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
4526519
label
Fifth District Weekly Radio Reports, 1966
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526519
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Fifth District Weekly Radio Reports, 1966
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Weekly Radio Reports
subjects
China
U.S. House of Representatives. 3/4/1789-
Electoral college
Federal budget
Foreign aid
Freedom of information
Housing
Inflation (Finance)
Legislation
Poverty programs
Safety
Ships
Taxation
Unidentified flying objects
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
Youth
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526519
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1966-09-30
month
9
year
1966
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-01-01
month
1
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
5de6c6780925a729
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D35, folder "Fifth District Weekly Radio
Reports, 1966" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Digitized from Box D35 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
5th District radio tape Jan. 26, 1966
Translating the complicated budget into simple terms
it would mean
Americans will pay more for everything. Under the spending program
contemplated by the White House, the cost of living would increase
two percent.
In its decisions on the budget, Congress must consider the impact of the
sharp increase in Federal spending on the economy in which inflationary
pressures are already strong.
If the White House will not tackle the problem of higher living costs
by restraining federal spending, the Congress must.
I believe Congress must support all necessary funds for national S ecurity.
At the same time, I believe in setting priorities at home without
sacrificing the proven needs of theAmerican people all the people.
During the coming weeks, I will have other reports on the federal budget,
which should have the strong attention of all Americans.
Thank you for listening. This is your Congressman, Jerry Ford, speaking with
you from Washington.
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
I find it hard to understand how the national government can ask
business and labor to avoid price and wage increases, which are
measured in terms of millions of dollars, when it is increasing
non-defense spending by many billions of dollars.
(I regret that the President did not see fit to indicate in his
assist
budget
any
system of priority to
Congress in reducing
the less essential and less urgent items of expenditures.
Fifth District Radio Talk
(for taping WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1966)
This is your Congressman Jerry Ford reporting to you from Washington for
the first time by radio since the second session of the 89th Congress
opened. Thanks to the splendid cooperation of Grand Rapids radio
in Kent + Tonia Crunters
stations in broadcasting these messages as a public service, I can keep
1
you informed on major happenings in the Congress.
A most important topic of conversation is the $112.8 billion-dollar-budget
President Johnson sent to the Congress the past week, The financial
document should receive careful and critical S crutiny by the
Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate...and by the entire Congress.
enormone +
The complicated budget sought by the President calls for a sharp increase
in military spending, a substantial expansion of federalwelfare programs,
and a $6.2 billion tax plan to help pay the cost.
The President expressed hope that the record budget will produce sharp
SEEK
domestic growth without inflation. He pledged to what he called
"appropriate" fiscal measures-- presumably higher taxes and a hold-wown
of domestic spending** if as he said "unforeseen inflationary pressures
develop."
-more-
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Fifth District Radio Message
(for taping Feb. 2, 1966)
This is your Congressman Jerry Ford reporting to you from the Nation's
Capitol.
There is much comment here and I'm certain elsewhere about the
President's recommendation that the term of a Representative in Congress
be extended from two to four years.
Most of the arguments
in favor of the idea stress the convenience
it would provide legislators and their families. Some say the longer term
would reduce the energy and money spent in campaigning every other year.
Others argue that a Representative would become more of an expert in
legislative affairs by serving a four-year term.
However, I believe in more solid considerations.
I prefer the two-year term to keep the Congressman close to those who
elect him-and to all those he represents.
Every two years is not too often for a Congressman to put his record
on the line and seek the endorsement of the electorate. It seems to me
that a two-year term gives the people an important oppoinity to have a
and stronger
more direct voice in government.
Mr. Johnson's suggestion that all Congressmen be elected with the President
and serve during his four-year term is receiving less support. Many
writers GERRADO R. FORD LIBRARY
recognize that the United States does not have a parliamentary form of
where
government as in England when the prime minister as head 08 government is the
leader of the majority party in the House of Commons.
5th Dist. radio message 2/2/66
Our Constitution separates the legislative and executive powers. It
sets up a system of checks and balances. We want our Congress
to exercise independent judgment and protect us from one-party or one-man
ofwe
rule.
are to have the four-year tern, at least one-half of the
Representatives should be elected every two years.
Another major issue is the President's proposal to alter the present
electoral college system. He would simply eliminate electors as such in
order to prevent any member of the Electoral College from voting for someone
other than the candidate of his political party.
bach state would retain its electoral votes and the candidate
electoral
who receives the most popular votes would still get all the
votes.
This fact should disturb those who are devoted to the "one-man,one=vote"
theory. But the President ignores 1t.
It is interesting to note that only six times in our history did an
electoral college member exercise his independence and vote differently
than he was pledged.
However, In 14 presidential elections since 1824 the winner received less than 50
percent of the popular votes and in three instances the victor obtained
fewer votes than his leading opponent. If we are to amend the constitutional
provision relative to the electoral system, we ought to meet this more
serious problem.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
more
5th District radio tape
-3-
If Mr. Johnson is truly devoted to the principle of "one-man,one-vote," he
would advocate the election of the President by direct popular vote with a
"run off" if necessary to obtain majority rule.
An alternative proposal calls for proportional representation in
the electoral college. If two candidates receive 60 percent and
40 percent of a state's popular vote, they would get 60 and 40 percent
respectively of the state's electoral vote. I supported this plan when I
first came to Congress and I endorse it today.
Thank you for listening. This is your Congressman Jerry Ford reporting
to you from Washington.
#
#
#
Fifth District Radio message
should be taped
(for taping Feb. 7 or 8)
lon Thresday
This is your Congressman Jerry Ford with a report from Washington.
When President Johnson described his proposed foreign aid program
as
one
in his words. "to carry forward the best of what we are now
doing in the less-developed world, and to cut out the worst," I believe
of us
most agreed with him.
1
However, the "cuts" mentioned by the President must be genuine,
effective and deep.
Our mutual security program with some exceptions has served a useful
purpose and I have supported its basic principles. But we now have
sufficient evidence to show that substantial reductions in spending
can be made without materially weakening any good which may be
accomplished.
I am certain that the President's request for $3.4 billion can, and should be,
cut considerable by the Congress especially in view of our
war expenditures and Mr. Johnson's insistence on increasing non-defense
spending.
I am also pleased to have the President stress in his message to Congress
on foreign aid that---in his words--- "we must concentrate on countries
hostile
not hositle to us that give solid evidence that they are determined to
help themselves." ...I emphasize that the burden of proof on cooperation
FORD LIBRARY
and constructive results must rest with the countries receiving our help.
5th District radio (week of Feb. 7)
page 2
Our financial Fiancial aid must go only to those countries not invoice hostile
to us. But, the President could have gone further to insist that our
tax dollars go only to those nations which are helpful to us in the
Vietnamese war. Furthermore, I cannot justify, nor support, any
assistance to those nations which in any way help the North Vietnamese
aggressors.
Here in Washington, among Congressmen, and all over the nation, the
war in Viet Nam is a major topic of thought and conversation.
President Johnson as Commander-in-Chief directs the wat, I support
his position of strength against Communist aggression. I will oppose
Red
those who support a policy of appeasement--- a weakness which lead to
World War II. Buh l do not think we should geh bogged down
in a massive land was in southeast Qua.
I have long supported E bipartisanship in foreign policy. But,
bipartisanship is a two-way affair. It does not involve acceptip decisions
participating demanding full will
discussion
without
first
a
fully
frank
of the facts
upon which those decisions are made.
As the late Senator Arthur Vandenberg once said, in maching reach a truly acceptable
bipartisanment policy "total information must be made available to Congress
and the country.. and Congress must completely explore and approve the
measures by which the President's policy is to be implemented."
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
From the public viewpoint, there has not been this completeness of
disclosure during the Viet Nam struggle.
radio 5th District
week Feb 7
page B
Not until the 1966 State of the Union message was there full, official
Presidential indication that shedding of American blood in Viet Nam
the infact
could well last----in Mr. Johnson's words--- "for years."
Congressional leaders ere invited to meet with the President prior to
his decision to resume bombing of North Viet Name However, there was
not the same degree of communication when the President decided to order
an extended pause in such bombings.
As Senator Vandenberg said upon another occasion. 'll stand by
you on the crash landings but would like to be consulted at the take-off."
As to the President's recent trip to Hawaii for a meeting with South Vietnamese
leaders...I hope this conference will lead to a prompt, honorable and lasting
thus far
pease--all other Administration efforts 1 having failed,
This is your Congressman Jerry Ford reporting to you from the Nation's
Capital, Thanks for listening. Tune in next week, same time, same station,
for another report from Washington.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Used 2-15-66
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3, D. C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 5
February 14, 1966
VIETNAM: WHAT'S NEXT?
This is Congressman
reporting to you from
Washington.
As the seriousness of the war in Vietnam becomes more obvious to everyone, I believe
that Americans, more and more, are becoming concerned about the scope of our military
effort in that far-off part of the world. At this moment, more than 200,000 American boys
are serving in uniform in South Vietnam -- and there is increasing talk here in Washington
that this number may reach 400,000 in only a few months.
must not abandon our commitment in South Vietnam.
Yet, as casualty lists grow, questions about the conflict become inevitable. For example:
Why do our United States Government officials the ones responsible for conducting
the war -- contradict themselves on how we are doing?
Why aren't our so-called allies helping US more?
Why aren't the nations directly affected by the outcome of the war sending men and
supplies to bolster our efforts?
The stakes in Southeast Asia are enormous. What would happen if we pulled out of
that war-racked area?
First, Malaysia would undoubtedly fall to the Communists, perhaps overnight. This
would mean that Red China would dominate the straits of Malacca where more than 12,000
ships a year pass through. Closing the strails could be a fatal blow to India, the Phillppines,
and Japan.
