Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4526465",
    "label": "Opening Statement for Debate, East Grand Rapids   High School, East Grand Rapids, MI, November 1, 1972",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526465"
}

{
    "id": "4526465",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526465",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Opening Statement for Debate, East Grand Rapids   High School, East Grand Rapids, MI, November 1, 1972",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526465",
    "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": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526465.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526465.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526465.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526465",
    "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"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526465.pdf",
    "mediaId": "a0c3588aec56726d",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box D34, folder \"Opening Statement for Debate,\nEast Grand Rapids High School, East Grand Rapids, MI, November 1, 1972\" of the Ford\nCongressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential\nLibrary.\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.\nMaffice Copy\nSuggested opening statement for debate Wednesday, November 1, 1972 at East\nGrand Rapids High School.\nTwo years ago I appeared before you in this same forum and asked you to\nlook at the issues with the eyes of common sense. Tonight I renew that plea\nin the light of 1972 and what has transpired in the last two years.\nThe Vietnam War is still an issue but it is fast becoming a non-issue.\nWe have brought back more than a half million men from Vietnam and we have\nended our ground combat role there. Now we are close to ending the Vietnam War\nby negotiation\n...\nending it in an honorable way and in a way that will allow\nthe South Vietnamese people to choose their own political future. The negotiated\nsettlement which is in prospect for Vietnam will bring American prisoners of war\nback home and produce an accounting of our men missing in action.\nIn that connection, let me point out that my opponent in this election\nfavors an immediate and complete U. S. withdrawal from Vietnam. She probably\nassumes that this would mean the return of American prisoners of war, as\nSen. George McGovern also assumes. It turns out that McGovern misinformed the\nAmerican people when he told them on October 10 that all French prisoners of war\nwere returned within 90 days after the French pulled out of Indochina in 1954.\nIt's just not true. The Library of Congress in Washington estimates that more\nthan 20,000 French Union forces missing in Indochina are still unaccounted for\ntoday. And at the same time the French Embassy has advised the Library of\nCongress that at least 1,000 French POW's are still missing and unaccounted for\nfrom that war.\n(more)\nQERALOR FORD LIBRARY\nDigitized from Box D34 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\n-2-\nThis is in addition to the fact that an immediate and complete U. S.\npullout from Vietnam -- a drop-it-all and get-out action -- would simply mean\na surrender of South Vietnam to the Communists and would have a shockingly\nadverse impact on U. S. allies all over the world.\nMy opponent has indicated she shares George McGovern's views -- not only\non Vietnam but on defense cuts. I assume, therefore, that she favors cutting\nour defense budget by $32 billion. She would therefore embrace McGovern's formula\nfor defense of this Nation: Don't wait to negotiate; slash the defense budget;\nstrip away our strength; cut the Air Force by a third, the Navy by a quarter,\nour aircraft carriers from 16 to 6, our Marines by a third; and bring more than\nhalf of our forces in Europe home without even trying to negotiate a mutual force\nreduction by the Russians.\nMcGovern actually has said: \"I am convinced that we will some day rue\nthe phrase, 'negotiate from strength,' as one of the most damaging and dangerous\ncliches in the American vocabulary.\" McGovern must believe it is dangerous to\nnegotiate from strength because his program would assure that we have no strength\nto negotiate from. Is this also the position of my opponent? I believe in peace\nthrough strength. Does my opponent stand with me or with George McGovern?\n-- Incidentally, the $32 billion defense cut would eliminate 1.8 million jobs.\nMy opponent contends that I am not sufficiently interested in cutting the\ndefense budget where possible. It so happens I voted a few weeks ago to cut the\nfiscal 1973 defense budget by $5.2 billion. But this didn't cut into the muscle\nof our defense. I would have fought that.\n(more)\n-3-\nWhat about the McGovern and McKee cut of $32 billion in defense funds?