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.
Source Description
This file contains an analysis of a Ronald Reagan speech.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1528603
label
Anderson, Gwen (White House Editorial Staff)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1528603
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Anderson, Gwen (White House Editorial Staff)
description
This file contains an analysis of a Ronald Reagan speech.
citationUrl
collections
L. William Seidman Files (Ford Administration)
William Seidman's Name Files
subjects
Reagan, Ronald, 1911-2004
Presidential campaign, 1976
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1528603
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-06-30
month
6
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-04-01
month
4
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a105231cb4d320f4
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 170, folder "Anderson, Gwen O. (White House
Editorial Staff)" of the L. William Seidman Files 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. Gerald R. Ford 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 3, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
ECONOMIC POLICY BOARD
FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET
VIA:
ROBERT T. HARTMANN
FROM:
GWEN ANDERSON gAms
SUBJECT:
REAGAN COMMENTS
Attached are the draft comments of the Reagan speech. Please
review the comments for accuracy in your area of expertise.
Any comments or suggested corrections should be returned to
my office (Room 122) by NOON, MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1976.
Your priority attention to this important matter is urgently
requested.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Please check one box and sign below:
( 4 ) I approve the draft without changes.
( ) Suggested revisions are noted on the
draft or attached separately.
Initials:
fun Sudma
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
ERRORS IN CANDIDATE REAGAN'S
SPEECH OF MARCH 31, 1976
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 1, paragraph 3
"In this election season the White House is telling
us a solid economic recovery is taking place. It
claims a slight drop in unemployment. It says that
prices aren't going up as fast, but they are still
going up, and that the stock market has shown some
gains. But, in fact, things seem just about as they
were back in the 1972 election year. Remember, we
were also coming out of a recession then. Inflation
has been running at around 6%. Unemployment about
7. Remember, too, the upsurge and the optimism
lasted through the election year and into 1973. And
then, the roof fell in. Once again we had unemploy-
ment. Only this time not 7%, more than 10. And
inflation -- wasn't 6%, it was 12%."
RESPONSE:
The peak of unemployment -- $8.9% -- was reached in May, 1975.
Latest unemployment figures -- March, 1976 -- show the rate was
7.5%. The employment is now at an all time high with 86.7 million
at work. This exceeds the pre-recession peak of July, 1974 and
is a 2.6 million gain since March '75.
Prices are not going up as fast. Inflation in 1974 was at an annual
rate of 12. 2%. Today it is at 6.3%.
In 1972 we were further into recovery than we are today. But
Mr. Reagan's statistical facts concerning 1973-74 are incorrect.
The peak unemployment figure was reached in May 1975 at 8.9%.
It never reached 10% as he states. (Source: CEA)
BERRLD FORD LIBREST
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 2, paragraph 2
"Now, in this election year 1976, we're told we're
coming out of this recession. Just because inflation
and unemployment rates have fallen to what they were
at the worst of the previous recession. If history
repeats itself will we be talking recovery four years
from now merely because we've reduced inflation from
25% to 12%. "
RESPONSE:
All of the figures -- retail sales, GNP, durable goods, housing,
personal income, etc. clearly show we are moving out of the
recession -- the Administration's statements are not based merely
on improved unemployment and cost-of-living statistics as Mr.
Reagan implies. (Source: CEA, OMB)
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 2, paragraph 3
"The fact is, we'll never build a lasting economic
recovery by going deeper into debt at a faster rate
than we ever have before. It took this nation 166
years -- until the middle of World War II -- to
finally accumulate a debt of $95 billion. It took
this administration just the last 12 months to add
$95 billion to the debt. And this administration
has run up almost one-fourth of our total national
debt in just these short nineteen months."
RESPONSE:
The national debt reached $72 billion in 1942. The current estimated
deficit for FY 1976 is $76.19 billion. Gross federal debt for FY
1976 is estimated at $634 billion. Thus the administration's share
of the national debt is 15.6%, not 25%. (Source: CEA, OMB)
FORD is GERALD LIBRARY
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 2, paragraph 4
"Inflation is the cause of recession and unemployment.