Burma would then be a sitting duck for Mao's armies and Indonesian Dictator Sukarno
could control the communications lines between the Philippines and Australia. Thailand,
already advertised by the Communists as a takeover target, would be next in line.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
(more)
- 2 -
These are facts. They are known to all the free world. But are the nations of the
free world helping us? Most are not. Many of them are actually giving aid and comfort to our
enemies by permitting their ships to transport cargo to the Communists in North Vietnam.
Here is to me a tragic fact: In 1965, there were more free world ships docking at the
North Vietnam port of Haiphong than there were Communistships We have a huge fleet sur-
rounding North Vietnam yet we let them through without a murmur.
Many of US in Congress have been insisting that the Administration act to prevent this
Allied trade with North Vietnam. This week, the State Department took some action--although
for short of what is necessary. The Department announced that any ship which carries supplies to
North Vietnam will be denied U.S. Government-financed cargoes, But that's all,
We could--and should--do a lot more. For example, why not deny use of United
States ports to any ship which carries any kind of cargo to the enemy? There's no question we need
some toughness in our policy. American boys are being killed on the battlefield by an enemy
being helped by our so-called Allies.
To date, only Australia, New Zealand and South Korea have put troops in the field
to help US in Vietnam. Surely, it is past time that we insisted on a showdown--that we demanded
that the nations of the free world share in the manpower burden. At the very least, we should tell
our so-called Allies that the port of Haiphong is closed and business as usual with the enemy is a
thing of the past.
Without question, we must continue to fight Communist aggression
arises
But, in the case of Vietnam, must we fight with one arm tied behind our back?
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
(A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio).
###
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3, D. C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 5
February 14, 1966
VIETNAM: WHAT'S NEXT?
This is Congressman
reporting to you from
Washington.
As the seriousness of the war in Vietnam becomes more obvious to everyone, I believe
that Americans, more and more, are becoming concerned about the scope of our military
effort in that far-off part of the world. At this moment, more than 200,000 American boys
are serving in uniform in South Vietnam -- and there is increasing talk here in Washington
that this number may reach 400,000 in only a few months.
As I pointed out last week, we must not abandon our commitment in South Vietnam.
Yet, as casualty lists grow, questions about the conflict become inevitable. For example:
Why do our United States Government officials --- the ones responsible for conducting
the war -- contradict themselves on how we are doing?
Why aren't our so-called allies helping US more?
Why aren't the nations directly affected by the outcome of the war sending men and
supplies to bolster our efforts?
The stakes in Southeast Asia are enormous. What would happen if we pulled out of
that war-racked area?
First, Malaysia would undoubtedly fall to the Communists, perhaps overnight. This
would mean that Red China would dominate the straits of Malacca where more than 12,000
ships a year pass through. Closing the strails could be a fatal blow to India, the Phillppines,
and Japan.
Burma would then be a sitting duck for Mao's armies and Indonesian Dictator Sukarno
could control the communications lines between the Philippines and Australia. Thailand
already advertised by the Communists as a takeover target, would be next in line.
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
(more)
- 2 -
These are facts. They are known to all the free world. But are the nations of the
free world helping us? Most are not. Many of them are actually giving aid and comfort to our
enemies by permitting their ships to transport cargo to the Communists in North Vietnam.
Here is to me a tragic fact: In 1965, there were more free world ships docking at the
North Vietnam port of Haiphong than there were Communistshiral We have a huge fleet sur-
rounding North Vietnam yet we let them through without a murmur.
Many of US in Congress have been insisting that the Administration act to prevent this
Allied trade with North Vietnam. This week, the State Department took some action--although
for short of what is necessary. The Department announced that any ship which carries supplies to
North Vietnam will be denied U.S. Government-financed cargoes. But that's all,
We could--and should--do a lot more. For example, why not deny use of United
States ports to any ship which carries any kind of cargo to the enemy? There's no question we need
some toughness in our policy. American boys are being killed on the battlefield by an enemy
being helped by our so-called Allies.
To date, only Australia, New Zealand and South Korea have put troops in the field
to help US in Vietnam® Surely, it is past time that we insisted on a showdown--that we demanded
that the nations of the free world share in the manpower burden. At the very least, we should tell
our so-called Allies that the port of Haiphong is closed and business as usual with the enemy is a
thing of the past.
Without question, we must continue to fight Communist aggression wherever it arises.
But, in the case of Vietnam, must we fight with one arm tied behind our back?
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
(A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio).
###
5th District Radio
Used 2-23-66
today
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3, D. C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 6
February 21, 1966
A LITTLE INFLATION?
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
Today, I want to discuss with you one of the political gimmicks of our
time. suppose, by some Federal poblic relations experts It is a gimmick
that has cost the American people plenty.
The gimmick is this: When some branch of the Federal Government--or some policy of
the Federal Government-is likely to prove unpopular, it can be made palatable by giving It a
respectable-sounding, fancy, technical label or name. For instance, the old-fashioned and un-
popular title, "tax-collector"--unpopular since the day that Caesar Augustus sent out a decree
that we, the world, should be taxed--has been changed to the rather awe-inspiring "Internal
Revenue Agent." But don't let that fool you. He's still the tax-collector--and he still collects
and collects and collects.
A policy that has cost the American people plenty--one which has been made somewhat
acceptable and almost respectable by a technical label--is the policy of creeping inflation. It
was sold to the American people by the slogan "a little inflation won't hurt you."
For a moment, let US consider the words "a little inflation" and ask ourselves how little
is little? Consider these figures:
Between December, 1961, and December, 1965, the cost of such household staples as
tomatoes rose 50 per cent. Pork chops rose 23 per cent. These are national averages, by the way,
in many parts of the country prices increased even more. The price of potatoes rose 21 per cent.
Coffee rose 15 per cent, eggs slightly over 10 per cent. Non-food household necessities and ser-
vices also took a sharp rise, The price of men's shoes jumped 12 per cent. The dry-cleaning bill
for a man's suit increased by eight per cent. A man's hair cut, a woman's permanent wave AR
creased in price by II per cent. Cigarette prices also rose II per cent and adult movie Admissions
LIBRARY
17 per cent.
(more)
- 2 -
The trouble with a little inflation is that it never stays little. Once it is accepted as
a national way of life, it gets out of hand. Unless the Federal Government takes definite steps to
contain it, it hurts those who can least afford to be hurt--people in a law income group and our
older people who have to rely on a fixed income.
Inflation, in short, is "legalized robbery." It steals from a man's or woman's pocket-
book just as blatantly as any professional pick-pocket. Every day, inflation steals a sizable per-
centage of all a man earns. Remember the figures I quoted--tomatoes up 50 per cent, pork chops
up 23 per cent, potatoes up 21 per cent and on and on.
And we're in for even more trouble ahead. The wholesale price index, which reflects
prices retailers pay before adding on potential profit, jumped 3.6 percent last year — and another
one-half of one percent in the first six weeks of this year alone--forecasting even more rapidly -
m196
rising consumer prices to come. What is so shocking about this increase is that over the seven-
year period from 1958 to 1965 this index rose only one percent!
The causes of inflation are only too well-known--Federal extravagance, Federal defi-
cits, Federal borrowing, and Federal spending, just to mention a few. The Administration is
coolly ignoring this fact. Embarked on a policy of "spend now, pay later," it is shutfing Its eyes
to the robbery technique inflation has developed.
There is no greater thief than inflation. The man who put aside some money for o rainy
day or for retirement, for example, found his savings had last two percent of their purchasing power
last year alone.
If inflation continues at that rate for 20 years, one dollar in every three saved would
Imply vanish.
Why? One reason is that we haven't had a balanced Federal budget since 1961. With
a war on in Vietnam we must now, more than ever, cut back on unnecessary spending. We must
make sure that our policies abroad are not undermined here at home by inflation.
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
(A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio).
###
Fifth District Radio script
for taping March 2, 1966
This is your Congressman Jerry Ford reporting to you from Washington.
After weeks of public debate, Congress has overwhelmingly approved an
emergency $4.8 billion bill to finance the Viet Nam War. I voted for
this spending because I believe in a policy of firmness against
Communist aggression. However, I believe Congress must keep a close watch
on the way the money is used under the direction of President Johnson,
the Commander-in-Chief
conducting this war. We did NOT
give him a blank check, but we did reaffirm our support of the fighting
men in Vet Nam.
I emphasize that I oppose a blind escalation of force that may pull us
toward a wider war. The goal of the United States, as I see it it, is
two-fold
we must prevent the success of aggression and the forceful
conquest of South Viet Nam by a tough, well-trained, determined Communist
enemy.
In voting for the emergency spending bill, I did so believing that the
people of South Viet Nam should have an opportunity to live their lives in
peace under a government of their own choice-free from Communistist aggression.
I am deeply disturbed with the deep division with the party of the
Johnson-Humphrey Administration at this crucial time in our history.
The bickering and political brawling is proloming the war this
type FORD of LIBRARY
conduct denies essential support to our fighting men, delays the time when
we can bring our troops home, and encourages the enemy.
Fifth District tape
page 2
mustly disamged by
I believe the President should disavow those within his party who would
The Demonder party
divide this country asthey have divided his own political empire at
a time when national unity is so desperately needed.
America and the world await decisive action by the President to take
command of the situation, Until he regains control of his own party
the confusion will grow and a peaceful solution will elude us.
Although I votedin favor of expanding financial support of our military
efforts in Viet Nam, I insist on cutting corners at home
non-essential
spending must be stopped.
For example, I am disturbed to see such a strong move to build or buy
a second White House an executive mansion for the Vice President
when the Nation is called upon to make sacrifices in support of the
Humphrey
Johnson Administration's war effort. There is official talk of
using up to a million dollars of hard-earned taxpayer's money to provide
an elaborate mansion for the Vice President. I see no need to rush into
this kind of spending at this time.
