Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564474",
    "label": "Speeches - Governor Reagan - One Time Only (not indexed by subject), 1969/1974 (3 of 3)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564474"
}

{
    "id": "118564474",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564474",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Speeches - Governor Reagan - One Time Only (not indexed by subject), 1969/1974 (3 of 3)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564474",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Governor Ronald Reagan's Speeches"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P20-003-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P20-003-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P20-003-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564474",
    "naId": 118564474,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P20-003-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "8eb09b2174793002",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Speeches - Governor Reagan - One Time Only\n(not indexed by subject), 1969/1974 (3 of 3)\nBox: P20\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nGoldwater accolades\nAmerican business\nGovernment encroachment -\nloss of personal freedom\nBureaucracy\nLand planning\nConsumer protection\nInflation\nFree Market\nSocial Security\nIndustrial Homestead Act\nEmployee stock ownership\n12\nREMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nYAF, SAN FRANCISCO\nJuly 20, 1974\nI hardly know what to say. Would you settle for just staying\nhere and we 11 just secede?\nJohn, I haven't the words to thank you for a very warm and\nflattering introduction. I have never been immortalized in song before.\nTo all of you, Ron, all the officers here, Bob, Cliff and our first\naid man, Stan. I have told some people before, Stan, that life not only\nbegins at forty so does lumbago, arthritis and a tendency to tell stories\nTo all of you, members and friends of YAF, it is an honor and a\npleasure, in fact it is a pleasure just to be away from Sacramento,\nI thank you for offering me sanctuary.\nAbout a year ago the legislature recessed and I had a little more\nleisure than you usually have throughout the year and that's true at\nthis time. It was just about a year ago this time that Nancy and I\nthought we would do something we had never done before - we took a\npack trip into the Sierras and I thought it would be quite a change from\nwhat had been going on all year in Sacramento and it wasn't all that\ndifferent. There we were on a rocky, uphill road with a bunch of mules.\nI welcome you to California, to this city here of ours on the Bay,\nSan Francisco. You know I have become a student of Greek history.\nI have learned that there was an ancient Greek city-state that had a\ncustom that anyone who proposed a new law or program for government\ndid so with a noose around his neck standing on a chair with the other\nend tied to a rope. If they liked the proposal he made they removed\nthe noose, if they didn't they removed the chair. I have developed\na morbid fascination for the customs of ancient Greece,\n- 2 -\nNow I know you didn't come here to listen to a politican tell\nyou about his troubles. You are absolutely right, so I am going to\ntalk about yours, which seems fair enough because a lot of your troubles\nseem caused by people in my present line of work, I am honored\nparticularly because, if I understand correctly, you, in a way, dedicated\nthis convention, at least a portion of it, to observing the anniversary\nof the Goldwater crusade. A decade has passed since Barry Goldwater\nwalked a lonely path across this land, speaking truths that needed to\nbe heard. His voice was raised trying to rekindle in our country all\nthe great ideals and principles that set our nation apart from all\nothers that preceded us. But louder and more strident voices uttered\neasily sold cliches, cartoonists with acid-tipped pens ridiculed and\nranted. Barry Goldwater's unforgiveable sin ten years ago was simply\nand honestly to speak his mind. He thought that free enterprise was in\ndanger from excessive government and he said so, He thought that some\nAmericans were too complacent about the threat of Communism and he said\nso, just as he said that he thought Lyndon Johnson was backing us into\na full-scale war in Vietnam with no plan for ending it once it started.\nShortly after the 1964 election I am sure you have heard this one about\nthe young man who said \"I was told that if I voted for Barry Goldwater\nwe would be in war in six months. I did and we are.\"\nYou know it is hard for anyone to pretend that he can recall any\nremarks of Barry Goldwater that could be called inflammatory, Blunt,\nyes; hard truth, yes; vicious or defamatory, no. But this could not be\nsaid of his opponents, it is funny how easily there are some protectors\nof civil rights who can ask \"how dare you call someone a Communist,\nyou Fascist you?\"\n- 3 -\nTen years ago the Postmaster General said \"we know what\nSenator Goldwater is talking about extremism, his hate and divisiveness\nIt is spitting on the ambassador to the United Nations,\" A labor leader\ndrew a parallel between Goldwater and Hitler. The governor of California\nsaid \"the stench of Fascism is in the air.\" The National Democratic\nChairman said \"the Republican platform of Goldwater is an exercise in\nfantasy, fear and hate.\" The publisher of a paper that prints all the\nnews fit to print warned that the kind of backing that Goldwater had\nwas the kind of business backing behind the Nazis in the early 30s.\nA national columnist pointed out that all the tyrants in history from\nCaesar and Napoleonto Hitler and Stalin, acted in the name of liberty\nand justice. All this and more was spewed forth because the man pledged\nto support the Constitution of the United States felt called upon to\nremind us that even a land as rich as ours can't go on forever borrowing\nagainst the future, leaving a legacy of debt for another generation;\nthat inflation could reduce the standard of living for an entire\ngeneration that had no part in the folly; that if young Americans were\nasked to fight and die for their country it should be for a cause worth\nwinning and they should be allowed to win it as quickly as possible.\nIt is well for us to be reminded of the hate-filled rhetoric that\nwas spewed forth over such a long period of time about that pleasant,\npatriotic and courageous man and how uncalled-for it seems now as we\nlook back.\nRight now American business and industry are in the deepest trouble\nthey have ever been in in our Nation's entire history. A large percentage\nof the people in this country today lay all their troubles at the door\nof business. The word profit is synonymous with evil as with the term\n\"private property\" and therefore personal freedom, freedom of choice for\neverybody, is in danger. Profit, property and freedom are inseparable,\nyou can't have any one of them without the other two.\n- 4 -\nFor a long time now we haven't been taught enough economics\nin our schools and sometimes I am amazed at all of you, I don't know\nhow you have held out against what has been a consistent program of\nindoctrination, particularly through our educational system, and how\nyou have avoided the economic illiteracy that is so widespread. The\nresult has been, however, that self-seeking demagogues have been able\nto take advantage of this not of you but of those others. Investors,\nworkers and consumers have been divided to the point that we have\nforgotten we are all vital components of something called free\nenterprise, totally dependent upon each other. If the public's lack\nof understanding is not soon corrected the public may soon do great\nand irreparable harm to itself by demanding more interference than we\nalready have by government.\nGovernment, as you know, in its answers to the problem, is somewhat\nless than a howling success, particularly when government involves\nitself in things that are not in its proper province. And we don't\nhave to talk theoretically, We could look, for example, to one of the\nIron Curtain countries where government is in complete charge. There\nis nothing to interfere with its carrying out its dreams of regimentation\nand regulation. In that country I am mentioning they had a simple\nholiday problem not too long ago. They issued an edict and this was\nintended to solve it. It said that because Christmas Eve falls on\nThursday, Thursday has been designated a Saturday for work purposes.\nThe factories will be closed all day with the stores open a half-day\nonly. So far that's not too bad, it works out all right, but there was\nmore to the edict. Friday has been designated a Sunday with all\nfactories and stores closed all day. Monday will be Wednesday for\nwork purposes, Wednesday will be a business Friday and Saturday will\nbe Sunday and Sunday will be Monday.