And we're not going to have real prosperity or recovery
until we stop fighting the symptoms and start fighting
the disease. There's only one cause for inflation --
government spending more than government takes in.
The cure is a balanced budget. Ah, but they tell us,
80% of the budget is uncontrollable. It's fixed by laws
passed by Congress. "
RESPONSE:
The President has offered specific plans for a balanced budget.
But a large part of the cause of the current recession is the
result of past fiscal policies, rapid increases in federal expendi-
tures. There is no quick remedy for problems created a decade
ago. A rapid return to a balanced budget, as Mr. Reagan calls
for, would provide fuel for inflation, but at the same time, it
would mean a long delay in recovery and much longer period of
high unemployment.
The budget for FY 1977 estimates that 77.1% of the budget is
uncontrollable. (Source: CEA, OMB)
FORD is 9ERALD LIBRARY
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 3, last two sentences of top paragraph
"But laws passed by Congress can be repealed by
Congress. And, if Congress is unwilling to do this,
then isn't it time we elect a Congress that will?"
RESPONSE:
The open-ended or uncontrollable programs call for outlays of
$383. 1 billion in FY 1977 (plus the third quarter). $236.8 billion
is allocated to payments for individuals. Does Mr. Reagan want
to repeal the following:
Social Security and Railroad Retirement -- $108.0 billion
Federal Employees Retirement Benefits -- $22.9 billion
Veterans Benefits -- $16.3 billion
Medicare and Medicaid -- $38.4 billion
Public Assistance Programs -- $26.0 billion
(Source: CEA, OMB)
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 3, paragraph 2
"Soon after he took office, Mr. Ford promised he
would end inflation. Indeed, he declared war on
inflation. And, we all donned those WIN buttons to
"Whip Inflation Now. 11 Unfortunately, the war --
if it ever really started -- was soon over. Mr.
Ford, without WIN button, appeared on TV, and
promised he absolutely would not allow the Federal
deficit to exceed $60 billion (which incidentally was
$5 billion more than the biggest previous deficit
we'd ever had). Later he told us it might be as
much as $70 billion. Now we learn it's $80 billion
or more. "
RESPONSE:
The President did draw a line at a deficit of $60 billion on March 29,
1975 in a televised address. The largest single yearly deficit occur-
red in 1943 -- $54.8 billion. The difference between $54.8 billion
and $60 billion is, of course, $5.2 billion. The current estimated
deficit for FY 76 is not $80 billion or more, it is $76.9 billion.
(Source: CEA, OMB)
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 3, paragraph 3
"Then came a White House proposal for a $28 billion
tax cut, to be matched by a $28 billion cut in the pro-
posed spending -- not in the present spending, but in
the proposed spending in the new budget. Well, my
question then and my question now is, If there was
$28 billion in the new budget that could be cut, what
was it doing there in the first place?"
RESPONSE:
The proposed $28 billion cut was not a cut in the budget as sug-
gested in the next to last line, it was a $28 billion cut in Federal
expenditures in programs already existing. The President's pro-
posal was an effort to prevent further increases in spending.
(Source: CEA)
GERALD LISTANY R FORD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 4, paragraph 1
"It would have been nice if they'd thought of some
arrangement like that for the rest of us. They could,
for example, correct a great unfairness that now
exists in our tax system. Today, when you get a
cost-of-living pay raise -- one that just keeps you
even with purchasing power -- it often moves you
up into a higher tax bracket. This means you pay
a higher percentage in tax but you reduce your pur-
chasing power. Last year, because of this inequity,
the government took in $7 billion in undeserved pro-
fit in the income tax alone, and this year they'll
do even better. Now isn't it time that Congress
looked after your welfare as well as its own?"
RESPONSE:
Inflation does indeed increase taxes. The President has recognized
this and has been successful in reducing the inflation rate by 50%.