\nMcGovern says this would be \"cutting the fat and waste out of our military\nspending.\" And I assume Mrs. McKee agrees with him. What was Sen. Hubert\nHumphrey's response to that during the Democratic presidential primary? Said\nHubert Humphrey: \"I submit that the McGovern defense proposal cuts into the\nvery muscle of our defense. It isn't just cutting into waste; it isn't just\ncutting into manpower. It's cutting into the very security of this country.\"\nOn this issue, I agree with Hubert Humphrey.\nMcGovern also favors a general amnesty for draft dodgers. I favor handling\nthis matter on a case-by-case basis and requiring every man who has shirked his\nmilitary duty to do two years of service in a peacetime capacity. Does my\nopponent stand with me or with Sen. McGovern?\nLet's turn now to domestic affairs. What has happened on the domestic\nscene?\nThe Nixon Administration inherited 6 per cent inflation. The Administration\nhas cut inflation in half.\nIt's true that unemployment was at a rate of less than 4 per cent in 1968.\nBut the unemployment rate was low because we had 540,000 men in Vietnam,\n3.5 million men in the military overall, and a boom in our defense plants.\nWe have reduced our forces in Vietnam to 34,000, have cut the size of our\narmed forces overall to 2.3 million, and throttled back our defense plant\nspending\nthus eliminating 1.3 million defense-related jobs.\nDespite this movement toward a peacetime economy, employment is at an\n(more)\nGERALD R. LIDRARY FORD\n-4-\nalltime high -- 82 million. We have generated 2.6 million jobs in just the last\n12 months, the highest 12-month creation of jobs since 1955.\nUnemployment is still too high but this is because of extraordinary\nincreases in the labor force. And unemployment is edging down while the economy\ncontinues to exhibit solid, sound steady growth. Real growth this year will\neasily top the Administration's prediction of 6 per cent.\nWhat about Sen. McGovern's promise that if elected he would immediately\nspend $10 billion to create 2 million jobs? Anyone knows that the projects\nMcGovern talks about would require many months of planning and would involve\ndeficit spending. And these jobs would simply offset the loss of jobs through\nhis defense cuts. By contrast, the Administration's new economic policy is\nexpanding the economy and building permanent new jobs.\nMy opponent is fond of talking about national priorities, asserting that\nfar too many dollars are going into national defense and too few into people\nprograms. The facts are that in 1968 defense spending totalled 39 per cent of\nthe budget -- that's while a Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, was President -- and in\nfiscal 1973 defense spending takes only 30 per cent of the budget. At the same\ntime, outlays for human resources rose from 32 per cent of the budget in 1968\nto 45 per cent in fiscal 1973. So a far larger chunk of the budget now is going\ninto human resource programs than into defense. And this shift in priorities\noccurred under the present Administration.\nMy opponent talks about cost overruns, as though that's where all of\nthe defense money is going. In the first place, it was the previous Administration\n(more)\n-5-\nwhich negotiated the contracts which resulted in the cost overruns. Also, more\nthan half of the Department of Defense budget - fully 56 per cent -- now is\npeople-related and not weapons-oriented. That compares with only 43 per cent\nof the budget for personnel in fiscal 1964. In that 9-year period, manpower\ncosts have risen by $20.8 billion, nearly double the 1964 level. Other costs have\nrisen only 17 per cent.\nSpeaking of priorities, let me reiterate my resolve that the Highway Trust\nFund be kept intact. We should keep the Highway Trust Fund 100 per cent for\nhighways until we have eliminated every death trap like old US-131, here and\nthroughout the country. Meantime, we can and should provide sufficient funds for\nour mass transit needs. In just the last 20 months, Grand Rapids has received\n$400,000 in Federal aid for mass transit and on January 1 a program of\ntransportation on demand is going to start in the Inner City. Meantime a study\nis being made of transportation needs of our elderly, and I am sure the resulting\nprogram will be funded. We can get rid of our highway death traps and bottlenecks\nand still meet our public transportation needs. In that connection, let me point\nout that mass transit is one of the purposes for which Federal revenue sharing\nallocations to local units of government can be used. And Grand Rapids will be\nreceiving roughly $2.7 million a year under revenue sharing.