\n- 5 -\nWe, of course, say that's a Socialist country, that can't happen\nhere. Well, you have already heard John talk about our own Internal\nRevenue Code, Let me give you just a few lines from that Internal\nRevenue Code which is supposed to make your job easier along about\nApril. This is Section 509. It says \"for purposes of Paragraph 3\nan organization described in Paragraph 2 shall be deemed to include an\norganization described in Section 501c of Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, which\nwould be described in Paragraph 2 if it were an organization described\nin Paragraph 3.\"\nWe live in the only country in the World where it takes more\nintelligence just to figure out your income tax than it does to earn\nthe income.\nThe essence of the American Revolution was a system that produced\na limited government and the ultimate in individual freedom consistent\nwith an orderly society, and free men were released to perform such\nmiracles of invention, construction and production as the World had\nnever seen. One half of all the economic activity in the entire history\nof mankind has taken place in these two centuries under American\nauspices. Our system of free enterprise sparkplugged by the hope of\neconomic reward has lifted more burdens from the backs of more people\nthan any other system the world has ever known. Ninety five percent of\nour families have a minimum daily intake of nutrients, 99 percent have\ngas or electric appliances in their kitchens, 96 percent of the homes\nhave television, we own 120,000,000 automobiles and trucks and we have\nshared our wealth more widely among our people than has ever been done\nin any society. We have more churches, more libraries supported with\nvoluntary contributions, more symphonies, operas, non-profit theaters,\nand publish more books than all the rest of the World put together.\n- 6 -\nMore than a third of all the young people in the World getting a college\neducation are getting it in America, We have more doctors and hospitals\nin proportion to population and we have produced most of the major\nmedicines in the last four decades. And still a great many people have\nlost faith in our economic system and for that matter we have lost\nfaith in ourselves. Organized labor asks of government things which\nit should be negotiating with management at the bargaining table.\nYes, management increasingly asks government for legislation which, in\neffect, waters down the competition at the marketplace. In the marble\nhalls of government plans go on for ever more tinkering in involvement\nwith our private lives. Our traditional concept of states' rights and\nlocal autonomy has been distorted, but much worse the people's relationship\nwith government has been dramatically altered. I think something that\nillustrates this is a story that appeared in a column in an Eastern\nnewspaper not too long ago, It had to do with a welfare recipient who\nhad a part-time job on a farm. One day he yielded to temptation and\nstole a smoked ham out of the farmer's smokehouse. He took it to the\ngrocer and sold it to him for $27. Then he took $20 of the $27 and\nbought $80 worth of food stamps which he was eligible to do by virtue\nof being on welfare. Then he took $29 worth of foodstamps and bought\nthe ham back. He put the ham back in the smokehouse and he bought $51\nworth of groceries. Then, the columnist said, the grocer had made a\nprofit, the farmer had his ham back, the welfare recipient ended up with\n$7 in cash and $51 in groceries, with no one being the loser.\nGovernment programs multiplying like spores of a fungus have brought\nan inflation that robs our people of their dream of a good life, As the\naverage worker increases his earnings to keep pace with inflation (which\nhe does because in a recent period of years in which the cost of living\nhas gone up 25 percent wages have gone up 35 percent),\nhe moves up\n- 7 -\nthrough our progressive tax system and in that same period has had a\n65 percent increase in his share of the taxes, It is no wonder that\nour people are in their season of discontent. A variety of polls are\nworth a study. For example, the overwhelming majority in America today\nblames excessive business profits for their discontent. The profits,\nthey estimate, run at about 28 percent. Further down in the poll they\nare asked what they think they should be and they answer that they\nthink business should be happy with 10 percent. Business would be\necstatic with 10 percent because for the last 25 years profits have\nrun between 4 and 5 percent in the nation as a whole. Another poll\nwas directed at 35,000 students on more than 2,000 campuses and we\nfind that three fourths of the students who responded and a higher\npercentage of the faculty, blamed American business for every social\nand economic problem we face. Three fourths of these students firmly\nbelieved that the answer lies in complete regimentation of business by\ngovernment and they also believe that government can do this without\nendangering individual freedom. And then, in the same poll, 80 percent of\nthem said they also wanted less government interference in their private\nlives.\nOne more poll and this one perhaps, more than most, gives a clue\nto our problem. More Americans than at any previous time in history, 69\npercent, are angry about the cost of government and want something done\nabout the present tax burden, but less than one half of them in that\n/of\npoll could name their United States Congressman and those who could,\n86 percent of them did not know a single thing he stood for.\nGovernment by the people only works if the people work at it.\n- 8 -\nNow in this audience I am not going to ask for a show of hands\nof how many don't know who their Congressman is, But seriously, the\nbusiness and industrial community must become thoroughly familiar with\nthe governmental process and you can help in this educational process\nbecause I think they are ready. I have talked on this same subject\nin the last 24 hours to an audience of some of the most distinguished\nbusiness leaders in America and I am not talking about the governmental\nprocess, the text book theory of how it is supposed to work. Let me\nillustrate two weeks ago the House of Representatives voted down\nthe federal land planning bill in squeak of 211 to 204. I am pleased\nto say that our California congressional delegation led the charge and\none of the most articulate spokesmen in the fight on the floor is with\nus here tonight, Congressman John Rousselot. Now there are some people\nin thiscountry who accepted the land planning bill as an environmental\nprotection bill and there are others most of them who were not\naware that such a bill was even before Congress. The truth is, that\nbill was a threat to the entire traditional concept of private ownership\nof land, a threat greater than anything that has ever been proposed in\nthese 200 years and that fact was not understood by some of the\nCongressmen who voted for it. Indeed, at the Governors' Conference in\nSeattle some time ago before it was defeated several Congressmen stoutly\ndefended it as nothing more than suggested guidelines for states and\nlocal governments to help them in their local zoning and planning.\nWhen several of us expressed concern at that Conference that the suggeste\nguidelines would become a federal mandate there were protests that\nit was not the intent of Congress. Then one Congressman revealed,\nwhether he knew it or not, that our fears were justified, He said\n\"of course you realize that once it is passed we have no way of\ncontrolling it when it then goes into a bureau or agency of government\nthat will implement it\" and that's what we hade been trying to tell them\nall the time\n- 9 -\nAll such legislation, John well knows, has to contain a little\nline that says the agency or bureau entrusted with implementing this\nprogram shall make such regulations as are necessary for its\nimplementation. And so we are governed by an ever-increasing bureaucracy\nmade up of people who were never elected to office and can't be removed\nfrom office by the voters. Regulations are spawned in the multitudes.\nTitles alone in the federal registry take almost as many pages as the\nEncyclopedia Britannica. Even some of our elected representatives who\ncontributed to this situation have now become alarmed. Senator Gaylord\nNelson of Wisconsin has declared that government has grown so big the\ncitizen can't deal with the endless red tape and inconsiderate bureaucrats\nSo, with hope, you think he is going to do something to reduce the\nsize of government? No, he has introduced a measure that is going to\ncreate another bureau that will help the citizen find his way through\nthe other bureaus. It will begin with 10 regional boards and will have\nhundreds of local advisory boards and that's just to start with.