He has also proposed curbing the rise in expenditures and matched
this with a comparable tax cut. (Source: CEA)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 5, paragraph 3
"Ending inflation is the only long range and lasting
answer to the problem of unemployment. The Wash-
ington Establishment is not the answer. It's the
problem. Its tax policies, its harassing regulations,
its confiscation of investment capital to pay for its
deficits keeps business and industry from expanding
to meet your needs and to provide the jobs we all
need.' "
RESPONSE:
The President's economic policies are anti-inflationary. He has
vetoed 46 bills and saved the taxpayers $13 billion. (Source: OMB)
Monetary expansion is now far more restrained than in 1972. Over
the last six months, the broadly defined money supply has grown
at an 8.6% annual rate. In the comparable September 1971-
March 1972 period, it grew at a 14.6% rate. It should be noted
that a 14.6% rate is well above the 10.5% upper limit of the
Federal Reserve's present target range. (Source: EPB)
Wholesale prices increased 12.5% from March 1974-March 1975,
while the price index went up only 5.5% between March 1975 and
March 1976. (Source: EPB)
Employment reached an all-time high of 86.5 million in February.
(Source: P Speech 3/12/76)
New orders for manufactured goods were up 2.4 percent in
February. (Source: P Speech 3/19/76)
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 6, paragraph 2
"At the time we were only importing a small percentage of our
oil. Yet, the Arab boycott caused half a million Americans to
lose their jobs when plants closed down for lack of fuel. Today,
it's almost three years later and "Project Independence" has
become "Project Dependence. 11 Congress has adopted an energy
bill so bad we were led to believe Mr. Ford would veto it.
Instead he signed it. And, almost instantly, drilling rigs all
over our land started shutting down. Now, for the first time in
our history, we are importing more oil than we produce. How
many Americans will be laid off if there is another boycott?
The energy bill is a disaster that never should have been signed. "
RESPONSE:
Candidate Reagan stated we were only importing a small percentage of
our oil -- actually 35%. When he stated it's almost three years -- in
fact it is only two years March, 1974 to the present. The amount of
oil that we imported during 1975 was 6.0 mb/d, and we produced 8.4 mb/d.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act passed by the Congress in
December ended a year-long debate between the Congress and the
Administration on oil pricing policy and opened the way to an orderly
phasing out of controls on domestic oil over forty months, thereby
stimulating our own oil production. By removing controls, this legis-
lation should give industry sufficient incentive over a period of time to
explore, develop and produce new fields in the outer continental shelf,
Alaska, and potential new reserves in the lower forty-eight states.
Removal of these controls at the end of forty months should increase
domestic production by more than one million barrels per day by 1985
and reduce imports by about three million barrels per day.
More importantly, this bill enables the United States to meet a substantial
portion of the mid-term goals for energy independence set forth over a
year ago. Incorporated in this are authorities for a strategic storage
system, conversion of oil and gas-fired utility and industrial plants to
coal, energy efficiency labeling, emergency authorities for use in the
event of another embargo, and the authority we need to fulfill our inter-
national agreements with other oil consuming nations. These provisions
will directly reduce the nation's dependency on foreign oil by almost two
million barrels per day by 1985. The strategic storage system and the
stand-by authority will enable the United States to withstand a future
embargo of about four million barrels per day.
(Source: FEA)
DERALD FORD LIBRARY
Oil rigs didn't begin shutting down. There were 1660 drilling rigs
operating in 1975, the highest number in a decade. Through mid-March
1976, there were as many rigs operating as were operating in the com-
parable period during '75.
(Source: EPB)
FORD is 07V830 LIBRARY
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 7, paragraph 2
"When I became Governor, I inherited a state govern-
ment that was in almost the same situation as New
York City. The state payroll had been growing for
a dozen years at a rate of from 5 to 7,000 new
employees each year. State government was spend-
ing from a million to a million and a half dollars
more each day than it was taking in. The State's
great water project was unfinished and underfunded
by a half a billion dollars. My predecessor had
spent the entire year's budget for Medicaid in the
first six months of the fiscal year. And, we learned
that the teachers' retirement fund was unfunded. A
four billion dollar liability hanging over every prop-
erty owner in the state. I didn't know whether I'd
been elected Governor or appointed receiver."