\nSpeaking of transportation, what about busing? And by that I mean forced\nbusing to achieve racial balance. My opponent says forced busing is a non-issue,\nthat the real question is one of complying with the 1964 Supreme Court ruling on\nintegration. I am opposed to busing for whatever reason. I favor the concept of\n(more)\n-6-\nthe neighborhood school. When a family buys a house in a particular neighborhood,\none of the reasons is that they want their children to go to school there. They\nare entitled to have their children go to school there. Forced busing to achieve\nracial balance is wrong. As you know, the United States Senate killed an\nanti-busing bill passed by the House. This demonstrated that a Democratic-controlled\nCongress is willing to defy the will of the majority of the American people on\nthis issue. Public opinion polls have shown that nearly 80 per cent of the\nAmerican people oppose forced busing of children to achieve racial balance in\nthe schools. It was the ultra-liberals in the Senate, the supporters of George\nMcGovern, who killed the anti-busing bill by filibustering it to death. Does my\nopponent stand with George McGovern and those ultra-liberals on busing, or with\nme?\nWhat about welfare? George McGovern would greatly expand welfare rolls\nand the costs of welfare and double the average citizen's taxes to pay for it.\nI favor the Administration's workfare plan, designed to shift people from the\nwelfare rolls onto payrolls. McGovern originally embraced the Welfare Rights\nOrganization's proposal a guaranteed $6,500 a year minimum income which he\nintroduced in the National Welfare Rights Organization bill. He backed away\nfrom that just as he backed away from his $1,000 for everybody scheme. Now he's\nfor $1,000 for everybody on welfare -- $4,000 for a family of four. Is my\nopponent for that?\nMcGovern's for a lot of other things, too. In fact, taxes would have to\nbe increased by 46 to 100 per cent for all families with incomes of $12,000 or\n(more)\nGERALD LIBRARY FORD\n-7-\nmore to balance the McGovern budget. The McGovern program would have an\nespecially severe tax impact on single individuals and small families.\nBut McGovern says he would just take it out of the hides of the rich.\nThat's a phony. McGovern wouldn't just wipe out the rich. He'd wipe out Middle\nAmerica. Is my opponent for that?\nMcGovern keeps talking about tax reform. I'm for tax reform. Isn't\neverybody? The Democrats have been in control of the Congress for 36 of the last\n40 years, and if we still need tax reform then the Democrats have falle down\non the job. We passed a Tax Reform Act in 1969. Within 90 days of his\ninauguration, the President submitted major and fundamental tax reforms to\nCongress. We are now beginning to see the effects of the 1969 Tax Reform Act.\nIn the last 3½ years, individual income taxes have declined by $22 billion.\nCitizens in the lowest economic brackets have received major relief. For\nexample, a family of four with a $5,000 annual income has received a tax cut\nof 66 per cent -- from $290 paid in 1969 to only $98 in 1972. Similarly, a\nfamily of four with a $10,000-a-year income received a tax cut of 26 per cent --\nfrom $1,225 paid in 1969 to $905 in 1972.\nExcise taxes, which tend to hurt most those in the lower income brackets,\nhave declined $3.5 billion since 1969. This includes taxes on telephones and\ncars.\nCorporate taxes have increased by nearly $5 billion.\nIt is the individual citizen who has been relieved of some of the burden\nof his Federal taxes.\n(more)\n-8-\nThose who attack so-called tax loopholes must look at the effect some of\ntheir proposals would have on individuals and the community. What about the\nfact that the interest on municipal bonds is tax-free? If it were not, local\nunits of government would have to pay higher interest charges on the money they\nborrow by selling such bonds, and the taxpayer would have to ante up to pay the\ndifference. What about the deduction for charitable contributions? What would\nhappen to many hospitals and community agencies if contributions to them were\nnot tax-deductible?\nTax reform needs an honest and calm evaluation by Congress -- not the\nhighly political election-year rhetoric we have been hearing.\nSumming up, the key issues in any election campaign are peace and\nprosperity.\nI submit that the best path to peace is the path being taken by the present\nAdministration -- the path to an honorable peace in Vietnam, the path to a\ndetente with the major Communist powers in the world. We already have the SALT\nagreement with Russia and the opening of communications with China as markers on\nthis path to peace.\nThe best proof that we are heading into prosperity is the Administration's\ndividend of an extra 1½ paychecks for the American working man. By that I mean\nthe working man's real spendable earnings\nhow much he has left over after\nreductions due to inflation and taxes.