Also, it is somewhat appalling to learn that the President plans to
spend a large amount of public money to refurbish and spruce up
two luxury yachts for cruising on the Potomac River. There is also a
another
provision in the Commander-in-Chief's budget for an expensive private
airplane for his personal use
I believe that economy economy in government
RALD
LIBRARY
should start in the White House to set an example for the vast jungle
radio tape
3
of bureaucratic agencies
buying an executive mansion for the
Vice President, providing luxurious yachts, and and # private airplane
for the President fails to set this kind of economic cut-back.
Americans are starting to pay their income taxes to the federal government.
They are learning that Washington-generated spending is cutting into their
savings and forcing them to reduce their buying of
the necessities of life.
-
As the Viet Nam war continues, name with the President commanding our
part in it, we may be called upon to make more personal sacrifices.
Therefore, I believe non-essential spending in government must be curtailed
and in many instances stopped. The leadership for this kind of common-sense
economy should come from the White House.
This is your congressman Jerry Ford reporting to you from Washington.
Thanks for listening.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
5th District Radio
Taps March 9th
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3, D.C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 8
March 7, 1966
DIVISION OVER VIETNAM
This your is Congressman Jeny Ford reporting to you from Washington.
Without question, the war in Vietnam concerns--and is of concern--to every American®
I doubt if there is a family in the country today that isn't discussing, with deep concern, our in-
volvement there. The questions they are asking themselves are these: Are we really fighting to
win over there? Why are members of the President's own party so deeply divided over his Vietnam
policies? And why is our own government telling US one thing one day and something else the
next?
The country is bewildered and alarmed by the contradictions and confusions that seem
to have become an integral part of the Vietnamese war. I do not think I am exaggerating when I
say that it has reached the point where every official Administration statement on the war is re-
garded with suspicion.
Let me remind you of some of these "official statements."
In the Spring of 1963, Secretary of Defense McNamara, returning from a visit to South
Vietnam, said--quote-- "Every quantative measurement that we have shows that we are winning
the war."
In his 1963 State of the Union message, President Kennedy said--quote--"The spear-
point of aggression has been blunted in South Vietnam."
In October of 1963, Secretary McNamara said that a thousand of the 16,000 American
troops then in South Vietnam would be brought home by the end of that year and the major part of
the military job would be finished by 1965.
How wrong can these men be? And they are the men responsible for conducting the
war. Finished by 1965? By Christmas of 1965 more than 200,000 American soldiers were fighting
in the swamps, rice-paddies and jungles of South Vietnam.
And to make the confusion worse, a Democratic Senator, who is c former member of
FORD
sponsibility in a coalition government in South Vietnam, What's more, an advisor to the President, LBRARD
President Johnson's own Cabinet, has suggested that we give the Communists some power and
(more)
- 2 -
who is our former Ambassador to Saigon, seemed to agree with the Senator's suggestion.
How short a memory these men must have! Don't they remember what happened to
those countries after World War II where Communists were admitted to a share of responsibility and
power? To Poland, to Rumania, to Bulgaria, to Czechoslovakia? The Communists, having gained
a foothold, seized power in every single one of them.
We have only to look at Laos, which borders Vietnam, to see the havoc that such a
coalition can produce, For, our Government engineered a coalition government involving the
Communists in that country in 1962. Today, Laos is in turmoil and the North Vietnamese move
supplies and men into South Vietnam along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, which cuts through Laos.
Let me quote to you a statement adopted the other day by the House Republican Policy
Committee--a statement to which I fully subscribe, by the way-- about the feuding in the Demo-
cratic Party and the effect it is having on the country. Quote--"The deep division within the
Democratic Party over American policy in Vietnam is prolonging the war, undermining the morale
of our fighting men and encouraging the Communist aggressor. It has... led North Vietnam to
believe that in time we may falter, that we do not have the necessary will or determination to
win. As a result, the peace that this nation and the free world seeks has been delayed, the fight--
ing intensified, the threat of a major war deepened." Unquote.
Strong words? Yes. But only too true.
I think it is high time that the President clear the air over the Vietnam controversy by
disavowing the divided elements in his own party. I believe it is time for him to clarify for the
American people just what are the Administration's goals and policies in Southeast Asia. In short,
where are we headed, Mr. President?
This is Congressman Jerry Ford reporting to you from Washington
(A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio)
GERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3. D.C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 9
March 14, 1966
THOMAS JEFFERSON'S LEGACY
(Note: The following script may provide material for a radio
or TV report to your District during the week of Jefferson's
birthday which falls on April 13).
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
As we observe the two-hundred and twenty-third anniversary of Thomas Jefferson's birth
this year--on April 13th--I consider it strange that the present national Administration in Washing-
ton is making claim to the squire of Monticello as one of its own. For, it seems to me, there is
something ironic in a situation where a man of Jefferson's political and economic beliefs should be
considered one of the patron political saints of an Administration that has gone into debt with such
carefree abandon.
I wonder, for example, how comfortable Jefferson would have felt at one of today's
Cabinet meetings. I have an idea that he would have been distinctly at odds with the elite of the
so-called Great Society.
His speeches and writings are--to put it mildly--an indication that he wouldn't have
been altogether happy with such expensive frills as a Vice-Presidential palace costing three
quarters of a billion dollars.
In a letter written in 1799, Jefferson said--quote--"I am for a government rigorously
frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the
national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans, and
not for increasing, by every device, the public debt, on the principle of its being a public
blessing."
That's the end of the quote--but let me repeat those last words-"not for increasing the
public debt on the principle of its being a public blessing." Shades of the Great Society which is
rooted in debt and whose soil is fertilized with deficit spending!
And again Jefferson said--and I quote--"I place economy among the first and most im-
portant virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be faced. To preserve our indepenFORD
dence, we must not let our rulers load US with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between
LIBRARY
(more)
- 2 -
economy and liberty or profusion and servitude." Unquote,
'But times have changed" is the excuse the big spenders use to justify their tax increases
and their big Federal budgets. I agree that times have changed, but I do not agree that the fund-
amentals of sound and honest government have changed. I do not believe that the times have
transmuted debt from a burden into a panacea for every human ill. I honor Jefferson for expound-
ing some of the soundest views on public policy ever set forth by a public figure. I especially
honor him for these two forthright and courageous statements--quote--"When all government, do-
mestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all
power, it will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
4
And for this one--quote--"I think we have more machinery of government than is
necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
Jefferson's belief in what he called "The Holy Cause of Freedom" was deep and sincere.
He brought all his wisdom and political experience to the cause of maintaining freedom and to
expounding the dangers that freedom faced. The author of our Declaration of Independence had
lived under tyranny. He knew that unless the great American experiment of democracy succeeded
the cause of freedom around. the world would suffer a death blow. Again and again, he warned
against excessive central government. Again and again, We warned against debt, Changing
times cannot affect the basic political truths that Jefferson laid down.
Debts, at certain times and certain financial crises, are unavoidable. But living in
debt as a national way of life, as though debt were a "public blessing," is like building a house
on the banks of a river noted for its floods. It is courting the danger of complete collapse.
White the President's party may claim Thomas Jefferson, there are many today who
would find Jefferson's membership in such free-wheeling company hard to believe. In fact, I
feel that the party of the Great Society has left Thomas Jefferson and the principles for which he
stood. And I would like to welcome him into the ranks of the GOP.
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
(A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio)
###
RADIO SCRIPT FOR FIFTH DISTRICT STATIONS
for taping March 15. 1966
My friends of the fith fifth congre ssional district. This is your
congremen, Jerry Ford, speaking to you from the nation's eapital.
I'd like to talk with you today about a speech that Treasury Secretary
Fowler made the other day in Detroit.
Mr. Fowler said, in effects *Inflation is not here; prices are just
rising.*
Well, now, that's an interesting way to put it. But you and I know
that inflation 1s here because we malex see it spelled out in thepricetage capital
every time we go to the grocery store.
Whatever Mr. Fowler calls it-whether or not he uses the nasty word--
inflation is inflation. Nobody likes it-least of all Republicans. We de
not feel, as some liberals do, that "a little inflation is a good thing."
It's easy to understand why Mr. Fowler spoke as he did in Detroit. He
doesn't want anybody to get excited about inflation. Neither do we, unless
there's good reason to Innu be excited--and we believe there 15q because the
American people are getting hurt.
There are taro ways to look at inflation. Either you're an apologist or
a realist.
Mr. Fowler is an spolagist for inflation, and this is natural. He is
akt high official in the Johnson administration--ths administration that is
doing too little, too late about rising prices. These are price increases
that are nibbling away at your pay check untilixable all the nibbles addass
up to zg a great big xisttx bite.
(MORE)
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
P. 2 - 5th district radio tape
You and I know why the F Johnson administration is doing too little
about inflation. The president is trying to satisfy the big spenders and
atthesametime avoid gettin getting the texpayers sore. After all, there's an election
coming up this fall.
It wouldn't do the party in power any good ****** at the polls to ask
Congressmx for an income tax increase before the election==espesially when
Congress at the # President's urging has just approved $52 billion
tax bill.
Only $1.2 billion of that tax bill is in new taxes. The rest is just
faster collestion--from you and from business.
But you're going **to have less money to spend beginning May 1. That's
when your employer will withhold more of your pay tx for Insure income tax
purposes in line with the new tax In bill.
So the Administration is oranking this and other curbs against inflation
into the economy. But many of the smartest economists in the country don't
think these restraints will halt the price climb.
If mything, prices are going to rise fastersh than they have in the
past year.
Prices will go up faster after the middle of the year than they have in
the last few months.
Businessmen are planning to raise prices because their costs are going
up, and the atmosphere of price hold-down that the Johnson administration has
tried to maintain is evaporating.
FORD LIBRAR aive
to
inflation,
(MORE)
p. 3--5th district radio tape
force a outback in
Two effective ways to halt inflation are to consumer
spending or hold down government spending. The Johnson administration
is pretending to do both but is ** not doing a good job on either one.
