federal revenue sharing
allocations to local units of government can be used. And Grand Rapids will be
receiving roughly $2.7 million a year under revenue sharing.
Speaking of transportation, what about busing? And by that I mean forced
busing to achieve racial balance. My opponent says forced busing is a non-issue,
that the real question is one of complying with the 1964 Supreme Court ruling on
integration. I am opposed to busing for whatever reason. I favor the concept of
(more)
GERALD FORD
the neighborhood school. When a family buys a house in a particular neighborhood,
one of the reasons is that they want their children to go to school there. They
are entitled to have their children go to school there. Forced busing to achieve
racial balance is wrong. As you know, the United States Senate killed an
anti-busing bill passed by the House, This demonstrated that a Democratic-controlled
Congress is willing to defy the will of the majority of the American people on
this issue. Public opinion polls have shown that nearly 80 per cent of the
American people oppose forced busing of children to achieve racial balance in
the schools. It was the ultra-liberals in the Senate, the supporters of George
McGovern, who killed the anti-busing bill by filibustering it to death. Does my
opponent stand with George McGovern and those ultra-liberals on busing, or with
me?
What about welfare? George McGovern would greatly expand welfare rolls
and the costs of welfare and double the average citizen's taxes to pay for it.
I favor the Administration's workfare plan, designed to shift people from the
welfare rolls onto payrolls. McGovern originally embraced the Welfare Rights
Organization's proposal a guaranteed $6,500 a year minimum income which he
introduced in the National Welfare Rights Organization bill. He backed away
from that just as he backed away from his $1,000 for everybody scheme. Now he's
for $1,000 for everybody on welfare -- $4,000 for a family of four. Is my
opponent for that?
McGovern's for a lot of other things, too. In fact, taxes would have to
be increased by 46 to 100 per cent for all families with incomes of $12,000 or
(more)
FORD LIBRARY
-7-
more to balance the McGovern budget. The McGovern program would have an
especially severe tax impact on single individuals and small families.
But McGovern says he would just take it out of the hides of the rich.
That's a phony. McGovern wouldn't just wipe out the rich. He'd wipe out Middle
America. Is my opponent for that?
McGovern keeps talking about tax reform. I'm for tax reform. Isn't
everybody? The Democrats have been in control of the Congress for 36 of the last
40 years, and if we still need tax reform then the Democrats have falle down
on the job. We passed a Tax Reform Act in 1969. Within 90 days of his
inauguration, the President submitted major and fundamental tax reforms to
Congress. We are now beginning to see the effects of the 1969 Tax Reform Act.
In the last 3½ years, individual income taxes have declined by $22 billion.
Citizens in the lowest economic brackets have received major relief. For
example, a family of four with a $5,000 annual income has received a tax cut
of 66 per cent from $290 paid in 1969 to only $98 in 1972. Similarly, a
family of four with a $10,000-a-year income received a tax cut of 26 per cent --
from $1,225 paid in 1969 to $905 in 1972.
Excise taxes, which tend to hurt most those in the lower income brackets,
have declined $3.5 billion since 1969. This includes taxes on telephones and
cars.
Corporate taxes have increased by nearly! $5 billion.
It is the individual citizen who has been relieved of some of the burden
of his Federal taxes.
(more)
FORD LIBRARY GERVID
-8-
Those who attack so-called tax loopholes/must look at the effect some of
their proposals would have on individuals and the community. What about the
fact that the interest on municipal bonds is tax-free? If it were not, local
units of government would have to pay higher interest charges on the money they
borrow by selling such bonds, and the taxpayer would have to ante up to pay the
difference. What about the deduction for charitable contributions? What would
happen to many hospitals and community agencies if contributions to them were
not tax-deductible?
Tax reform needs an honest and calm evaluation by Congress -- not the
highly political election-year rhetoric we have been hearing.
Summing up, the key issues in any election campaign are peace and
prosperity.
I submit that the best path to peace is the path being taken by the present
Administration -- the path to an honorable peace in Vietnam, the path to a
detente with the major Communist powers in the world. We already have the SALT
agreement with Russia and the opening of communications with China as markers on
this path to peace.
The best proof that we are heading into prosperity is the Administration's
dividend of an extra 1½ paychecks for the American working man. By that I mean
the working man's real spendable earnings
how much he has left over after
reductions due to inflation and taxes.
Over the last four years of the Democratic Administration, the working
man's real spendable earnings rose by $1.19 per week from $90.32 to $91.51.
(more)
BERALOR FORD GIBRABY
-9-
If that same rate had continued, the working man would have gained another $1.08
by July of this year.
Instead, under the present Administration's economic policies, the working
man gained an additional $4.18 per week. That's an additional $161.20 on an
annual basis.
The present Administration's economic policies have paid off for the
working man in buying power -- an extra 1½ paycheck's worth. The President's
policies are working.
These are the issues. This is the record. I stand on it. I am proud
of it.
]
# # #
FORD LIBRARY