\nOver the last four years of the Democratic Administration, the working\nman's real spendable earnings rose by $1.19 per week -- from $90.32 to $91.51.\n(more)\nFORD LIBRARY \"y BERRLD\n-9-\nIf that same rate had continued, the working man would have gained another $1.08\nby July of this year.\nInstead, under the present Administration's economic policies, the working\nman gained an additional $4.18 per week. That's an additional $161.20 on an\nannual basis.\nThe present Administration's economic policies have paid off for the\nworking man in buying power -- an extra 1½ paycheck's worth. The President's\npolicies are working.\nThese are the issues. This is the record. I stand on it. I am proud\nof it.\n###\nGERALD LISAVER TORD\nSuggested opening statement for debate Wednesday, November 1,\na affice 1972 at East Copy\nGrand Rapids High School.\nTwo years ago I appeared before you in this same forum and asked you to\nOOK At the issues with the eyes of common sense. Tonight I renew that plea\nthe light of 1972 and what has transpired in the last two years.\nThe Vietnam War is still an issue but it is fast becoming a non-issue.\nWe have brought back more than a half million men from Vietnam and we have\nended our ground combat role there. Now we are close to ending the Vietnam War\nby negotiation\nending it in an honorable way and in a way that will allow\nthe South Vietnamese people to choose their own political future. The negotiated\nsettlement which is in prospect for Vietnam will bring American prisoners of war\nback home and produce an accounting of our men missing in action.\nIn that connection, let me point out that my opponent in this election\nfavors an immediate and complete U. S. withdrawal from Vietnam. She probably\nassumes that this would mean the return of American prisoners of war, as\nSen. George McGovern also assumes. It turns out that McGovern misinformed the\nAmerican people when he told them on October 10 that all French prisoners of war\nwere returned within 90 days after the French pulled out of Indochina in 1954.\nIt's just not true. The Library of Congress in Washington estimates that more\nthan 20,000 French Union forces missing in Indochina are still unaccounted for\ntoday. And at the same time the French Embassy has advised the Library of\nCongress that at least 1,000 French POW's are still missing and unaccounted for\nfrom that war.\n(more)\nGERALD FORD LIBBARY\n-2-\nThis is in addition to the fact that an immediate and complete U. S.\npullout from Vietnam -- a drop-it-all and get-out action -- would simply mean\na surrender of South Vietnam to the Communists and would have a shockingly\nadverse impact on U. S. allies all over the world.\nMy opponent has indicated she shares George McGovern's views - not only\non Vietnam but on defense cuts. I assume, therefore, that she favors cutting\nour defense budget by $32 billion. She would therefore embrace McGovern's formula\nfor defense of this Nation: Don't wait to negotiate; slash the defense budget;\nstrip away our strength; cut the Air Force by a third, the Navy by a quarter,\nour aircraft carriers from 16 to 6, our Marines by a third; and bring more than\nhalf of our forces in Europe home ithout even trying to negotiate a mutual force\nreduction by the Russians.\nMcGovern actually has said; \"I am convinced that we will some day rue\nthe phrase, 'negotiate from strength,' as one of the most damaging and dangerous\ncliches in the American vocabulary.\" McGovern must believe it is dangerous to\nnegotiate from strength because his program would assure that we have no strength\nto negotiate from. Is this also the position of my opponent? I believe in peace\nthrough strength. Does my opponent stand with me or with George McGovern?\n-- Incidentally, the $32 billion defense cut would eliminate 1.8 million jobs.\nMy opponent contends that I am not sufficiently interested in cutting the\ndefense budget where possible. It so happens I voted a few weeks ago to cut the\nfiscal 1973 defense budget by $5.2 billion. But this didn't cut into the muscle\nof our defense. I would have fought that.\n(more)\n-3-,\nWhat about the McGovern and McKee cut of-$32 billion in defense funds?\nMcGovern says this would be \"cutting the fat and waste out of our military\nspending. And I assume Mrs. McKee agrees with him. What was Sen. Hubert\nHumphrey's response to that during the Democratic presidential primary? Said\nHubert Humphrey: \"I submit that the McGovern defense proposal cuts into the\nvery muscle of our defense. It isn't just cutting into waste; it isn't just\ncutting into manpower. It's cutting into the very security of this country.\"\nOn this issue, I agree with Hubert Humphrey.\nMcGovern also favors a general amnesty for draft dodgers. I favor handling\nthis matter on a case-by-case basis and requiring every man who has shirked his\nmilitary duty to do two years of service in a peacetime capacity. Does my\nopponent stand with me or with Sen. McGovern?