\nCongresswoman Edith Green I think could fairly be described as a\nliberal Congresswoman, from Oregon, However, her committee, concerned\nwith education, has been investigating to find out why after more than\n$50 billion a year in aid to education from the federal level little\nJohnny still can't read. So she has described what she found when she\nstarted investigating, she said it was \"complete chaos administered by\na huge administrative apparatus that was operated out of public view\nand beyond public control.\" This is where we must begin the fight back\nif free enterprise and freedom itself is to survive.\nSince government began keeping records in 1892 industrial productivit\nhas doubled every 25 years. There is no record of government's\nproductivity and that's too bad because if the federal government\ncould only increase its productivity 3 percent you and I would save\n$12 billion a year.\n- 10 -\nBut government goes on spending $15 billion just to handle the\npaperwork that it forces on American business, That paperwork costs\nAmerican business 130,000,000 man hours and $50 billion a year.\nA few years ago one leading drug firm had to submit 70 pages of data\nto the federal drug administration to get a new drug license. Today\nit takes 70,000 pages of data carried over to the agency by truck\nand then it takes them more than three years to wade through this\nand finally give the license. It is very doubtful, and I mean this\nseriously, if penicillin was discovered today that it could be licensed\nby the Federal Drug Administration.\nDo you remember that fuss a couple of years ago about the cyclamates?\nYou remember the businessmen who had to take those bottles off their\nshelves, companies that had to take it back, companies literally put\nout of business? Well now the FDA has admitted they think they acted\na little hastily. It is possible it wasn't quite the threat theythought.\nThe entire action was based on an experiment in which 20 rats were fed\ncyclamates. Three of them developed suspected malignant tumors of the\nbladder but the 20 rats had been fed an amount of cyclamates that would\nhave required a human being to drink 875 bottles of soft drink a day.\nGovernment subsidizes $4 billion worth of research but it doesn't\nknow it is being done, how many projects there are or what they are.\nI can tell you about one of them, It is called the Demography of\nHappiness and after some time of research they learned that people\nwho earn more are happier than people who earn less. Stan, you can\nlisten to this part, the young are happier than the old, the well are\nhappier than the sick. Now it wasn't a really big project but still\nit was $249,000 to find out that it is better to be rich, young and healthy\nthan poor, old and sick.\nmygets 11 -\nThere is a bill now before Congress that has grown out of the\noil shortage. It will give the government, if it passes, the authority\nto place a public and a government member on the board of every oil\ncompany. Now if that passes how long before it spreads to other\nindustries? Of course, the old perennial National Health Service,\nsocialized medicine, is before Congress. Does anyone truly believe\nthat we can socialize the doctor without socializing the patient?\nThe Senate has passed a bill that would require manufacturers of radios\nthat cost $15 or more to provide those radios with both an FM and AM\nband; it doesn't matter what the customer wants, that's what he's got\nto get and from the fertile mind of young Mr. Nader (how come you\nhaven't given him an honorary membership?) has come a measure that has\nalready passed the House and it is now before the Senate. It will\ncreate a giant consumer agency with a power to supersede every other\nregulatory agency in government and with virtually unlimited authority\nto set standards for everything produced and sold in this country.\nSupporters of this blatant big brother meddling in our private lives\nhave already picketed and demonstrated in front of the few businesses\nthat have had the temerity to speak out against it. Not only will this\nprotection\nconsumer\nagency have the power to interfere with the\nproceedings of virtually every business and government agency in the\ncountry. There is one exception, they exempted organized labor from\ntheir attentions, but it will have the authority to compel other\nagencies and individuals to divulge confidential information. It will\nhave the authority to publish such information and it can force business\nto divulge trade secrets and make those public, Daniel Webster was\nright when he said \"every generation there are those who want to rule\nwell but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters but they\nmean to be masters. II\n- 12 -\nMay I tell you with all the conviction I possess after these\nseveral years' experience, you have only heard the beginning of the\ncampaign to charge business in general with conspiring to bring about\nmaterial shortages, inflation, unemployment in order to reap windfall\nprofits at the expense of the consumer and the worker. You can expect\na barrage of bills, both from the state legislatures and from the\nCongress, aimed at great controls and more taxes which business will\nbe forced to collect but which the customer will eventually pay in\nthe price of the product. Let me tell you the greatest weakness I think\nof our resistance to these measures. We still have a tendency when we\nwin one, like the land planning bill, to sit back and say \"well, that's\nover with, we licked that one. \" The other side has just had a temporary\nsetback, they go around looking for another door that's unlocked.\nThis particular measure, John, I am sure, agrees, will probably turn up\nas an amendment on some fail-safe bill that everyone wants so badly\nthat they will go ahead and pass it no matter what is hung on to it,\nBut, whatever method they use, be prepared to keep on fighting because\nit won't go away, nor will any of the other restrictive proposals.\nGalbraith\nJohn Kenneth\nhas written the declaration of policy for all\nwho have renounced the free marketplace. In his latest volume\n\"ECONOMICS AND THE PUBLIC PURPOSE\" he asserts that the market arrangements\nof our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit,\npoor health care, etc., etc. and socialism is inevitable. I believe\nthis is the first time that Mr.\nGalbraith\nin his talk of the affluent\nsociety, has finally come out in his declaration and admitted that\nsocialism is what he has in mind. Now his so-called facts are outrageous\nfairy tales to justify his zeal for government planning to the 'nth\ndegree. What do we do? Well, first we recognize that we don't have\nto tell fairy tales. The facts are on the side of free enterprise.\n- 13 -\nWe have a classic case forcomparison. We have a great country\nof great space, of hard-working people. The utopian society that\n50 years of complete unbridled socialism brought to the Soviet Union\nand we could equal it, we would have to tear down three quarters of\nthe homes, rip up 14 out of 15 miles of highways, scrap 90 percent of\nour automobiles, tear up two thirds of the railroad tracks and then\nfind a capitalist country willing to provide food for our people.\nWe've got to have the confidence, that the people can understand\nif they are given access to the facts, Ignorance is the only thing\nwe have to fear, ignorance that permits the modern day populace to\ngain a following for their philosophy of redistribution. We have\nto communicate not just with each other, we have to communicate with\nthe people who are the customers and with the people who are the\nlaborers, the workers. There has been too much horizontal communicating\nin which we talk to each other. We've got to start communicating\nvertically, breaking into other groups that we are not now reaching.\nThen we must recognize that an assault on one particular industry is\nan assault on all. We must help with businessmen and make them under-\nstand that they can't sit back and say \"that's the oil company they are\ntalking about with that legislation; that doesn't affect me, I've got\na shoe factory. We have to make them understand we are all in the\nsame boat together and we wait until it is aimed expressly at just\none particular segment before we start fighting back, then we are\nreally in trouble because the ongoing struggle is for survival of the\nfree market system. So far we have been fighting a kind of a defensive,\nrear guard action. Step by step we have retreated much farther than we\nknow. Too many people blame business for inflation and look to\ngovernment for the answer. Now that should be reversed. What if we\ncan make more people see that government's deficit spending caused\n- 14 -\ninflation by creating extra money for which there were no extra goods\nto match, that inflation cannot be arrested by controlling the price\nat the end product, it must be moved from the cost of production?\nPerhaps we can also make them see that inflation cannot be instantly\narrested without causing a terrible untold disruption, but it can be\ncontrolled over a prescribed period by some common sense actions,\nincluding a reduction in government spending.