RESPONSE:
The bonded indebtedness of California at $4 billion does not compare
to New York City's current problem.
The State payroll increased from 113,779 in 1967 to 127,929 in 1973.
The state budget more than doubled under Ronald Reagan. From
$4.6 billion in 1967 to $10.2 billion in 1973. (Source: PFC)
FORD is 933870 LIBRARY
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 7, paragraph 3
Page 9, paragraph 2
"California was faced with insolvency and on the verge
of bankruptcy. We had to increase taxes. Well,
this came very hard for me because I felt taxes
were already too great a burden. I told the people
the increase, in my mind, was temporary and that,
as soon as we could, we'd return their money to
them.
"This was government-by-the-people proving that it
works when the people work at it. When we ended
our eight years, we turned over to the incoming
administration a balanced budget. A $500 million
surplus. And, virtually the same number of employees
we'd started with eight years before. Even though the
increase in population had given some departments a
two-thirds increase in work load."
RESPONSE:
The number of state employees increased from 113, 779 in 1967
to 127, 929 in 1975. Under Reagan, there were three huge tax
increases totalling more than $2 billion.
In 1967, there was an increase of $967 million, the largest state
tax hike in the nation's history. Of this, $280 million went for
one-time deficit payment and state property tax relief. In 1971,
the increase was $488 million with $150 million for property tax
relief. In 1972, an increase of $682 million with $650 million for
property tax relief. Much of this property tax relief was short
term, but the overall tax increases were permanent.
State personal income tax revenues went from $500 million to
$2.5 billion, a 500% increase. Taxable bracket levies were in-
creased from 7% to 11%. The size of the brackets was reduced
so that taxpayers reached the highest bracket morequickly and
GERALD R. FORD
Page 7, paragraph 3 and Page 9, paragraph 2 (continued)
personal exemptions were reduced. Finally, after he adamantly
denied that he would ever do so, the Governor agreed to a system
of withholding state income taxes.
Bank and corporation taxes went up 100%. The state sales tax
rose from 4% to 6%. The tax on cigarettes went up 7 cents a
pack and the liquor tax rose 50 cents per gallon. Inheritance
tax rates were increased and collections more than doubled.
Under Reagan, the average tax rate for each $100 of assessed
valuation rose from $8.84 to $11.15. Under predecessor Pat
Brown, the increase was much less in dollars and percentage --
from $6.96 to $8.84, and in the six years of Republican Knight's
administration, it was still less -- from $5.94 to $6.96. One
reason for the big increase under Reagan -- from $3.7 billion to
$8.3 billion -- is that the state paid a steadily smaller per-
centage of the school costs -- one of the biggest reasons for
local property taxes.
Despite periodic efforts to provide relief, there has been a sub-
stantial increase in the burden carried by most property owners.
Inflation and high assessments have helped wipe out any savings.
Only $855 million of the record $10.2 billion budget in Reagan's
final year was for tax relief for homeowners and renters.
(Source: PFC)
DERALO FORD LIBRAST
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 10, paragraph 4
"And in less than three years we reduced the rolls by more
than 300, 000 people. Saved the taxpayers $2 billion. 11
RESPONSE:
Substitute for 300, 000 and $2 billion the following:
1. Drop by 20,000 persons in rolls due to correction in
accounting procedures in largest county, Los Angeles.
2. Migratory rate of unemployed into California declined
from 233, 000 in 1967 to 44, 000 in 1971.
3. 110, 000 decline in rolls attributed to Reagan even though
his welfare program had not gone into effect when decline
occurred.
4. Rolls for welfare families increased in 8 years of
Reagan's Governorship from 729, 357 to 1, 384, 400
and the cost went from $32. 3 million to $104. 4 million.
(Source, PFC)
GERALD FORD LIBRURA
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 11, top sentence
"And, increased the grants to the truly deserving needy by an
average of 43%. We also carried out a successful experiment
which I believe is an answer to much of the welfare problem in
the nation. We put able-bodied welfare recipients to work at
useful community projects in return for their welfare grants."