\nLet's turn now to domestic. affairs. What has happened on the domestic\nscene?\nThe Nixon Administration inherited 6 per cent inflation. The Administration\nhas cut inflation in half.\nIt's true that unemployment was at a rate of less than 4 per cent in 1968.\nBut the unemployment rate was low because we had 540,000 men in Vietnam,\n3.5 million men in the military overall, and a boom in our defense plants.\nWe have reduced our forces in Vietnam to 34,000, have cut the size of our\narmed forces overall to 2.3 million, and throttled back our defense plant\nspending\nthus eliminating 1.3 million defense-related jobs.\nDespite this movement toward a peacetime economy, employment is at an\n(more)\nBERALD FORD RART\nalltime high -- 82 million. We have generated 2.6 million jobs in just the last\n12 months, the highest 12-month creation of jobs since 1955.\nUnemployment is still too high but this is because of extraordinary\nincreases in the labor force. And unemployment is edging down while the economy\ncontinues to exhibit solid, sound steady growth. Real growth this year will\neasily top the Administration's prediction of 6 per cent.\nWhat about Sen. McGovern's promise that if elected he would immediately\nspend $10 billion to create 2 million jobs? Anyone knows that the projects\nMcGovern talks about would require many months of planning and would involve\ndeficit spending. And these jobs would simply offset the loss of jobs through\nhis defense cuts. By contrast, the Administration's new economic policy is\nexpanding the economy and building permanent new jobs.\nMy opponent is fond of talking about national priorities, asserting that\nfar too many dollars are going into national defense and too few into people\nprograms. The facts are that in 1968 defense spending totalled 39 per cent of\nthe budget -- that's while a Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, was President -T and in\nfiscal 1973 defense spending takes only 30 per cent of the budget. At the same\ntime, outlays for human resources rose from 32 per cent of the budget in 1968\nto 45 per cent in fiscal 1973. So a far larger chunk of the budget now is going\ninto human resource programs than into defense: And this shift in priorities\noccurred under the present Administration.\nMy opponent talks about cost overruns, as though that's where all of\nthe defense money is going. In the first place, it was the previous Administration\n(more)\nGERALD\n-5-\nwhich negotiated the contracts which resulted in the cost overruns. Also, more\nthan half of the Department of Defense budget LL fully 56 per cent -- now is\npeople-related and not weapons-oriented, That compares with only 43 per cent\nof the budget for personnel in fiscal 1964. In that 9-year period, manpower\ncosts have risen by $20.8 billion, nearly double the 1964 level, Other costs have\nrisen only 17 per cent.\nSpeaking of priorities, let me reiterate my resolve that the Highway Trust\nFund be kept intact. We should keep the Highway Trust Fund 100 per cent for\nhighways until we have eliminated every death trap like old US-131, here and\nthroughout the country. Meantime, we can and should provide sufficient funds for\nour mass transit needs. In just the last 20 months, Grand Rapids has received\n$400,000 in Federal aid for mass transit and on January 1 a program of\ntransportation on demand is going to start in the Inner City. Meantime a study\nis being made of transportation needs of our elderly, and I am sure the resulting\nprogram will be funded. We can get rid of our highway death traps and bottlenecks\nand still meet our public transportation needs. In that connection, let me point\nout that mass transit is one of the purposes for which Federal revenue sharing\nallocations to local units of government can be used. And Grand Rapids will be\nreceiving roughly $2.7 million a year under revenue sharing.\nSpeaking of transportation, what about busing? And by that I mean forced\nbusing to achieve racial balance. My opponent says forced busing is a non-issue,\nthat the real question is one of complying with the 1964 Supreme Court ruling on\nintegration. I am opposed to busing for whatever reason. I favor the concept of\n(more)\nGERALD FORD\nthe neighborhood school. When a family buys a house in a particular neighborhood,\none of the reasons is that they want their children to go to school there. They\nare entitled to have their children go to school there. Forced busing to achieve\nracial balance is wrong. As you know, the United States Senate killed an\nanti-busing bill passed by the House, This demonstrated that a Democratic-controlled\nCongress is willing to defy the will of the majority of the American people on\nthis issue. Public opinion polls have shown that nearly 80 per cent of the\nAmerican people oppose forced busing of children to achieve racial balance in\nthe schools. It was the ultra-liberals in the Senate, the supporters of George\nMcGovern, who killed the anti-busing bill by filibustering it to death. Does my\nopponent stand with George McGovern and those ultra-liberals on busing, or with\nme?