\nThe policy of redistribution of the output of an economy that's\nalready too small is based on the fallacy that we can eliminate poverty\nby giving everyone more money, higher wages, bigger welfare checks,\nto\npensions and social security and increased unemployment insurance. increase\nthe purchasing power. The fact is we can only live better by producing\nmore goods and services for each other, Money is no good if there is\nnothing there to buy. For too long a time our belief in jobs for\neveryone as the answer at the same time that we keep negotiating higher\npay for a lower output has only contributed to inflation. I have\naddressed citizens groups like yourselves on a number of occasions,\nbusiness groups as I did the other day *** yesterday and I have urged\na more aggressive policy of fighting government harassment, opposing\nthe status and the collectivists who would replace the free market\nwith a planned economy. Taking the case to the public I have suggested\na top summit meeting. Let the heads of industry and business in America\nask for a meeting with the heads of the communications media to see if\nthey are truly aware that you can't have a free press unless you have a\nfree economy at the same time.\nI reiterate all these suggestions but of late I have been wondering\nif there is not something more that would put us on the offensive.\nIs it enough to fight the stupidity of the Karl Marx theory by talking\nthe free market theory? Have we neglected the most potent weapon in our\narsenal, the use of free enterprise itself in behalf of a broader cross\nMm 15 -\nsection of our citizens? We are beset by vexing problems and we can't\ndeny the problems result from government action but to complain as I\nhave been doing here tonight and then wait for the same government that\ncreated the problem in the first place to do an about-face and come up\nwith a solution is a little fruitless. Businessand the industrial\nsector nationwide is a pool of genius and talent and managerial\nexpertise that is without limit. What if we could convince that\nbusiness and industrial leadership of the country, under a kind of\nnoblesse oblige, to set out to find the answers to some of the more\nthreatening problems? You can't lick something with nothing, just to\ncomplain that the answer is wrong. If the problem really doesn't\nexist that the government program was spawned for, all right get rid\nof the program, but if there really is a problem, and we have many in\nthis country, it isn't enough to say to government \"you have passed a\nbad program to deal with this.\" But we must go to them and say \"we've\ngot a better idea\". Take Social Security for a starter, most of them\nare scared to even mention it, but it is about as potent right now and\ndestructive a time bomb as we have ticking away at the foundations of\nour free society. More than one half of the taxpayers pay more social\nsecurity than they do income tax. Peter Summers at the University of\nCalifornia calls it the biggest single roadblock to the security of\nthe American wage earner. When it started the average citizen paid\nabout $3 for every hundred dollars he could save over and above taxes\nand the cost of living. Today it is taking $84 of every $100 that he\ncan manage to save. If a private insurance company attempted to sell\na plan that cost so much and paid so little they would be put in jail.\nEvery American wage earner under 40 now, finally we have reached that\ngroup, that group is paying more than twice as much as they can hope to\nreceive. The average worker today is losing some $200,000 that would be\nif 16 -\nhis if the same amount could be invested in a private plan. As it is,\nthe worker under 40 today is getting the cheapest kind of term insurance\nat anything from three to five times what would be the normal cost in\nthe private market. He is getting the cheapest and least useful\ndisability insurance and paying more than three times the cost in the\noutside market. Worse, the ratio of earners to retirees is dropping\nto the point that one day it can be one on one.\nThe simple fact is the United States Social Security system is\nbankrupt. It has been bankrupt for 20 years but this has been concealed\nby an 800 percent increase in the payroll tax without a matching increase\nin benefits. Now politicians so far have provided no answers and you can\nbet that the Social Security bureaucracy is pretending that if it doesn't\nlook the problem will go away. Unfortunately, when the roof falls in\nit is going to fall on all of us.\nNow it would be $600 billion to guarantee the present promises of\nsocial security. Do we wait for disaster or do we work out a plan which\nguarantees a payment -and this is the important thing guarantees at\npayment for all of those who are depending on social security to see\nthem through their non-earning years? At the same time we find a plan\nthat will restore equity to the present-day worker, that under 40 worker\ntoday. Some most distinguished economists say we can. They have\nproposed a plan which would replace the present payroll tax with a\nsystem of social security bonds and then pay the existing benefits from\na combination of bond revenues and the General Fund, but stop piling up\nbenefits for those who might want to opt out of the program.\nWe are not taking on a new debt, we already owe the $600 billion,\nwe would just be legitimizing it by publishing the bonds. Maintain\nsome of mandatory features. For example, require the worker to purchase\na certain percentage of social security bonds equal to a percentage of\nincome\n17 I I\nThis is just one proposal, I am sure other possibilities exist.\nIn our resistance to what some of see as a creeping socialism we\nhave just theorized about the superiority of capitalism. Have we\nreally made capitalism work to prove these benefits can do everything\nfor everybody better than the promises of the populous of the socialists?\nAll they can offer with their system, if you analyze it, is to take from\nthe haves and give to the have-nots. That doesn't eliminate have-nots,\nit just changes them around. But capitalism can work to make everyone\na \"have\". Some years ago a top Ford official was showing the late\nWalter Reuther through the very automated plant in Cleveland, Ohio, and\nhe said to him jokingly, \"Walter, you'll have a hard time collecting\nunion dues from these machines\" and Walter said \"you are going to\nhave more trouble trying to sell automobiles to them.\" Both of them\nlet it stop right there. There was a very logical answer to that,\nthe logical answer was that the owners of the machines could buy\nautomobiles and if you increase the numbers of owners you increase\nthe number of consumers.\nOver hundred years ago Abraham Lincoln signed the Homestead Act.\nThere was a wide distribution of land and they didn't confiscate\nanyone's already privately owned land. They did not take from those\nwho owned to give to others who did not own. It set the pattern for\nthe American capitalistic system. We need an industrial Homestead Act.\nThere are business leaders today who are exploring this kind of modern\nhomestead plan. They range from government allowing the corporate tax\nto go directly to the people, that 50 percent of the earnings of the\ncorporations that now is a tax to the government, some of them suggested\n\"why don't you distribute equally and equitably to the people to be\nused as each individual chooses, rather than having it spent on their\nbehalf by bureaucrats?\"\n- 18 -\nBut it goes from that to a more sophisticated scheme that business\nhas been toying with, increasing the worker investment in corporate\nAmerica. I know that plans have been suggested in the past that all\nhad this flaw, they were based on making the present owners give up\nsome of their ownership to the non-owners. Now this isn't true of the\nideas that are being talked today. Very simply these business leaders\nhave come to the realization that it is time to formulate a plan to\naccelerate the economic growth and production at the same time we\nbroaden the ownership of productive capital. The American dream has\nalways been to have a piece of the action. Income, you know, results\nfrom only two things, it can result from capital or it can result from\nlabor. If the worker begins getting his income from both sources at\nonce he has a real stake in increasing production and increasing the\noutput. One such plan is based on financing future expansion in such\na way as to create a stock ownership for employees. It does not reduce\nthe holdings of the present owners, nor does it require the employees\nto divert their own savings into stock purchases. This one plan, and\nundoubtedly there are alternatives, utilizes an employee stock ownership\ntrust to purchase newly issued stock when a corporation needs new capital\nfor expansion. The trust acquires its funds by borrowing with a\nguarantee from the corporation, from a commercial bank or other lending\ninstitution. Over a ten-year period it is possible for $500 billion\nof newly formed capital to be owned by individuals and families who today\nhave little or no hope of acquiring a vested interest in our capitalist\nsystem. I could go into more details here and explain these things\nbut I know that a great many men are exploring these now in this country.