President Johnson is playetics playing games with the fiscal 1967
budget.
We have to spend billions more for the Viet Nam war, so to try to
make the administration look good he makes
phony recommendations to Congress for
cuts in Excertain existing programs.
The requested sexts cute are phony because they involve such things as
the school milk Henggx program which he knows full well Congress won't
reduce.
It's a protix good bet the budget willw* wind up M 'way out of whack
despite the best efforts of Republicans to trim spending.
This, again, will feed the inflation that Mr. Fowler refuses to admit
to but that and perfully I are aware of every day.#
--end script
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
STATEMENT FOR RADIO TAPE FOR 5TH DISTRICT STATIONS
TO BE MADE MARCH 23, 1966.
This is your Congressman, Jerry Ford, speaking to you from the nation's
capital.
I want to talk with you today about a subject which some people are
inclined to dismiss as not very important but which I think demands quick
action by the Congress. It's child safety--protection for our little child-
ren from dangers they sometimes are exposed to in the home toy box and
medicine chest.
President Johnson this week sent Congress a message outlining a proposed
Child Safety Act to provide safeguards against accidental injury or death
for our children from a variety of causes, like an overdose of aspirin tablets.
This is one time when I am delighted to support an Administration
proposal. The President has acted none too soon. In fact, I cannot under-
stand why he has waited this long to move on this problem.
The bill we're talking about would do a number of things to keep our
very small yougsters out of harm's way in the home.
It would limit the number of candy-flavored children's aspirin in a
single bottle to 15 or 20.
It would stop the sale in interstate commerce of children's toys that
contain dangerous substances.
It would require special safety caps for closing the containers of
certain patent drugs which are attractive to children.
FORD & LIBRAR GERALD
(MORE)
-2-
RADIO TAPE - MARCH 23, 1966
It would ban from commerce those household substances that are so
hazardous that warning labels on them are just not enough to prevent possible
serious injury.
Why are these things important?
Each year, the Food and Drug Administration tells us, more than 500,000
children swallow poisons accidentally. Nearly 500 children under the age
of 5 were among the 2,100 Americans who died in 1964 from taking poison by
accident.
Between 125 and 150 children die and thousands of others get mighty sick
each year from innocently eating large quantities of aspirin they manage to
get hold of.
Kids are kids, and sometimes they just have to be protected from themselves.
Now.
kids get a terrific kick out of toys, and no child should be without
them. But some toys pack a wallop that nobody would wish on his own worst
enemy. Some toys are made so they contain dangerous substances.
For instance, there are toys made with such things as jequirity beans as
decoration.
Federal officials say that chewing and swallowing just one of these beans
can cause death.
These beans, which grow in the Caribbean area, are sometimes used to
represent the eyes on stuffed animal toys.
When the Administration's Child Safety Act comes to Congress and is sent
to committee for study, it may be some of the provisions will need revising.
FORD LIBRARY
(MORE)
-3-
RADIO TAPE - MARCH 23, 1966
But the basic idea of the proposed law is excellent.
It immediately caught my attention in the President's Consumer Interests
message received by Congress this week.
Some other parts of the message were controversial. One of these dealt
with the Truth-in-Packaging bill sponsored by Senator Philip Hart of Michigan.
Here, again, I agree with the goals of the proposed legislation. But in this
case, there is a danger that federal regulation of this type would boost
costs to the consumer, and that is not good. Senator Hart himself will
admit that during the two years that Senate hearings have been conducted on
his bill, most of the practices complained about have been voluntarily cor-
rected by the producers and packagers. Where such action has not already
been taken, the Federal Trade Commission is moving in.
The truth about the Truth-in-Packaging bill is that it just isn't
needed--so why add another law to those already crammed into the lawbooks?
Where I see a problem that demands federal action--as in the case of
the accidental poisoning of our children--I am among the first to urge enact-
ment of a new law. But where problems can be solved either voluntarily or at
the state or local level, I am opposed to having the federal government move
in, with all its controls and inevitable red tape.
This is your Congressman, Jerry Ford, signing off until next week at
this time, same station.
###
BERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
Radio Tape for Fifth District Stations-March 30, 1966
not used?
My friends of the Fifth Congressional District, this is your congressman,
N
Jerry Ford, speaking to you from the nation's capital.
It is own said that the voters often are fuszy about the issues when they go
to the polls in **** this country. In the coming congressional elections, sugufxx
voters throughout the country will have a clear choice--a choice between the
launching expensive
Democrats' insistence on new domestic
programs while our nation is fighting a inxx multi-billion-dollar war in Vietnam,
and the Republican belief that non-military spending should be reduced to stave
halt inflation and stave off income tax increases.
This week marked the first real test in the House on this issue. Liberal
Democrats prevailed when we Republicans sought to knock costly new programs out
for the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
of a bill providing $2.5 billion more
to spend this before June 30 of this year.
We Republicans particnlurly concentrated our fire on the Rent Supplements and
Teacher Corps programs,
The initial amounts recommended injution for these programs by the House
Appropriations Committee were relatively small-$12 million to xx start the
rent subsidies program $10 million for
the federal government to train and assign teachers to schools in poverty areas.
The point that many people miss is that the NUMER Johnson-Humphrey Administraki
Administration and the Democrats in Congre SS are cranking some very costly
programs into the spending federal spending mill by starrx attaching small price
tags to them initially. This is downright deception. They are trying to
FORD LIBRARY
you, the people. Because that program like
outspither
mesting
2. radio tape for 5th district stations--
The facts are that a program like rent subsidies may start out with
$12 million but it wherls up ultimately costs what amounts to a fortune even in
the eyes of big spenders of the taxpayer's dollar--in this case, an e stimated
$6 billion.
some
There are/liberal Democrats in the House who are afraid of what voting for
Som on a roll call, they
a start on programs like this willin do to them at the polls in Nov. 8. Suzthaycx
wilth Republicans and some Southern Democrats
voted for BUCK our amendment to knock out the rentax subsidies money. But
liberal Democrats
you can gue 8S how these pampke voted earlier when there was a non-record
vote MM and the Republican move to eliminate rent subsidy funds lost 185 to 153.
I threw some consternation into the ranks of the Democrats in the midst of the
debate by announcing to them that President Johnson had just said he was netively
thinkinganbautzax considering a 5 to 7 per cent increase in income taxes
to keep the
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
RADIO TAPE FOR FIFTH DISTRICT STATIONS, MARCH 30, 1966.
My friends of the fifth congressional district, this is your congressman,
Jerry Ford, speaking to you from the nation's capital.
As you know, I have requested a congressional investigation of unidentified
flying objects, UFO's, as they are called.
I am most serious about this; but, of course, this is the kind of subject
that lends itself to some flak, a little criticism, and a shower of compliments.
One day this week, I felt an unidentified flying object whiz past my ear--
my right ear, naturally. Upon close inspection, I had no more trouble
identifying this particular UFO than the Air Force did in telling the people
of Michigan they have been seeing swamp gas.
The UFO I encountered was a brickbat tossed by an irate gentleman who
believes Congress could use its time to much better advantage than in investigating
what he calls "UFO hysteria."
But this was one of the few criticisms I encountered in the more than
50 letters I have received sincefirst proposing that UFO's be investigated by
either the House Armed Services Committee or the House Science and Astronautics
Committee.
Many of the letters I have received are from Michigan--from Grand Rapids,
Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Algonac, Petoskey, Port Huron, Utica, Grosse
Pointe, Bay City, and other points.
But there is interest all over the country, and everyone but the wielder
of the aforementioned brickbat is urging that I follow up on my proposal
FORD that
there be a congressional investigation of UFO's. I fully intend to do so.
(MORE)
-2-
RADIO TAPE FOR 5TH DISTRICT STATIONS
A few of the letters were a bit far out--like the one which suggested
that UFO's caused the failure of the Gemini 8 spaceship, the electric power
blackout last November in the East, and the recent Boeing 727 airplane
accidents.
This letter writer informed me that planet people are piloting the UFO's,
have superior abilities, have the anti-gravity secret, and fly about in
spaceships that travel 50,000 miles an hour or better. He wants a Minute
Man alert whenever UFO's are sighted anywhere in the country.
Another gentlemen. sent me a copy of a letter he had dispatched to a
friend of his in the Central Intelligence Agency.
He wrote: "Well, the Air Force has done it. By its ridiculous 'solving'
of the UFO's in Michigan in a day or two, they may have doomed the Air Force.
Brilliant, Absolutely brilliant. They (the planet people) were trying to
establish their reality for it must be done, if they are to help us. Now
they are angry at being called 'marsh gas' and are going on record that they
are going to harass the Air Force just as they have been doing to NASA.
Knowing what I do, if I were the Air Force, I would be scared witless. But,
of course, who ever heard of marsh gas being dangerous? To make it clear,
the SI's (Saucer Intelligences) are now going to teach the Air Force a lesson
it will never forget. They are turning their attention to harassment of the
Air Force in a big way."
Now, Dr. Hynek and the Air Force may not be disturbed by that letter, but
they'd better beware of some astronomers in the nation. A chap in Seattle,
Wash., says he has absolute proof that the Air Force was dead wrong in
(MORE)
-3-
RADIO TAPE FOR FIFTH DISTRICT STATIONS
describing Michigan pictures of an alleged UFO as "the rising crescent moon
and the planet Venus."
Well, happy landings to the Air Force. And I do think the American
people want a better explanation of UFO's than they have been getting. If
my mail is any indication, there are many, many people who find it extremely
difficult to believe some of the stories put out by the government on this
and other subjects.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, saying--So-long for now, and I'll
see you next week at this same time, same station.