RESPONSE:
The program never touched more than 6/10th of 1% of welfare recipients.
Also, the program was designed to have 59,000 participants in 1st year
in 35 counties, but it managed only 1,100 participants in 10 counties in
mostly rural farm areas. (Source, PFC)
GERALD R. FORD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 12, paragraph 4
"Independent business people, shopkeepers and farmers file
billions of reports every year required of them by Washington.
It amounts to some 10 billion pieces of paper each year and
it adds $50 billion a year to the cost of doing business.
Washington has been loud in its promise to do something
about this blizzard of paperwork. And they made good. Last
year they increased it by 20%.'
RESPONSE:
The figures 10 billion and 50 billion are guestimates. No one has
counted the number of pages in all of these reports. Moreover, if it
is liberally estimated that it costs $100 an hour to work on these forms,
the total cost to business would be $4.3 billion.
Between December, 1974 and December, 1975, the number of reports
from the Executive branch agencies excluding IRS, banking and
regulatory agencies declined by 5%. However, the number of hours
of burden associated with filling out the reports increased by 8%. One
reason for that increase is reports required by the Congress, i.e.,
the Real Estate Settlements Act which requires information to be filed
when house was sold added 4 million manhours of reporting burden last
year. In the absence of that report the reporting burden would have
declined There are other reports mandated by Congress which have
added to this burden.
Dr. Duncan can see no reason for the increase of 20% that candidate
Reagan was talking about. It is also virtually impossible to estimate
cost to business in completing the forms. (Source, OMB)
LISEASE GERALD R. FORD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 13, paragraph 2
"We gave just enough support to one side in Angola to
encourage it to fight and die but too little to give it a
chance of winning. "
RESPONSE:
The U.S. objective in supporting the FNLA/UNITA forces in
Angola was to assist them, and through them all of black Africa,
to defend against Soviet and Cuban intervention. Despite massive
Soviet aid and the presence of Cuban troops, we were on the road
to success in Angola until December 19 when Congress adopted
the Tunney Amendment cutting off further U.S. aid to the FNLA
and UNITA. (Source, NSC)
BERAID R. FORD LIDEASE
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 13, paragraph 3
"In Asia our new relationship with mainland China can
have practical benefits with both sides. But that doesn't
mean it should include yielding to demands by them as
the Administration has, to reduce our military presence
on Taiwan where we have a long-time friend and ally,
the Republic of China."
RESPONSE:
We have not reduced our forces on Taiwan as a result of
Peking's demands. Instead, our reductions stem from our own
assessment of U.S. political and security interests. We have
drawn our forces down because the Vietnam conflict has ended
and because the lessening of tension in the area brought about
by our new relationship with the People's Republic of China
has made it possible. (Source: NSC)
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARA
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 13, paragraph 3
"Mr. Ford's new Ambassador to the United Nations
attacks our long time ally Israel. "
RESPONSE:
Governor Scranton not only did not attack Israel, his veto blocked
an unbalanced Security Council Resolution critical of Israel -- a
resolution that every other member of the Security Council voted
for. In his March 23 speech in the United Nations Security Council
Governor Scranton was simply reiterating long-standing U.S.
policy -- a policy articulated by every Administration since 1967 --
on Israel's obligations as an occupying power under international
law with regard to the territories under its occupation.
(Source: NSC)
FORD i CERALD LIBRARY
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 13-14, paragraph 3
"And, it is also revealed now that we seek to establish
friendly relations with Hanoi. To make it more palatable,
we are told this might help us learn the fate of the men
still listed as Missing in Action. "
RESPONSE:
The Congress, reflecting the views of the American people and
the Administration, has called for an accounting of our Missing in
Action and the return of the bodies of dead servicemen still
held by Hanoi. The Administration, in keeping with this Congress-
ional mandate, has offered to discuss with Hanoi the significant
outstanding issues between us. We have not said we "seek to
establish friendly relations with Hanoi." Such an assertion is
totally false. (Source: NSC)
FORD & GERALD LIBRAR
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 14, paragraph 2
"In the last few days, Mr. Ford and Dr. Kissinger have
taken us from hinting at invasion of Cuba to laughing it
off as a ridiculous idea. Except, that it was their
ridiculous idea. No one else suggested it. Once again --
what is their policy? During this last year, they carried
on a campaign to befriend Castro. They persuaded the
Organization of American States to lift its trade embargo,
lifted some U.S. trade restrictions, they engaged in
culture exchanges. And then on the eve of the Florida
primary election, Mr. Ford went to Florida, called
Castro an outlaw and said he'd never recognize him.