\nWhat better answer could we have to socialism? What an export item on\nthe World market. What argument could a foreign land have against a\ncorporation which made its \"have-not\"citizens into \"haves\"?\n- 19 -\nIn short, I am suggesting that we face a choice between government\nthat has grown desperate, embarking on a course that leads to confiscation\nand redistribution or using the great talentand expertise of the private\nsector to spread legitimate capital participation in free enterprise\nto those who now are only property-less employees,\n8\nIn 1808 Senator Hill said \"I do not dread industrial corporations\nas instruments of power to destroy this country but one corporation we\nmay well all dread; that corporation is the federal government. If this\ngreat, ambitious, ever-growing corporation become oppressive who shall\ncheck it? If it become unjust who shall trust it? Watch and guard\nwith sleepless dread that corporation which can make all property\nand rights, all states and people, all liberty and hope its playthings\nin an hour, its victims forever.\"\nYesterday I told those distinguished business leaders and I will\ntell you, even at your youthful age, whatever you do don't risk having\nto face your children or your children's children some day when they\nask \"where were you and what were you doing on the day that freedom\nwas lost?\"\n######\n1972 Voter Mandate\nGovernment encroachment -\nloss of personal freedom\nInflation\nConsumer Protection\nNational Health Insurance\nWelfare\nSurplus rebate\n13\nREMARKS BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nBull Roast, Centerville, Maryland\nAugust 24, 1974\nChairman Cox and Mr. Hofstetter, Senators Bell and Mathias,\nCongressman Hogan, Mrs. Bauman, National Committee members and\nyou ladies and gentleman, and most of all the man who is being honored\nhere today, Bob Bauman, my very good friend. I am delighted and greatly\nhonored to participate in recognition of a young man I admire very much.\nAs a matter of fact I enjoyed his remarks to the extent that I could\nhave stayed over there all the afternoon and listened if he just wanted\nto keep on talking. I am most grateful. His kind are all too few in\nthe halls of government, at a time when there is a great need for\neverything he stands for.\nNow, I said I was delighted to be here. I said that in spite of\nthe fact that these last few weeks have not exactly been the easiest\ntime to be making political speeches. Some time ago when I was invited\nto come here and speak to you I put together what I thought was an\nappropriate message, then in the swiftly moving events of the day I took\nanother look at it on the plane coming in here and decided it had been\nwritten at a time and was now as inappropriate as the captain of the\nTitanic saying \"Never mind all that ice, it's for the party Saturday night\nLooking out here at the number of you who are here I can assure you\nI don't feel like the lady who, after church, had invited a number of\nher fellow members home for a Sunday dinner and bustled about and got\nthe dinner ready, then as they sat down said to her four-year=old son\n\"Why don't you return thanks?\" Bashfully he said \"I don't know what to\nsay\" and she said \"Say what you've heard Mother say\". Dutifully he\nbowed his head and closed his eyes and say \"Oh Lord, why did I invite\nso many people here?\" I know that I am speaking to an audience of\n- 2 -\nDemocrats and Republicans and, I hope, some Independents. I don't\nfeel at all out of place because I spent most of my adult life in the\nDemocratic party, then I made a switch, and I think we are brought\ntogether here today by some deeply held beliefs that we have in common,\nbeliefs that transcend party labels and beliefs which are the basis\nof Bob Bauman's political philosophy and that philosophy is closely\nakin to the hopes and dreams and aspirations of the great majority of\nthe American people. Those hopes and dreams are the issue of the 1974\ncampaign.\nNow there are those who would have it otherwise. Social tinkerers\nwho, for forty years, have worked to alter the balance between the\nvarious levels of government who succeeded in dramatically distorting\nthe relationship between the people and their government. Pursuing\ntheir dream of a government-planned and run Utopia they have preferred\nthat we campaign on something different than we now will be discussing.\nThey have preferred that we campaign on a single issue, an issue of a\nthing called \"Watergate\". The men and women who will determine the\nquality of life in America for ourselves and our children would have\nbeen chosen, if they had their way, with no references to where they\nstood in the issues that confront us. The truth is they wanted no\nreminder that their planned Utopia had been rejected by the people of\nthis country just two years ago. Never in the lifetime of any of us\nhave the issues in a national campaign been more defined than they were\nin the election of 1972. Those who had worked in these last four decades\nto redefine our national purpose we know are the people who hijacked\nthe Democratic Convention in Miami. We sat and watched on television\nas long-time party stalwarts, members of the Democratic party who had\nserved faithfully true to the principles of Jefferson and Jackson, were\nsuddenly denied participation in their party's council and even barred\n- 3 -\nat times from entering the hall as delegates. Then in the name of\nthat party we were asked to take the final step into a welfare state.\nThere was, if they had their way, to be a confiscation of and re-\ndistribution of the earnings of our people on a scale never before\nattempted in this land of free enterprise, with government planning\nof our economy and our private lives. Well, the American people listened\nand then in overwhelming numbers crossed or ignored party lines,\nDemocrats, Republicans and Independents rejected their invitation to\nUtopia and voted their reaffirmation of all the basic values on which\nthis system has been built, voted for fiscal responsibility and the\nright to determine their own destinies. And they repudiated big\ngovernment growing bigger, deficit spending, higher taxes and the\npermissiveness which has led to fear of crime in our neighborhoods,\nin our streets and in our homes. They said \"Enough of social tinkering\nand costly programs which we were promised would solve all the problems\nof human misery.\" But the programs always failed and, of course, every\ntime they failed they were followed by more of the same. Only the new\nprograms cost more than the ones that failed before.\nNow, this didn't stop them, they thrive on failure, if the programs\never did succeed it would put them out of business. They believe in\ngovernment for government's sake. Like Dr. Parkinson's rat catcher\nhe said that government hires a rat catcher and the first thing you know\nhe becomes a rodent control officer. He has no intention of getting rid\nof the rats, they have become his stock in trade.\nYou know, in these eight years that I have been governor I have\ndeveloped an affinity for the study of the ancient Greek city/state.\nThat all started when I found out that they had a custom that when\nanybody suggested a new government program he did so with a noose around\nhis neck tied to a limb of a tree and standing on a chair. If they\n- 4 -\n/approved\nof what he suggested they removed the noose and if they didn't they\nremoved the chair. I have had a morbid fascination for the customs of\nancient Greece for some time now.\nOurs has been a system in this country in which we turned to\ngovernment only when it was absolutely necessary and our national purpose,\nour national goal, was to reduce the need for government to the absolute\nminimum consistent with an orderly society. But that hasn't been the\nway things have turned in the last several years, in fact in the last\nfew decades. You take in the recent oil shortage we heard persistent\nclamor for excessive controls, rationing and punitive taxes, when they\nshould have been offering incentives. They looked for scapegoats when\nthey should have been looking for oil. We didn't take their advice but\nnow the long lines at the gas stations are gone. Yes, we have a long-\nrange energy problem but the answer is not what they proposed that\ngovernment should go into the oil business. You know if they had it\nmight have turned out to be almost as efficient as the Post Office.