# # #
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3. D. C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 12
April 4, 1966
A NEW CLASS OF POOR
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington
Has Johnson inflation created a new class of poor across the country while Johnson's
poverty programs have barely dented the old?
That's a view expressed the other day by former Vice President Richard M. Nixon to
which I fully subscribe, There is a new class of poor created since the Democratic Administration
took office--the hundreds of thousands of Americans who live on fixed incomes and pensions.
Every day that passes, the elderly find something else they cannot afford, something else they have
to do without.
I consider it shameful that these people who have worked hard, lived pleasantly and
saved for their old age should--now that old age is here--have to struggle to make both ends meet.
But that's exactly what is happening to millions of our senior citizens.
The problem of soaring living costs is not limited to our older citizens. It affects
all Americans--and something must be done about it. It is high time for the President to cut out
the glowing promises and get down to performance. It is time he declared all-out war on the
poverty-creating element called inflation.
The Republican Coordinating Committee issued a report the other day on the fiscal
policies of the Federal Government. Entitled, "The Rising Cost of Living," it outlined a series
of reforms that could halt price Increases and bring an abrupt end to sweeping inflation. It could
do this without a tax boost.
I have not time today to list in full all the suggested reforms, but here are some of
the major ones.
First and foremost, the Administration must and without delay, submit to the Con-
gress a new budget for fiscal 1967. This budget must show a real surplus--not a paper one. This
surplus can well be achieved by cutting out or postponing a number of non-defense, non-essential
expenditures. Certain domestic programs must be postponed or at least considerably reduced in
size. Increasing taxes is not the answer; the answer is decreased Federal spending. We cannot go
LIBRAR
on any longer living in our present dream world of synthetically-created good times, cutting out
(more)
- 2 -
too little of the frills too late.
The Administration must stop pursuing will o' the wisp fiscal fantasies and return to
sane, proven, down-to-earth monetary and fiscal policies. "Voluntary" wage and price "guide-
posts" become an absurdity when the very reason for them is the Administration's own foolish lack
of monetary common sense. If the Administration would cut out the obvious causes of inflation,
the so-called "guideposts" would be unnecessary.
The Administration must respect and defend the rale of the Federal Reserve System as
an independent agency within the government. To the layman, the importance of this is not per-
haps at once obvious. But I can assure you that if the Federal Reserve System ever loses its politi-
cal independence we will be at the mercy of the wild spenders and their wildest dreams. There
will be no independent agency to warn or to curb.
The Administration must attack residual unemployment with real weapons rather than
with promises, press releases and propeganda. It must emphasize selective programs of job-training
counseling and placement as provided in the Republican-sponsored Manpower Development and
Training Act of 1962.
The Republican Coordinating Committee also urged that the Administration consoli
date or eliminate overlapping Federal programs and, where possible, turn their administration over
to State and local governments.
Last week, the President noted that living costs are soaring and he asked the Nation
housewives to hold down their spending. What the President must be told--and accept--is that the
Government must get about the business of putting its own house in order before handing out ad-
vice.
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
(A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio)
###
RADIO TAPE FOR FIFTH DISTRICT STATIONS
FOR TAPING APRIL 6, 1966
My friends of the fifth congressional district, this is your congressman,
Jerry Ford, speaking to you from the nation's capital.
Let's talk today about you and your money, particularly about how much
money you've got to spend, how much you send to Washington and how Washington
spends your money. When I say "Washington," I mean, of course, President
Johnson and the 2-to-1 Democratic majorities in Congress. Let's face it;
it isn't Republicans who are determining where your dollars go.
Right now, this nation is caught up in an inflationary spiral because of
heavy Administration spending of your tax money. Mr. Johnson and Democrats in
Congress are intent on spending more money than they take in; they're fixing
it so your dollar buys less by constantly feeding the fires of inflation.
Mr. Johnson is a colorful fellow, and he likes to talk. And he's finally
acting worried about inflation. So last week he talked with you and asked you
to spend less; he talked with governors of the states and asked them to spend
less; he talked with big businessmen and asked them to cut back on their
expansion plans.
Then we Republicans pointed out something that apparently hadn't occurred
to Mr. Johnson. He was asking everybody else to reduce spending but wasn't
doing a thing about tightening the federal pursestrings,
Mr. Johnson quickly held a meeting with his cabinet. He told them he
wanted them to save $1.1 billion the last three months of this fiscal years
GERALOR, FORD LIBRARY
April, May, and June.
(MORE)
-2-
RADIO TAPE - APRIL 6, 1966
We Republicans were happy to hear this. Mr. Johnson was finally admitting
that what we have been urging for months is right--the tederal government should
cut spending.
Let's carry this thing a step turther. If the Administration can cut
spending $1 billion during the last three months of this fiscal year, why
can't non-military federal spending be reduced by $4 billion for the full 12
months of the next fiscal year? But the talkative Mr. Johnson is not talking
about this.
This is simple arithmetic, and it's what I've been urging for months.
Let's cut non-military federal spending by $4 billion or more in fiscal
1967 and thus avoid the increase in income taxes that Mr. Johnson keeps talking
about.
Mr. Johnson has been talking about the prospect of an income tax increase
so much you'd think he was paving the way for it--you know, getting you accustomed
to the idea so it won't shock you so much when it comes.
I feel sure of this much--an income tax increase will come if the Johnson-
Humphrey Administration and Democrats in Congress persist in their traditional
role of big spenders.
Last week marked the first real test in the House on the spending issue.
We Republicans tried to knock the potentially costly Rent Supplements and Teacher
Corps programs out of a bill providing $2.5 billion more for the Johnson=Humphrey
Administration to spend by July 1 of this year.
The initial amounts recommended for these programs by the House Appropriations
Committee were small by Washington standards--$12 million to start the Rent
(MORE)
-3-
RADIO TAPE - APRIL 6, 1966
Subsidies program and $10 million for the federal government to begin training
teachers for assignment to slum area schools.
The point that many people miss is that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
and the Democrats in Congress are feeding some very costly new programs into the
federal spending mill by attaching small price tags to them initially. This is
downright deception. They are trying to fool you, the people.
that
86
of the rentonbsidies idea
Even some of the Democrats were leery
and
having
so all the taxpayer 65 ofthem
somebody'
in
1
somes
joined 125 Republicans in voting to block funds for the program. But we lost
when 192 Democrats and six Republicans gave Mr. Johnson an eight-vote victory
margin.
After the vote, the big spenders told newsmen the
worstftheri of
legislative trouples were over now
that money has been voted for the Rent Subsidies program. I think the voters will
1 give someof them trouble
lumps in November.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, saying so-long for now. See you next
week; same time, same station.
###
BERALD B. FORD LIBRARY
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3, D.C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 13
April II, 1966
CANNONS OR CAVIAR
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
President Johnson hinted rather strongly the other day that he might have to ask Con-
gress for a tax increase to curb rising prices.
I want to go on record just as strongly that I am against a tax boost at this time because
I do not believe that's the answer to the inflation that is plaguing America's housewives and making
a mockery out of family budgets.
I would also like to say that I was amused by the President's suggestion that house-
wives buy only the moderately=priced cuts of meat and so force prices down. If the President is
able to find some moderately-priced cuts, I wish he would let me know.
The great majority of Americans, I am proud to note, are hard-headed, down-to-
earth people. They face up to facts. They don't order sirloin steaks when their pocketbook says
hamburger. In short, they don't like to live beyond their incomes.
If the present Administration really wants to curb rising prices, it might well follow
the example that is being set by the mothers and wives of America. It might well cut out the
luxury items in the national budget and settle for lesser-priced Federal fare. That is the answer
to checking the soaring rate of inflation.
So for this year, the taxpayers' burden has already been increased by higher Social
Security taxes, by higher excise taxes, by advanced withholding and by general tax rises by State
and local governments. All these increases combined are reliably estimated to run about 8 to 10
billion dollars.
On top of this, more Federal taxes? I'm against it--mainly because I am not at all
convinced that the higher taxes will achieve the desired end. They will not bring down the prices
of meats and vegetables, of clothes, shoes and services, for example.
I recently read that a newly-installed computer in the Internal Revenue Service dis-RD
covered what IRS called the "astonishing" fact that Americans as a whole figured out their taxes
LIBRARY
carefully, honestly and accurately. I think this care and honesty on the part of the taxpayer in
(more)
- 2 -
deserves corresponding care and honesty in the Federal spending of those same taxes. For instance,
I don't believe in this time of financial crisis we should build a palace costing more than three
quarters of a million dollars to house the Vice President,
Another reason I am against a tax increase is that it will give the President more money
to spend. If we are to judge by his spending habits to date, it will be spent with the usual reck-
less abandon. I cannot believe that the additional funds will be used simply to make ends meet.
To the contrary. The President, will dream up, I am sure, some new boondoggle or other--which
will add to the present inflationary trend, not take away from it.
In closing, I would like to return to the somewhat time-worn phrase "guns and butter."
If it were only a butter bill that the administration wanted the taxpayer to foot, I might be per-
suaded to go along. But I am afraid Federal spending has long passed the "butter" stage. It has
reached the point where we must make a choice between cannons and caviar.
This is Congressman
reporting from Washington.
(A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio)
###
Fifth District Radio Script
For Taping April 13, 1966
My friends of the Fifth Congressional District, this is your congressman,
Jerry Ford, speaking to you from the nation's capital. I'm going to talk with
you today about the subject that's on everybody's mind and everybody's tongue-the
street demonstrations in Vietnam and the political trouble there.
It's difficult for any of us to know exactly what's happening in
a situation like that, of course. But one thing seems clear to me from the
news reports out of Saigon.
All of the current trouble dates back to last February in Honolulu when
President Johnson staged a big conference with ** Southvietnamese Premier Ky (pronounced
KEY).
When Mr. Johnson made such a fuss over Ky, Kyctxx this triggered all sorts
of political rivalry in Vietnam.