But he hasn't asked our Latin American neighbors to reimpose
a single sanction, nor has he taken any action himself.
Meanwhile, Castro continues to export revolution to
Puerto Rico, to Angola, and who knows where else?
RESPONSE:
We did not persuade the OAS to lift the sanctions against Cuba.
At Quito in the fall of 1974 we did not support a motion in the
OAS to do SO. At San Jose last summer the U.S. voted in favor
of an OAS resolution which left to each country freedom of action
with regard to the sanctions. We did so because a majority of
the OAS members had already unilaterally lifted their sanctions
against Cuba, and because the resolution was supported by a
majority of the organization members. Since that resolution
passed, no additional Latin American country has established
relations with Cuba.
The U.S. did not lift its own sanctions against Cuba, did not
enter into any agreements with Cuba, and did not trade with Cuba.
We did not engage in cultural exchanges. We validated some
passports for U.S. Congressmen and their staffs, for some
scholars and for some religious leaders to visit Cuba. We issued
a few select visas to Cubans to visit the U.S.. These minimal
steps were taken to test whether there was a mutual interest in
ending the hostile nature of our relations. This policy was
consistent with the traditional American interest in supporting
the free flow of ideas and people. We have, since the Cuban
adventure in Angola, concluded that the Cubans are not interested
in changing their ways. We have resumed our highly restrictive
policies toward Cuban travel. With regard to Cuban efforts to
interfere in Puerto Rican affairs, we have made it emphatically clear
GERALD R. FORD LIBERAN
REAGAN STATEMENT: (continued)
Page 14, paragraph 2
RESPONSE: (continued)
in the UN and bilaterally to the Cubans and other nations that
the U.S. will not tolerate any interference in its internal affairs.
(Source: NSC)
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 15, paragraph 3
"The Canal Zone is not a colonial possession. It is not
a long-term lease. It is sovereign U.S. territory every
bit the same as Alaska and all the states that were carved
from the Louisiana Purchase. We should end those
negotiations (on the Panama Canal) and tell the General:
We bought it, we paid for it, we built it and we intend
to keep it."
RESPONSE:
Negotiations between the United States and Panama on the Canal
have been pursued by three successive American Presidents.
The purpose of these negotiations is to protect our national
security, not diminish it.
Finally, Governor Reagan's view that the Canal Zone is "sovereign
U. S. territory every bit the same as Alaska and all the states
that were carved from the Louisiana Purchase" is incorrect.
Legal Scholars have been clear on this for three-quarters of a
century. Unlike children born in the United States, for example,
children born in the Canal Zone are not automatically citizens
of the United States. (Source: NSC)
FORD is DERALD LIBRAR
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 16, paragraph 1
"The Soviet Army outnumbers ours more than two-to-one
and in reserves four-to-one. They out-spend us on
weapons by 50%. Their Navy outnumbers ours in surface
ships and submarines two-to-one. We are outgunned in
artillery three-to-one and their tanks outnumber ours
four-to-one. Their strategic nuclear missiles are larger,
more powerful and more numerous than ours. The
evidence mounts that we are Number Two in a world
where it is dangerous, if not fatal, to be second best. 11
RESPONSE:
Our nation is not "in danger, 11 but it is damaging to the interests
of this country when a politician declare to our adversaries and
our friends abroad -- falsely -- that we are in second place.
Such statements are both irresponsible and dangerous in that
they alarm our people and confuse our allies.