\nThen the Soviet Union recently fired new advanced nuclear missiles\ndown the Pacific range and they are developing a new nuclear submarine.\nThose same voices tell us that the answer to that is we should cut our\ndefense budget and have more welfare, advocating something called the\n\"new economics\". We have been told over recent decades that the\ndeliberately planned rate of inflation each year was necessary to\nmaintain prosperity. For some time it seemed to work but at the same\ntime there were many of us who were warning that inflation is like radio-\nactivity, it's cumulative, it piles up, then one day you find it is\nnot there in control it is out in the open, it's broken loose. Now it\nis the greatest problem and the greatest threat to our national well being\n- 5 -\nThere is no mystery about inflation. Inflation comes from one\ncause and one alone. Inflation is caused when government spends more\nmoney than government is taking in. Then when somebody proposes raising\ntaxes as a cure for inflation it is like telling a drunk another drink\nwill make him sober.\nWhile I am mentioning taxes, we are hearing a lot of crocodile tears\nare being shed over the tax structure. We are told it is riddled with\nloopholes that benefit the well-to-do and penalize the poor. But the\npresent tax structure bears their trademark, not ours. If they really\nmean they would like to reform it we'd be happy to help and we might begin\nby simplifying it to the place where the average worker doesn't have to\nhire legal advice to tell him how much he owes every year. After we\nhave done that we might have a very simple provision of the law that\nsays that any legislator who advocates a spending program has to\nadvocate a tax program to pay for it. We live in the only country in\nthe world where it takes more brains to figure out your income tax than\nit does to earn the income.\nThe answer to inflation is a balanced budget and we don't wait for\nthe next one we start by reducing the present level of spending.\nBalancing the budget is like protecting your virtue, you have to learn\nto say \"No\". We have had almost a half century of experiments and we\nhave grown to the place in government that even the office of management\nand budget in Washington knows how many bureaus, boards and commissions\nand agencies there are, but all of them have the authority to adopt\nregulations which have the power of law. The federal registry listing\nthem has almost as many pages as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Washington\nis the only place in the world where a man can call the OEO and a\n$30,000 a year executive will pick up the phone and say \"Poverty here\".\n- 6 -\nSmall businessmen in America spend 130,000,000 man hours\na year filling out government forms. It adds $30 to $50 billion\nto the cost of doing business and that means to the price you pay\nfor the products that are sold. Then government spends between $15\nand $20 billion finding some place to stack all the paper.\nDid you ever hear about that fellow in Washington in an office\nwith acres and acres of desks, one morning a fellow sitting back in\nthe corner with his head in his arm sobbing as if his heart would break?\nThey finally persuaded him to tell what was wrong it was the Bureau\nof Indian Affairs---and he said \"my Indian died.\"\nThere is a consulting chemist in New York who has five employees.\nHe has to fill out 37 reports for 12 different federal forms, 26 sets\nof data for 9 different state agencies, 25 forms for 12 different city\ndepartments and now he has just learned he has to fill out an\nenvironmental impact statement, probably having to do with the over-use\nof paper.\nThere is a fellow in California who has a business and OSHA jumped\non him. They informed him that he has to instal separate men's and\nwomen's washrooms for his employees. He only had one employee and he's\nmarried to her. At home they sleep in the same bed and use the same\nbathroom.\nDo you remember a couple of years ago when the federal drug\nadministration took out after cyclamates, you know the artificial\nsweetener, and suddenly merchants found they had to pull all the soft\ndrinks off their shelves and plants closed up business because they\ncouldn't produce these any more and diabetics couldn't get the things\nthey needed? Well, now the federal drug administration has admitted\nthey think they moved too fast. They had conducted an experiment on\n20 rats feeding them cyclamates and three of them got suspected bladder\n- 7 -\ntumors. This was the reason for all the furor and breaking all the\nbottles of soft drinks. Now we discover that they had been feeding the\nrats an amount of cyclamate that a human being to equal this would have\nhad to drink 875 bottles of soft drink a day.\nThe mandate of the people two years ago was against bigger and\nbigger government, greater and greater costs accompanied by what Cicero\ncalled \"the arrogance of officialdom\". Many candidates seeking office\ntoday may pay lip service to reducing governmentsize and the tax\nburden but don't let them get away with it, pin them down to where\nthey stand on specific measures. Where, for example, do they stand on\nthe Land Use bill? That was halted by a narrow vote in Congress a\nfew weeks ago but you see they never die, they never even fade away,\nit has already surfaced again wearing a respectable hat of environmental\nprotection. It is, in fact, a threat to the entire traditional concept\nof private ownership of property. We must make the administration aware\nthat we consider this contrary to the mandate of the people.\nThe House passed, sometime ago, and now the Senate considers the\ncreation of a giant Consumer Protection Agency with the power to\nsupersede all the other regulatory agencies of government. It would\nhave virtually unlimited authority to set standards for everything\nproduced and sold in this country, plus the power to compel other\nagencies and individuals in government to divulge confidential information\nabout the citizens and it can force businesses to divulge their trade\nsecrets and it will have the authority to publish those and make them\npublic. Somehow consumerism it seems a little insulting to us that\nthe same demagogues who tell us that we are too stupid to be able to buy\na box of breakfast cereal by ourselves at the same time think we have\nthe intelligence to pick them to run our lives for us and there we won't\nmake any mistakes.\n- 8 -\nThere is another bill in Congress. This one was born of the\nenergy shortage. It would allow the government to appoint two board\nmembers to every oil company, one representing the public and one\nrepresenting government. Does anyone believe that it would stop there\nwith just one industry or would we set a pattern of government involvement\nand interference in the management of all business?\nThen there is the old perennial national health insurance.\nNow there is no one denies that everyone in this country should be\nentitled to medical care when it is needed but we have a right to ask\nif anyone has established that there is a need for this kind of a program.\nWe live in the one country in the world where if youhave to get sick\nthis is the place to be. We have more doctors and hospitals in proportion\nto population than any other country in the world. In England where\nthey have had nationalized health insurance for many years, a third if\ntheir medical graduates leave the country and find some place else to\npractice. Most of the major medical discoveries have been made here\nin this country. This is the only country where 98 percent of the babies\nare born in hospitals. In most of those other countries a woman can\nonly have a baby in a hospital if it is her first baby or if the doctor\nsays she is going to have some problem in childbirth, the rest are born\nwithout even a doctor in attendance, only a midwife. One hundred and\neighty two million Americans have some kind of health insurance, 19 millio\nare treated by Medicare, 20 million by Medicaid, 3 million get their\nmedical care from the military. If you add them up this is more than\nthe number of people in the country which means there is a little\nduplication and some are getting service from more than one. Now,\nthere is no question that some citizens still fall through the cracks\nof all these programs. For example, we need a program to protect\nagainst catastrophic illness or injury, that kind that you read about\n- 9 -\noccasionally where someone is struck down and it is going to go on\nfor years for some member of the family and it averages costing in this\ncountry, when it happens, $25 thousand a year. We need protection that\neven the private insurance industry cannot provide for this but it only\nhappens to 100,000 people a year in this country. Surely we can solve\nthat problem without a compulsory health insurance program that forces\n200 million people to participate. We call it, and I refer to it, as\nNational\nHealth\nInsurance\nit\nis socialized medicine\nand you can't\nsocialize the doctor without socializing the patient.