The demonstrations started when Ky got rid of EtzxGenx the general who мижх
was the 1st Corps commander in Danang. That gave the Buddhists an excuse to
step in and make trouble for Premier Ky.
We can only hope that the political situation in Vietnamix
improves as a result of all the civil turmoil. But there is danger, of course,
that just the opposite will happen.
The most deplorable fact about all of this political trouble in Vietnam
is that it interferes with the objective of stopping Communist aggression there.
As the Vietnam war nowax shapes up, there are two alternatives if we are
to force a halt in the fighting and bring about a permanent peace settlement.
We must make more effective use of our air and sea power or we will
FORD LIBRARY
find the Johnson-Humphrey Administration increasing our troop strength in tnam
maybe doubling it.
2.-Ofifth dist. radio tape
Republicans don't want to see the United States drawn into a hugelom land
war in Asia. But that is what threatens us if we keep on sending more and more
men to Vietnam. At the same time we must persevere in our effort to thems thwart
Communist age aggression there.
My
answer is that we should not send any more of our boys to
Vietnam without first seeing whether the Republican alternative will work.
Under current st rategym the Vietnam war looks like a war without end.
And that's what the Communists want. They figure eventually we'll get tired and
frustrated and just give up.
the mour ID
Republicans offer their alternative--more air and sea power instead of more
men--in the hope of ending the V ietnam war and achieving an hunrakdex honorable and
lasting peace.
I slso urge that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration move more quickly and
effectively on the social and economic front in Vietnam because MRX the
Viet Cong will never be destroyed until the Vietnamese peasant wants it destroyed.
We must win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese you peasant if we are
to gain a meaningful peace in his unfortunate land.
The program of pacification set up by Mr. Johnson at the Honolulu EX
conference was splendid, but I doubt it can EXEX be carried out as long as the
Viet Cong control so many of the Vietnam villages by night.
It's difficult to see how our 40,000 technicians can stax accomplish much
if they must tx retreat to military compounds at night while the Viet Cong take
over possèssion of the villages.
Despite all obstacles, we must be firm in the right--determined to
stop FORD LIBRARY
Communist aggression in Vietnam. If we do not falter, we can achieve peace there.
FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO SCRIPT FOR TAPING APRIL 20, 1966.
My friends of the Fifth Congressional District, this is your Congressman,
Jerry Ford, speaking to you from the nation's capital.
One of the nation's leading lending institutions the other day issued its
bimonthly report on the state of business. Here's what it found--and I quote:
"Unless action is taken to check demand, the Nation faces an inflationary gap that
could amount to the order of $30 billion. That would point to an implicit rise in
the general price level of as much as four to five per cent."
The report goes on to say: "While it is argued in some quarters that it is as
important to continue the war on poverty at home as it is to sustain the military
effort in Vietnam, the fact is that the Nation lacks the resources to do both
this year."
These two quotations from the Chase Manhattan Bank of New York cannot be
carelessly brushed aside as partisan pessimism nor can they be ignored as lacking
authority.
I have said it before and I repeat it now--it's high time we faced up to the
economic facts of life in this country and cut out unnecessary domestic spending
when we're engaged in a war that is costing us a billion dollars a month.
These warnings by myself and others have been consistently ignored by the
Administration. Government spending has continued unchecked. Now the piper must
be paid--by you and by me. Inflation is here. The cost of living is rising steadily.
In November, you will go to the polls. When you vote, you should ask yourse
"Who is really responsible for the fact that there are so many things I can'
GERAL afford R HERARY
these days?"
(MORE)
-2-
5th DISTRICT RADIO TAPE - APRIL 20, 1966.
At the moment, there are 293 Democrats in the House compared with 140 Republicans.
That is a two-to-one Democratic majority with several votes to spare. In the Senate,
there are 68 Democrats and 32 Republicans. Again a two-to-one Democratic majority
with votes to spare.
This overwhelming voting edge gives the Democrats in this Congress absolute
power over all legislation. It gives them a blank check where spending is concerned.
It makes them responsible for the Federal deficits which contribute to the inflation
we're so concerned about.
Here is the record on non-defense spending: On six key measures to come before
the House so far this year, an average of 82 per cent of the Democrats have voted
for higher spending. This inevitably means higher taxes and higher prices.
On the same six roll calls, an average of 93 per cent of my Republican colleagues
stood for economy in government. They did this because they hoped to curb big
spending and the resulting inflation to follow. They did this because they hope
to avoid an increase in your income taxes.
Here are the facts on the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's inflation:
1. The overall cost of living went up more than 2 per cent last year, the
biggest increase in seven years. Many economists predict it will go up by 3 to 4
per cent this year; some are estimating even more.
2. Big spending by the Democrats is primarily responsible for inflation. The
federal budget has not been balanced since 1960, when Ike was in the White House.
Since then, Democratic administrations have produced deficits totalling $34 billion.
There will be another big deficit in fiscal 1967.
(MORE)
-3-
5th DISTRICT RADIO TAPE - APRIL 20, 1966.
3. The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has wasted your tax money both at
home and abroad by disorganized, ill-managed programs of government spending.
Don't let Lyndon Johnson's economy talk fool you.
4. The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has mortgaged your future and that
of the Nation with a host of "legislate now, pay later" spending programs which
are adding to present inflationary pressures.
As more big-spending Johnson-Humphrey legislation comes before the House
this year, we Republicans intend to stand up and be counted for economy.
When November 8 arrives, you voters will know who worked for lower taxes and
lower prices and which party brought on higher taxes and higher prices.
This is Congressman Jerry Ford saying so long for now; see you next week,
same time, same station.
# # #
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3, D. C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 15
April 26, 1966
OUR SINKING MERCHANT FLEET
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
Four years ago, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara decided that the role played by
ships in our defense picture could and should be very considerably reduced. Military supplies, he
decided, could very well be transported by air. That decision, plus the Administration's maritime
policy in general, has relegated our huge merchant marine fleet to horse and buggy status, allow-
ing it to become out-dated and dilapidated.
This determination is all too clear.
At the close of World War II, the U.S. had a merchant marine fleet of over 3,500
vessels. By 1951, there were 1,955 active U.S. flagships. Today, there are only 1,000, including
those reactivated for the Vietnam war, and most of these are over 20 years old and near the end of
their economic life.
It wasn't long before Secretary McNamara's policy of air-transport for military supplies
was put to the acid test. With the accelerated pace of the Vietnamese war, efficient transport of
military supplies became of crucial importance.
But were these vital supplies transported by air? They were not. Two out of every three
soldiers in Vietnam had to be transported by ships and, as of January of this year, 98 per cent of
the supplies for war went in by ship. Secretary Mc Namara had made a disastrous management de
cision. The fact is that it takes 260 C5A planes to carry the load of a single ship and air transpor
tation costs five or six times as much per ton mile. And what have other nations--both friend and
foe--been doing while America has allowed its merchant marine to sink into a crisis of major pro-
portions?
In Soviet Russia, for example, orders for new ships rose from 225 in 1962 to 673 in 1964.
Japan has 199 ships under construction, Great Britain 184 vessels, West Germany 176.
And how many ships has the United States under construction? On January I, 1966, the
United States had only 45 ships under construction. And President Johnson's budget for Fiscal 1967
provides only 85 million dollars for merchant marine construction. This represents a cut of 47 mil-
IBRARY
178
lion dollars from the current year. It could permit construction of only a paltry dozen or so new
ships.
- more -
- 2 -
In all, the United States has dropped to 12th place among the world's shipbuilding nations.
Russia, on the other hand, has jumped from 12th to seventh place. She openly admits that she in-
tends to use her growing merchant marine--which now numbers almost 1,500 vessels--as an instru-
ment of foreign policy.
The importance of all this to the United States is only too clear, particularly as the ex-
panding war in Vietnam puts more pressure on our merchant marine. Shipping volume to Vietnam
has leaped from 300,000 tons a month to 800,000 tons per month.
The poor state of our merchant marine, much of it due to Defense Secretary McNamara's
bad planning, is so acute that we have had to call on foreign flag vessels to help US supply our
troops and supplies to Vietnam.
It is past time that our merchant marine shipbuilding be increased. Unless we do, our de-
fense commitments throughout the world will be in jeopardy.
If the Administration sticks to its bankrupt maritime policy, this country--which once
boasted the greatest merchant fleet in the world--will be left on history's shore waiting for ships
that never come in.
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
(A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio)
STATEMENT FOR RADIO TAPE FOR 5TH DISTRICT STATIONS
FOR TAPING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 1966
My friends of the Fifth Congressional District, this is your
congressman, Jerry Ford, speaking to you from the nation's capital.
Inevitably, whenever a member of the minority party criticizes those
in power, the question that comes flying back at him is: "Well, how would
you do it?"
My answer first of all is that all of the criticism I have voiced
concerning the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's handling of our foreign
and domestic affairs carries with it the implicit statement that if the
minority were to become the majority things would be run better. I firmly
believe that.
So let's take a look at the Vietnam War and talk about what we, the
minority, would do if we were in a position of responsibility. In some
cases, we'll have to talk about what we would have done because certain
mistakes can never be remedied.
We would have handled the Vietnam situation in a positive, decisive
manner early enough to have confronted the enemy in force before the North
Vietnamese had infiltrated South Vietnam in such great numbers that our
entire operation became more or less a numbers matching game.
In this connection, it should be remembered that we now have more
than 240,000 ground troops in South Vietnam, as compared with only 25,000
when Lyndon Johnson became president in November, 1963
and only 25 OCORD
last year at this time.
GERALD R.
(MORE)
-2-
5TH DISTRICT RADIO TAPE
It also should be remembered that North Vietnamese soldiers are
slipping into South Vietnam at the rate of 4,500 a month.