It is meaningless to say the Soviet Army may now be twice the
size of the U.S. Army when about half of the Soviet Army is
deployed on the Chinese border. More meaningful is the Soviet
Army strength in Europe. Such rhetoric based on simplistic
factural comparisons indicate a disturbingly shallow grasp of what
true balance is all about.
Mr. Reagan conveniently neglects to point out that our strategic
forces are superior to Soviet forces. Our missiles are far.
more accurate and survivable. We have over twice as many
missile warheads and, after all, it is the warheads which actually
reach the target. Our lead in this area has been increasing over
the past several years. Mr. Reagan likewise ignores our vast
superiority in strategic bombers.
Addressing the implication that the President has tolerated a weak
defense policy, President Ford is the one who reversed the trend
of shrinking defense budgets. His last two defense budgets are
the highest peacetime budgets in the nation's history. Mr. Reagan
might better speak to the Democratic Congress about its $32
billion cuts in defense over the past six years.
Examining in more detail the question of America's strength first,
we must dispose of the numbers game. If national defense were a
GERALD FORD LIBRANY
REAGAN STATEMENT: (continued)
Page 16, paragraph 1
RESPONSE: (continued)
matter of bookkeeping we could point out that:
- Our missile warheads have tripled;
- We lead the Soviet Union by more than two-to-one;
- - We have over a three-to-one lead in strategic
bombers;
- Our missiles are twice as accurate as the Soviet
Union's.
But it is a disservice to the American people to confuse them
with any such numbers comparison. Two important facts are
ignored by Governor Reagan.
First, the United States stands at the head of a great Alliance
system in Europe, and we are firmly tied to the strongest
economic power in Asia. We have friendly relations with most
of the nations of the world. These relations are the product
of our longtime bipartisan foreign policy and the valuable
accomplishments of all of our previous Administrations since
President Truman.
Second, we cannot ignore that whatever might be the balance
of power today, it is not fixed. In our military programs and
our defense budgets, we are indeed looking to the future to
guarantee that this nation will never be in danger.
In our defense programs many new programs insure our position
of strength:
- We are proceeding with the development and production
of the world's most modern strategic bomber, the B-1.
- We are proceeding with the development and production
of the world's most modern and lethal missle launching
submarine, the Trident.
- - We are developing a new large ICBM.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
REAGAN STATEMENT: (continued)
Page 16, paragraph 1
RESPONSE: (continued)
- - We are producing three new fighters.
- - We are planning the production of 15 new fighting
ships including two carriers.
It is true a figure that can be cited to show that the Soviets have
more ships, but it is a distortion to equate Soviet destroyers with
our modern nuclear powered aircraft carriers.
The money we have put into defense over the past several years
has been inadequate. However, the responsibility for slashing
$40 billion dollars must rest with the Congress, not the
Administration.
Fortunately, under the prodding of President Ford the Congress
has begun to awaken to the risks of constantly reducing our
defense spending. When the budget he proposed this year passes,
the trend will have been reversed.
In fact we are number one. Unless we falter or give way to
panic we will remain number one. (Source: NSC/DOD)
GEBALD R. FORD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 16, paragraph 2
"Why did the President travel halfway 'round the world
to sign the Helsinki Pact, putting our stamp of approval
on Russia's enslavement of the captive nations?
We gave away the freedom of millions of people --
freedom that was not ours to give. "
RESPONSE:
The President did not go to Helsinki to put the stamp of approval
on Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. On the contrary, he
went to Helsinki along with the Chiefs of State or heads of
government of all our Western allies and, among others, a Papal
Representative, to sign a document which contains Soviet commit-
ments to greater respect for human rights, self-determination of
peoples, and expanded exchanges and communication throughout
Europe. Basket three of the Act calls for a freer flow of people
and ideas among all the European nations.