\nIn 1972 the people repudiated the proposed family assistance plan\nwhich would put millions of self-supporting citizens on a government dole\nfor the first time in our history. The people repudiated it but the\nidea is alive and it is well in the marble halls of government and can\nbe expected to surface any day now. It will be offered as welfare\nreform. It is welfare expansion at the expense of the working men and\nwomen of this country. May I suggest that there is a successful welfare\nreform that is already being implemented and functioning at considerable\nsavings to the taxpayers. Bob Bauman very kindly referred to one of our\nexperiences in California and I would like to tell about it.\nI inherited a government that had been such a little brother to\nbig brother in Washington that every time Washington sneezed the\n\"Gesundeit\" was heard in Sacramento. We were spending a million dollars\na day more than we were taking in, hiring 5,000 new employees every year\nand adding them to the government payroll. And welfare we were the\nwelfare capitol of the world, we were increasing our welfare burden\n40,000 cases a month. We set out to reform welfare, we had a task force\nwork for almost a year. They came in with a set of proposals for the\nmost comprehensive reform ever attempted in that area, in that field.\n- 10 -\nOur legislature refused to even allow me to present the proposed\nreforms to them. That was like banning a book in Boston I took it\nto the public everybody wanted to hear the speech that they didn't\nwant to hear. So finally public opinion prevailed, people's government\nworks if the people work at it. So we finally got them. In the fight,\nhowever, they told us it would fail, it would increase the caseload,\nit would dump the burden on the counties and the property taxes would\ngo up and we would end the year with a $700 million deficit, the truly\ndeserving would starve in the streets, and other than that they couldn't\nfind much wrong with it. Well, it has been three years and five months\nsince we started implementing the reform. We are no longer increasing\nat 40,000 a month, we have almost 400,000 fewer people on welfare than\nwe had just three years ago.\nIn these three years property tax increase. 40 of our 58 counties\nhave reduced property taxes for two years in a row. The taxpayers have\nbeen saved almost $2 billion and we have been able to raise welfare\ngrants for those who truly need them by 41 percent. I think you would\nbe happy to know that Cap Weinberger, the Secretary of Health, Education\nand Welfare in Washington, has taken some of our people to Washington\nto implement the same programs. They are travelling around persuading\nother states to put these reforms into effect and last year the result,\nfor the first time in the history of welfare, the caseload nationally\nwent down. Forty seven percent of the decline was in California and the\nrest was in those states which have already implemented those reforms.\nEvery point was resisted, in spite of the success efforts ranging from\nlegal action to legislation continued to be made trying to cancel out\nevery phase of those reforms. As a matter of fact, one of our reforms\nwas an experiment. We got a waiver from the federal government that\nwe could make able-bodied welfare recipients in 35 of our 58 counties\n- 11 -\nreport and work for the community for their welfare grant. They have\nlegislation today at which they are trying to cancel that calling it\nslave labor. The first year, or last year, 57,000 of those people\nthrough that system were put into private enterprise jobs. This year\n85,000 welfare recipients will find private enterprise jobs in California\nas a result of the program.\nI forgot about that $700 million deficit at the end of the year.\nIt turned out to be a $850 million surplus and last year we returned\nit to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn't as easy as it\nsounds, one Senator told us that he considered that an unnecessary\nexpenditure of public funds. Giving back that much money in the face\nof a hostile legislature is a little like getting between the hog and\nthe bucket, you get buffetted about a bit.\nSeriously, we have been through some traumatic experiences for\nmore than a year and a half. In recent days we have seen a transfer of\nauthority unprecedented in our nation's history and yet it took place\nwith such orderliness that it must stand as a miracle in the eyes of the\nworld. A new President sits in the Oval Office, we have had a change\nof administration but one thing remains the same government in our\nland is by the consent of the people and the people, I believe, have\ngiven the government a mandate which they expect to be implemented and\nenforced. The voice of the doomcriers has been loud in our land lately,\ntrying to shake our faith in our ability to govern ourselves. Our sons\nand daughters in too many classrooms throughout the country have been\ntold that ours is a sick society. Well, a sick society couldn't produce\nthe men who set foot on the moon or those other men who returned unbroken\nand proud after years of savage torture and captivity in Vietnam.\n- 12 -\nIt is time some voices were raised replying to the doom and\ngloom criers. If you double our present troubles we are still better\noff than any other people on earth. We live better and have more\nfreedom. With our material blessings has come compassion among our\npeople unmatched anywhere, we have shared our wealth more widely among\nour people than in any other society ever known in the history of mankind.\nWe have more churches, more libraries, we support with voluntary\ncontributions, more symphonies, more operas and non-profit theaters,\nand have published more books than all the rest of the world put together.\nOne third of all the young people in the world who are getting a college\neducation are getting it in the United States and all of this is in\nspite of and not because of government social tinkering over the last\nfour decades.\nStill Americans are in their time of discontent. Why not? Government\nis taking 45 cents out of each dollar of income. The good life we have\nearned and deserved now seems just out of reach and not through the\ndoing of any of our people. The government and the nation we have all\nsupported so loyally seems somehow to only know of our existence at\ntaxpaying time. We have heard much in these last few months of special\ninterest groups seeking special attention from government for their\nparticular problem. I would like to talk about a special interest group\none special interest group that hasn't had enough representation in\ngovernment\nmade up of a cross-section of Americans of every political\npersuasion, every ethnic background, farmers, city folks, the shop keepers\nand workers, the great host of unsung heroes who get up in the morning\nsend the kids to school and go to work, pay their bills, support their\nchurch and charity and ask nothing of freedom but freedom itself and\nvery little of government except to be left alone.\n13 I I\nYou only have to look around at each other and you are looking\nat that special interest group. Demagogues tell them that they can\nonly have a bigger slice of the pie by reducing someone else's slice.\nI think they need representatives in government like Bob Bauman who\nknow we can all have a bigger slice if government will get out of the\nway and let the free enterprise system produce a bigger pie.\nMore than a hundred years ago a Frenchman came to this country\nand for years after he wrote books. His name was de Tocqueville and I\nguess every speaker quotes him from some time or the other but he said\nsomething that is pretty pertinent to us right now after one of his\nvisits to America. He said \"the political parties which I style great\nare those which cling to principles more than to consequences, to\ngeneral and not to special cases, to ideas and not to men.\" I think\nwe have come to one of those moments in history when party labels are\nless important than the preservation of the philosophical revolution\nthat took place in this land 200 years ago.\nThere have been other\nrevolutions but they just exchanged one set of rulers for another.\nOurs established the preeminence of the individual for the first time\nin the world's history, guaranteed freedom of choice and the right of\na man to first call on the fruit of his toil and the disposition of his\nproperty. We have been warned time after time to be on guard against\ngovernment. It was said most eloquently back in 1878 by Senator Benjamin\nHill. He said \"I do not dread industrial corporations as the instruments\nof power to destroy this country but one corporation we may all dread\nthat corporation is the federal government. If this great ambitious,\never-growing corporation become oppressive who shall check it? If it\nbecome unjust who shall trust it? Watch and guard with sleepless dread\nthat corporation which can make all property and the rights of all\nstates and people, all liberty and hope, its plaything in an hour, its\n- 14 -\nvictims forever.