Mark this well! President Johnson did not begin to cope with the
Vietnam situation until February, 1965, when all of Southeast Asia was
about to go down the drain.
It will be said that hindsight is always better than foresight, and
this I must agree with. It is easy to say that we should have acted more
quickly and decisively to meet the Vietnam situation.
That brings up the question: What do we do now?
I do not like second-guessing the President on day-to-day military
decisions. He has all possible information at his disposal; I do not.
Our top Air Force men have publicly said Chey could end the Vietnam war in
3
six weeks if the President would allow them to carry out attacks on all
significant military targets in North Vietnam, would let them knock out
Vietnam's war-making potential, would let them pull the teeth of the tiger.
I don't know if this is so, but I do feel we should not be sending any
more of our men to Vietnam. We must find another way to bring to an
honorable conclusion a war that under present strategy gives the appearance
of dragging on for years and years.
The Administration reportedly is prepared to send as many men to
South Vietnam as it had in Korea at the peak of the war there. The Korean
figure was in excess of 470,000 men, including support troops in Japan.
Counting the 60,000 support troops in our offshore forces, the comparable
Vietnam figure currently is about 300,000.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
(MORE)
-3-
5TH DISTRICT RADIO TAPE
The Administration has not waged peace in South Vietnam as effectively
of successfully as we would hope
as we have magya President Johnson decided to make an all-out
commitment. The decision by the President to such help from The
Mmtd nations several months withing was knowly concerved of negrettably
We should even now be working through United Nations Secretary
active Vutnam peace negotiation in
General U Thant of Burma to set up Vietnem peace ednforence in Asia
Anotheat and La Geneva 6 anywhere else.
maybe Burma or Japan. We should not have made our latest peace proposal
through a high-ranking Democratic politician, Senate Majority Leader
Mike Mansfield of Montana.
And while diligently pursuing peace through the proper diplomatic
channels we should be doing everything possible to cut off the shipping
metting of of supplies to North Vietnam. The Administration has finally blacklisted
such vessels flying the flags of the Free World but only after being
pushed into it by months and months of Republican protest.
What would we Republicans do in the Vietnam situation? We would
lemmic
doggedly use every proper means, military and diplomatic, to achieve a
prompt, just, and secure peace.
This is Jerry Ford, your congressman, signing off until next week,
same time, same station.
# # #
GERALD FORD LEBRARY
loosle
OK
5-4-64
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3. D. C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 16
May 2, 1966
THE RIGHT TO KNOW
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
When the House Government Operations Committee approved the so-called Freedom
of Information bill the other day, it marked another important step in the battle to return to every
American citizen a right which has been morally his since the founding of this country--the right
to examine records of the Federal Government.
I believe the Freedom of Information bill is one of the most important pieces of legisla-
tion to be considered by Congress in years. I support its enactment one hundred per cent.
This legislation would require Federal agencies to "make all records promptly avail-
able" to the public, with the exception, of course, of certain specified categories, such as those
involving the country's National security. And--this is most important--it provides, for the first
time, court action to guarantee such a right. The bill has already been passed by the Senate and
will come before the House shortly.
The present Administration's manipulation of news is only too well known to all Ameri-
cans. Defense Secretary McNamara's informational acrobatics/for instance, his now-you-see
victory, now-you-don't political sleight-of-hand has awakened the country to the increasing aura
of secrecy in its government's operations. Americans are beginning to realize how little they
really know of what goes on behind the scenes.
Take a case in point. The Post Office Department refused to disclose the names of
hundreds of part-time employees it hired last summer. This certainly wasn't sensitive information.
It was information that the general public had every right to know. After all, their tax money
was paying the employees' salaries. Why, then, were the names withheld? For one main reason:
to keep from the press and the public the "pork-barrel politics" involved in these appointments--
to hide the fact that friends and relatives of the high-ranking Democrats had been added onto the
Government's payroll.
There is a law which has been on the books for some time that deals with the right of
the public to obtain information. This law limits information which government cgencies can re-
lease "to persons properly and directly concerned." Why all Americans aren't considered persons
properly and directly concerned, it is hard to say. But this piece of technical phrasing has been
more.
- 2 -
used by bureaucrats to legally withhold information which could expose their political shenanigans.
When asked for information, they can say, "We are sorry we cannot give it to you. You are not
"properly and directly concerned!"
The new Freedom of Information bill, which the House will soon take up, would cer-
tainly make officials of the Executive Branch think twice before deliberately exaggerating or fal-
sifying figures, just to make their department look good. It would make them think twice before
blatantly withholding information which should properly be the right of the public to know.
An example of deliberate exaggeration was the Area Redevelopment Administration's
figures on the number of new jobs created by Federal public works projects. The official figure
was more than twice too many. It over-claimed by about 128 per cent.
Such slanting of the news to fit the political scene has, of recent years, become a
fine art. The present Administration has been responsible for several masterpieces of misinformation.
it has led The New York Times to editorialize--and I quote--"The credibility of the United
States government is a precious thing. It has been sacrificed too often in the name of expediency."
Unquote.
Of course, misinformation, slanted information, withheld information are to a great
extent a matter of political morality. An Administration that has none, can usually get away with 3
all three.
This is Congressman
reporting from Washington.
(A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio)
###
SCRIPT FOR FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS, FOR TAPING MAY 11, 1966.
My friends of the Fifth Congressional District, this is your congressman,
Jerry Ford, speaking to you from the nation's capital.
This week we read some significant headlines. One announced to the world
that Red China had conducted its third atomic bomb test. Another let everyone
know that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is engaged in a reappraisal of
United States policy toward Red China.
These two headlines are fraught with great meaning.
In both cases, we know but little of what is happening. We don't really
know how much progress Red China is making in striving for nuclear capability.
We don't really know what new policy line may result from the Administration's
meditations on what its official attitude toward Red China should be.
But change is in the wind. As the atom cloud from Red China's nuclear
explosions mushrooms skyward, we know that Red China is moving closer to the
day--perhaps still a decade away--when she will be capable of erasing most of
launching a
this mchar continent attach from against the face of any the continent earth. including month america.
The views of the American people on Red China are changing, too. Oh, no,
the people do not for a minute believe that the Red Chinese have suddenly become
peace-loving and that we should welcome them with open arms into the United
Nations or accord them diplomatic recognition.
But at the same time, the American people wish desperately that it would
be possible to teach peace to this gigantic Communist nation.
Is it possible to achieve such a miracle? Perhaps that is the only word
that can be used to describe such a development, and yet I along with alt
FORD LIBRARY & CERTIL
(More)
-2-
RADIO TAPE - MAY 11
peace-loving Americans am hopeful. I am hopeful because I, like all of you, do
not want to see the world turned into a burnt cinder by the horror of nuclear war.
We all know that Red China has engaged in aggressive acts for 18 years.
The war in Malaya, begun in 1948, was financed by Red China. Chinese
Communist soldiers took part in many of its campaigans.
Chinese troops poured into Korea and slaughtered American soldiers fighting
in defense of Korean independence.
Chinese Communists supplied the weapons and training that drove the French
out of Indochina.
And it is this country, with this history of aggression that- in my opinion --
we will soon be asked to recognize, to seat in the U.N. In spite of the fact
that the U.N. is dedicated to do all it can to prevent aggression!
The campaign to seat Red China in the U.N. was launched when Senator Fulbright,
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, held public hearings on the question
recently--and when Administration spokesmen like Vice President Humphrey suggested
that American policy toward Mainland China might be one of "containment without
necessarily isolation" U.N. Ambassador Goldberg has admitted that the issue
is being--and I quote- "intensively reviewed by the American government." Unquote.
After Secretary of State Dean Rusk's testimoney to Congress, a Washington
newspaper headlined: "Rusk softens policy toward China."
We were told once by some so-called Chinese experts that the Red Chinese
weren't really Communists, they were agrarian reformers. But we know that Mao
is as much a Communist as Stalin ever was. He is just as opposed to freedom
(More)
-3-
RADIO TAPE - MAY 11
and free institutions. He is just as expansionist, as aggressive and as willing
to use force to overthrow free governments. Only this week, Red China exploded
its third nuclear device.
United States diplomatic recognition of Communist China and a seat in the
United Nations would not alter these tendencies one bit. In fact, Red Chinese
subversion and aggression would be made easier.
In short, I believe such a move by the country would be a mistake--certainly
at this time--certainly until Red China changes its aggressive course.
This is Jerry Ford, your congressman. I'll be back next week at the same
time.
# # #
RADIO SCRIPT FOR FIFTH DISTRICT STATIONS - TO BE TAPED MAY 18, 1966
My friends of the fifth district, this is your congressman, Jerry Ford,
speaking to you from the nation's capital.
It may never have occurred to you how extremely difficult it is for the
Loyal Opposition in this country to get its views on the issues of the day
across to the American people.
One issue which I do not believe has been adequately explained to the
public is that of rent subsidies--the new Great Society program which will
have the taxpayers paying a big chunk of the rent of other families.
This program is highly controversial, so much so that it is barely
squeaking through the lopsided Democratic-controlled Congress.
Congress in shaky fashion has made money available to launch the rent
subsidy program between now and July 1, the beginning of the new fiscal year.
Funds to carry it forward beyond July 1 have been approved by the House; the
Senate still must act.
I firmly believe that despite the great public relations machine the White
House has at its disposal, most of the American poeple are opposed to this
revolutionary new idea of rent subsidies.
I think more of the people would be opposed to rent subsidies and would
act to choke off the program in the United States Senate if they truly
understood what it means.
Rent subsidies mean that a low-income family could rent a new or rehabilitated
apartment and pay just 25 per cent of its income toward the rent. The
would pay the rest.
taxpayers GERALD FORD LIBRARY
(MORE)
-2-
5TH DISTRICT RADIO TAPE - MAY 18, 1966
For example, a family with an income of $250 a month could live in a
$100-a-month apartment and pay just $62.50 a month on the rent. You and I
would pick up the tab for the remaining $37.50. Or let's say the family rented
a $200-a-month apartment. They would pay $62.50 toward the rent; and we would
pay $137.50.