The Helsinki Act, for the first time, specifically provides for
the possibility of peaceful change of borders when that would
correspond to the wishes of the peoples concerned. With regard
to the particular case of the Baltic States, President Ford stated
clearly on July 25 that "the United States has never recognized
the Soviet incorporation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and is
not doing so now. Our official policy of non-recognition is not
affected by the results of the European Security Conference. 11
In fact, the Helsinki document itself states that no occupation or
acquisition of territory by force will be recognized as legal.
(Source: NSC)
GERALD ? FORD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 16, paragraph 3
"Now we must ask if someone is giving away our own
freedom. Dr. Kissinger is quoted as saying that he thinks
of the U.S. as Athens and the Soviet Union as Sparta.
"The day of the U.S. is past and today is the day of the
Soviet Union. " And he added, 11 My job as Secretary
of State is to negotiate the most acceptable second-best
position available."
RESPONSE:
Governor Reagan's so-called quotes from Secretary Kissinger are
a total and irresponsible fabrication. He has never said what
the Governor attributes to him, or anything like it. In fact, at
a March 23, 1976 press conference in Dallas Secretary Kissinger
said: "I do not believe that the United States will be defeated.
I do not believe that the United States is on the decline. I do
not believe that the United States must get the best deal it can.
"I believe that the United States is essential to preserve the
security of the free world and for any progress in the world
that exists.
"In a period of great national difficulty, of the Viet-Nam war, of
Watergate, of endless investigations, we have tried to preserve
the fole of the United States as that major actor. And I believe
that to explain to the American people that the policy is complex,
that our involvement is permanent, and that our problems are
nevertheless soluble, is a sign of optimism and of confidence in
the American people rather than the opposite." (Source: NSC)
GERALD R. FORD
REAGAN STATEMENT:
Page 17, paragraph 2
"Now we learn that another high official of the State
Department, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, whom Dr. Kissinger
refers to as his "Kissinger", has expressed the belief
that, in effect, the captive nations should give up any
claim of national sovereignty and simply become a part
of the Soviet Union. He says, 'Their desire to break out
of the Soviet straightjacket' threatens us with World
War III. In other words, slaves should accept their
fate. 11
RESPONSE:
The statement is wholly inaccurate, and a gross distortion of
fact, to ascribe such views to Mr. Sonnenfeldt or to this
Administration. Neither he nor anyone else in the Administration
has ever expressed any such belief. The Administration view
on this issue was expressed by Secretary Kissinger before the
House International Relations Committee on March 29 as follows:
"As far as the U.S. is concerned, we do not accept a
sphere of influence of any country, anywhere, and
emphatically we reject a Soviet sphere of influence in
Eastern Europe.
"Two Presidents have visited in Eastern Europe; there
have been two visits to Poland and Romania and Yugoslavia,
by Presidents. I have made repeated visits to Eastern
Europe, on every trip to symbolize and to make clear
to these countries that we are interested in working with
them and that we do not accept or act upon the exclusive
dominance of any one country in that area.
"At the same time, we do not want to give encourage-
ment to an uprising that might lead to enormous suffering.
But in terms of the basic position of the United States,
we do not accept the dominance of any one country anywhere.
"Yugoslavia was mentioned, for example. We would
emphatically consider it a very grave matter if outside
forces were to attempt to intervene in the domestic affairs
of Yugoslavia. We welcome Eastern European countries
developing more in accordance with their national traditions,
and we will cooperate with them. This is the policy of the
United States, and there is no Sonnenfeldt doctrine. 11
R.
(Source: NSC)
GERALD
$ 80
LIGARA
preding
June 1, 1976
TO GWEN ANDERSON
Attn: Marcia
FROM Ruth Kilmer
Attached is a copy of correspondence from Stanley Pratt,
Publisher of a newspaper in the Upper Peninsula, Michigan,
who suggests that a letter of appreciation be sent to Mrs.
Matt Surrell. Other background correspondence is also
included.
Mr. Seidman wonders if there is a standard type acknowledgement letter that
can be sent to Mrs. Surrell in view of the above request.
(Mr. Surrell handled the media coordination for Mic higan.)
Enclosures
LWS:RMK
CHRON:LWSPS# Michigan
FORD is LIBRARY 9F8870