\nWhat about welfare? George McGovern would greatly expand welfare rolls\nand the costs of welfare and double the average citizen's taxes to pay for it.\nI favor the Administration's workfare plan, designed to shift people from the\nwelfare rolls onto payrolls. McGovern originally embraced the Welfare Rights\nOrganization's proposal a guaranteed $6,500 a year minimum income which he\nintroduced in the National Welfare Rights Organization bill. He backed away\nfrom that just as he backed away from his $1,000 for everybody scheme. Now he's\nfor $1,000 for everybody on welfare -- $4,000 for a family of four. Is my\nopponent for that?\nMcGovern's for a lot of other things, too. In fact, taxes would have to\nbe increased by 46 to 100 per cent for all families with incomes of $12,000 or\n(more)\nFORD LIBRARY\n-7-\nmore to balance the McGovern budget. The McGovern program would have an\nespecially severe tax impact on single individuals and small families.\nBut McGovern says he would just take it out of the hides of the rich.\nThat's a phony. McGovern wouldn't just wipe out the rich. He'd wipe out Middle\nAmerica. Is my opponent for that?\nMcGovern keeps talking about tax reform. I'm for tax reform. Isn't\neverybody? The Democrats have been in control of the Congress for 36 of the last\n40 years, and if we still need tax reform then the Democrats have falle down\non the job. We passed a Tax Reform Act in 1969. Within 90 days of his\ninauguration, the President submitted major and fundamental tax reforms to\nCongress. We are now beginning to see the effects of the 1969 Tax Reform Act.\nIn the last 3½ years, individual income taxes have declined by $22 billion.\nCitizens in the lowest economic brackets have received major relief. For\nexample, a family of four with a $5,000 annual income has received a tax cut\nof 66 per cent from $290 paid in 1969 to only $98 in 1972. Similarly, a\nfamily of four with a $10,000-a-year income received a tax cut of 26 per cent --\nfrom $1,225 paid in 1969 to $905 in 1972.\nExcise taxes, which tend to hurt most those in the lower income brackets,\nhave declined $3.5 billion since 1969. This includes taxes on telephones and\ncars.\nCorporate taxes have increased by nearly! $5 billion.\nIt is the individual citizen who has been relieved of some of the burden\nof his Federal taxes.\n(more)\nFORD LIBRARY GERVID\n-8-\nThose who attack so-called tax loopholes/must look at the effect some of\ntheir proposals would have on individuals and the community. What about the\nfact that the interest on municipal bonds is tax-free? If it were not, local\nunits of government would have to pay higher interest charges on the money they\nborrow by selling such bonds, and the taxpayer would have to ante up to pay the\ndifference. What about the deduction for charitable contributions? What would\nhappen to many hospitals and community agencies if contributions to them were\nnot tax-deductible?\nTax reform needs an honest and calm evaluation by Congress -- not the\nhighly political election-year rhetoric we have been hearing.\nSumming up, the key issues in any election campaign are peace and\nprosperity.\nI submit that the best path to peace is the path being taken by the present\nAdministration -- the path to an honorable peace in Vietnam, the path to a\ndetente with the major Communist powers in the world. We already have the SALT\nagreement with Russia and the opening of communications with China as markers on\nthis path to peace.\nThe best proof that we are heading into prosperity is the Administration's\ndividend of an extra 1½ paychecks for the American working man. By that I mean\nthe working man's real spendable earnings\nhow much he has left over after\nreductions due to inflation and taxes.\nOver the last four years of the Democratic Administration, the working\nman's real spendable earnings rose by $1.19 per week from $90.32 to $91.51.\n(more)\nBERALOR FORD GIBRABY\n-9-\nIf that same rate had continued, the working man would have gained another $1.08\nby July of this year.\nInstead, under the present Administration's economic policies, the working\nman gained an additional $4.18 per week. That's an additional $161.20 on an\nannual basis.\nThe present Administration's economic policies have paid off for the\nworking man in buying power -- an extra 1½ paycheck's worth. The President's\npolicies are working.\nThese are the issues. This is the record. I stand on it. I am proud\nof it.\n]\n# # #\nFORD LIBRARY"
}