Robert Weaver, secretary of the Housing and Urban Development Department,
says he would like to see the program expanded to include middle income families.
He said this recently despite the fact the House last year refused to make
funds available to start the program until FHA changed the regulations to make
sure the subsidies would go only to low-income families.
Now, what's wrong with the rent subsidies program? Shouldn't the affluent
help the poor?
The thing that's wrong with a rent subsidy is that it runs contrary to
everything this country has ever stood for--individual pride, thrift and
initiative, and the desire of every American to some day own a home of his own.
And supporters of this scheme agree that tax subsidies will be going to middle-
income families, not just to the poor.
What incentive will a family have to save money and buy a home if all it
has to do is set aside 25 per cent of the monthly income for rent and let the
taxpayers pay the rest of the shot on a nice apartment?
And the taxpayers should ask themselves not only that question but still
others: What sense does it make to launch a big-spending program that could
cost up to $20 billion over the next 40 years? Why should this nation plunge
into a rent subsidy scheme at a time when it is spending a billion dollars a
month on the Vietnam War?
(MORE)
-3-
5TH DISTRICT RADIO TAPE - MAY 18, 1966
The U. S. House of Representatives recently voted 192 to 188 to provide
$20 million to finance the rent subsidy program during the new fiscal year
beginning July 1.
Some newsmen made much of the fact that six out of the 125 Republicans
present voted for rent subsidies and pointed to this as more than the margin
of victory.
A more accurate version was given in other news accounts which pointed
out that Democrats voted for the program, 186 to 69, and Republicans voted
against it, 119 to 6.
As a matter offact, four Democrats came forward and changed their votes
to make victory possible for President Johnson on the rent subsidy issue.
When it appeared initally that a tie vote had doomed the new program,
four Democrats asked that their votes against rent subsidies be changed. This
gave the Administration a 192 to 188 victory.
With the record made straight, I'm content to let the American people
judge who's right on the rent subsidy issue.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, saying so-long for now. See you
next week, same time, same station.
###
SCRIPT FOR FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS, FOR TAPING MAY 25, 1966
My friends of the fifth conguessional district adultächigen, this is your
congressman, Jerry Ford, speaking to you from the nation's capital.
On May 30, Memorial Day, we will pay special tribute to our honored war
Them have been
dead. This year, Memorial Day finds our nation still at war. More than 3,000 3,
more Than 20, 000 casmothes so for
of our men have been killed 111 Vietnam, and the casualty list grows longer
every day.
according to the President
This is a sad and anxious time for many Americans. The end of the fighting
n
in Vietnam is not in sight.
For the mothers, fathers, wives and sweethearts of our men in Vietnam this
is a time of fearful waiting and time to remember all the glad times that
went before.
It is a strange war that haunts our thoughts as we mark this Memorial Day.
It is so very different from the two world wars and even the Korean War.
The First World War was fought, we were told, "to save the world for democracy."
Americans were fighting for a victory, swift and complete.
The Second World War was fought to crush fascism and make possible the four
freedoms. Again, Americans were fighting for a victory, speedy and final.
The Korean War introduced us to a new kind of war--a war against Communist
aggression, a war that broke the old mold.
But even in Korea there was hope for a kind of victory, a victory that might
have been attained had we spelled out our objectives clearly and moved swiftly
toward them.
FORD LIBRARY &
On Memorial Day, 1966, the American people are confused. They are confused
(More)
-2-
5TH DISTRICT RADIO TAPE--MAY 25, 1966
because we are fighting a war in which victory does not seem to be our aim, a
war in which our objective is a stalemate and even this seems elusive.
Our avowed purpose in Vietnam is to help the South Vietnamese halt Communist
aggression.
We provided the South Vietnamese with the finest American weapons. They were
to use them to fight the Communist aggressor. In recent weeks they have been
shooting at each other--and at some Americans, too.
This has been terribly disturbing to Americans back home.
It has been disturbing to them, too, that for the third week this year
American casualties as a result of contact with the enemy have exceeded those of
the South Vietnamese.
When the South Vietnamese fight among themselves and our casualty list
becomes longer than theirs, their war in a sense becomes our war.
This is wrong. It is wrong not only because their ground forces are nearly
three times as large as ours, but because we are in Vietnam simply to help the
South Vietnamese and not to take over all the fighting.
I want desperately to see a legitimate stable government power in Vietnam,
a government which has the support of the people. Unless this comes to pass, the
fighting in Vietnam will become meaningless and the great sacrifices the United
must not be
States has made there wéll all so for naught.
It would be tragic, indeed, if all the American blood shed in Vietnam shall
have been shed in vain.
It is not enough to speak about the American commitment in Vietnam.
QERALD FORD LIBRAR
(More)
-3-
5TH DISTRICT RADIO TAPE--MAY 25, 1966
Americans must know for what they are fighting. They must feel that what
they are doing is worthwhile. They must believe that the lives of their men.
and their nation's substance are not being thrown away in a cause not worth the
price.
Asia seems terribly far away. We are told we must play the same role there
that we did in Europe after World War II. We are told we must contain Communist
imperialism there or the free world will be gobbled up in bits and pieces until
our own security is in imminent danger.
This is a sad thing to think about. The Vietnam War is a sad war, as all
wars are sad.
I hope with all my heart that civil order can prevail in Vietnam, and that
constitutional government can become a reality there.
The Vietnam War must again become their war, not our war.
I hope, too, thatall the black marketeering, the profiteering and the corruption
that are making the Vietnam War such a dirty mess can be wiped out and a semblance
of decency restored to the war effort.
An American newsman in Saigon recently charged that the Vietcong was getting
more of its supplies from the black market and other South Vietnam sources than
through the famous Ho Chi Minh Trail. To me that is tragic and almost incredible.
by The Viet nambe themadres in The priot
We need strong action in Vietnam if ve are going to straighten out the mass
instance and Then with an help the communit + tarm is to be stopped
there. And our men in Vietnam desperately need your prayers on this Memorial Day,
1966. This is Jerry Ford, your congressman.
# # #
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
CLOSE FOR RADIO SCRIPT - JUNE 1, 1966
My friends, this broadcast closes out my series of radio chats with
you for this year. This week I filed my nominating petitions to become a
candidate for reelection to the House of Representatives. Under the rules
of the Federal Communications Commission, equal time must be given to all
candidates. We are therefore discontinuing this public service program.
It has been a genuine pleasure for me to have visited with you each
week at this time. I hope you have found it equally enjoyable. The
greatest satisfaction in holding public office is to serve others. Please
let me know whenever I can be of service to you.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, saying so long until the 1966
campaign is over and I can again return to chat with you each week over
your favorite radio station. Thank you for listening.
###
FORD
.
&
.
.
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3. D. C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 36
September 19, 1966
AFTER NOVEMBER 8th -- WHAT?
What is going to happen after November 8th? What post-election plans for the country
does the Administration have? Are we getting the dynamic leadership that the present confused
state of the world calls for? How big will the Vietnam war get? Can inflation be stopped?
These are some of the questions that the American voter must answer before the morning
of November 8 dawns.
The polls show that the American people are confused, uncertain and concerned. They
don't know where they are being taken by their own government. They are bewildered by the
seemingly unbridgeable gap that lies between the Administration's promises and the Administra-
tion's performances.
Americans have reached the state of mind where they can no longer condone the Ad-
ministration's long list of failures by saying, "They mean well." Moreover, the members of the
Administration's party seeking office will be called to account on those issues come November
8th.
The Vietnam war, of course, is an overriding issue. Our forces have been doubled and
doubled again until they are now well over the three hundred thousand mark--despite earlier
Administration efforts to conceal the extent of our involvement. Now the country is very
naturally apprehensive as to what further acceleration lies ahead. The bombing of North Viet-
nam has been accelerated. The Administration must have foreseen that this would be necessary
--but said nothing, wasting valuable time before it took this necessary step.
In our domestic affairs, there has been the same bewildering uncertainty. The Ad-
ministration laid out a wonderful blueprint of the years ahead. It can be summed up by the
phrase "more of everything for everybody--with lower taxes and a balanced budget." And it
promised there would be no inflation, no rise in living costs, no waste and wild spending of the
taxpayers' money. To dramatize this promise, the President plunged the White House into
darkness to cut his electric bill.
GERALD, semi- FORD LIBRARY
As a result, the country relaxed and in 1964 voted LBJ in by a landslide.
*more -
- 2 -
Then came the gradual realization that the wonderful blueprint was not being followed,
that government by consensus was being replaced by government by acceleration--accelerated
spending, accelerated debt, accelerated living costs.
Americans have begun to feel uneasy. What are the Administration's real aims? Does
it have any intention of fulfilling its promises? Are these promises just the camouflage painted
on a monstrous pork barrel?
One thing has become very apparent. The Administration has not made good on its
promises to the American people. So, of course, the American people are apprehensive of the
future, are wondering what will happen after November 8th.
The Administration isn't answering some important questions, but there are strong rumors
in Washington that President Johnson has something up his sleeve.
Will taxes be raised after November 8th? This question is being asked frequently.
Will there be price and wage controls? A Democratic Senate leader recently urged
that such standby controls be given the President.
Is the war on poverty going to be downgraded and perhaps its warriors disbanded? That
is another frequent question in the Capital.
Will the war in Vietnam grow more and more costly with no foreseeable victory? That,
I am afraid, is the most disturbing question of all.
Americans cannot long endure such uncertainties. They cannot live nor work effectively
without the trust and confidence of their government. In my judgment, the November election
results will make it quite clear that Americans believe the Administration has failed to provide
that trust.
###