\"\nThis is the task that lies before us. We, ourselves, have got to\nstop asking things of government that government was never intended\nto deliver. We have got to start saying again to government \"we want\nthe control of our own destiny and our own lives and in order to do\nthat we have to elect men such as those sitting on this platform,\nwomen such as those who are here, Bob Bauman, who have that philosophy\nand who have gone not to empire-build and seek power and build a great\ngovernment, but to preserve this system of government by the people.\nThank you very much.\n######\nTRANSCRIPT OF SPEECH BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nAlabama Congressman Jack Edwards' Fundraiser,\nSeptember 30, 1974, Mobile, Alabama\nIf you're wondering why I've come to campaign for a congressman in\nAlabama, it's because this particular Californian believes that the size,\nthe power, and the cost of the federal government must be reduced for\nthe sake of the nation, and Congressmen like Jack Edwards give us a\nbetter chance for having that happen.\nOf course I have to say, Jack, that sometimes there is a bright\nside to everything, and maybe government's extravagance has a bright\nside. Can you imagine how miserable we would be if we were getting all\nthe government we're paying for.\nI have wondered, though, at times what government would really be\nlike if they had to do business on a satisfaction or your money back\nguarantee. But Washington, you know, is the only place in the world\nwhere you can pick up a telephone, call the Office of Economic\nOpportunity, and a fellow earning $30,000 a year will pick up the phone\nat the other end and say, \"Poverty here.\"\nWe've been bludgeoned for about a year and a half now with that\nthing called Watergate. We've heard it, and heard it and heard it.\nAnd the result has been that a great many people are turned off on\npublic affairs, on public life and politics. And they're not here\ntonight. You're here because you're not turned off. But there are\na lot of people out there that have to be talked to people who, I\ndon't say they're angry or disgusted or anything of the kind---I think\nthat what has happened is a kind of emotional drain. They've just heard\npolitics for a year and a half, to the point that they are just satiated\nwant to\nand want nothing to do with it. They don't/be involved. There is no\nway for them not to be involved. And therefore those of you who are\nand\nhere, and those of you who still care/are involved must communicate.\nYou must go out everyone of you knows someone, I'm sure--an acquaintance--\nwho has said, \"Not me anymore; I've had it.\" But they have to be faced\nand you have to convince them that won't work. Now, communication requires\nnot only a willing listener, but the person doing the communicating has\nto know what they're saying and have a pretty direct message to be able\nto succeed.\n-1-\nI heard a story about that kind of communication recently from a\nfriend of mine---Danny Villanueva. He used to place kick for the\nLos Angeles Rams and later, the Dallas Cowboys. And one night he told\nme he was having dinner with a young fellow and his wife--the fellow\nplayed baseball with the Dodgers. He was over at their house--a young\ncouple they had a little baby the young wife bustling about getting\nthe dinner ready. The baby started to cry, and she said to her husband,\n\"Change the baby.\" And he said, \"What do you mean, change the baby?\nI'm a ballplayer; that's not my line of work.\" She turned around, put\nher hands on her hips, and she communicated. She said, \"Look, buster,\nyou lay the diaper out like a diamond, put second base on home plate,\nput the baby's bottom on the pitcher's mound, hook up first and third,\nslide home underneath, and if it starts to rain, the game aint called;\nyou start all over again.\"\nBut you who are here are still working at government by the people.\nAnd you have to seek out those others I've talked about who say they're\njust going to stand by and not get involved. There is no way not to be\ninvolved. Either the people run politics, or the politicians are going\nto run the people.\nNow there are those in this land who had counted on avoiding the\nissues in this campaign. They were going to run on that thing called\nWatergate, probably because they know that the issues in this campaign\nof 1974 are the same issues we had two years ago, in 1972, and there\nare people in this country who didn't want us to be reminded of that\nfact. Two years ago the American people faced a very great philosoph-\nical choice. Never in the memory of any one of us in the room have\nthe issues in a political campaign been more clearly defined than they\nwere, and never have Americans, in such overwhelming numbers, ignored\nParty line and registered their belief in a political philosophy. The\nscore was 49 states to 1. And I don't know what the political science\nbooks say, but that's a mandate in anyone's language.\nFor 40 years we've been having social tinkering that's distorted\nthe balance between the various levels of government, and worse than\nthat, the very relationship of the people to their government. And\nthe people delivered a mandate that was clear and unmistakable. It\nwas a mandate that many in Congress seem to have ignored. They go\nright on with the plans to continue confiscating and redistributing\nthe people's earnings perpetuating the economic panaceas that stretch\n-2-\nall the way back in an unbroken parade of failures from the Great\nSociety back to the New Deal. Now there was no faulting the motive of\nthe people that produced those panaceas. They really intended to solve\nthe problems of human misery. But each time one of their programs\nfailed, it was followed by a bigger and more costly failure, and an\nenergetic and fiercely independent America has come dangerously close\nto being the deadly, dull, docile welfare state. The people voted\ntheir disapproval of this, opting for a return to the basic values on\nwhich this nation has grown to greatness.\nNow I joked a moment ago about Democrats. But let me be serious,\nbecause I believe we're in one of those moments in history when\nphilosophy is more important than Party label. Millions of patriotic\nDemocrats made it plain two years ago, and today these Democrats must\nrealize, and if they don't they must be made to realize, that they\nare totally out of step with those who highjacked their Party Convention\nin Miami, and those who highjacked that convention are still in the\nleadership position in control of that party. That leadership is deter-\nmined to take that Party down the road where the true Jeffersonian\nDemocrat cannot follow and remain true to his principles. I think I\nhave some idea of where I speak because most of my adult life I was\na Democrat until I could no longer follow the course of that Party's\nleadership. This was evident in the economic summit in Washington a\nfew days ago. We heard scornfully how leaders of the Senate and the\nHouse, or we didn't hear scornfully, they scornfully rejected the idea\nof a balanced budget, of reduced federal spending. They called it the\nOld Time Religion economics and they said it wouldn't work. Well how\ndo they know. For 40 out of the last 44 years they've been experimenting\nwith something they called the New Economics which has brought us the\ninflation we have today and which threatens the very existence of our\nfree enterprise system. The Old Time Religion economics, and, yes,\nthe spiritual Old Time Religion are the foundations of this nation and\nwe'd better get back to them darn quick before we find ourselves socially\nreformed right into the dust bin of history along with all those other\ncivilizations that failed in the past.\n-3-\nBut these people, of that McGovernite philosophy, fail to recognize\nthey should be cutting federal taxes, they should be cutting federal\nspending, they should be cutting the bureaucracy, and, yes, they should\nbe cutting their own extravagances. You know, Tom Curtis, one of your\ncolleagues, Jack, said just a few weeks ago back in Missouri, that he\nthought the Congress ought to cut its own salary until they balance the\nbudget, and then the salary could go back up to where it was supposed\nto be. Well, with Watergate gone as an issue, our opponents, of course,\nmust face us on the regular issues, and naturally they've seized upon\nthe one that is the number one problem facing the nation today\ninflation. And suddenly they would have us believe that it's our fault,\nthat suddenly we've just brought this about by magic in the last few\nyears. Well this is an easily-sold falsehood; it is not the truth.\nInflation is caused by one thing and one thing alone. Inflation comes\nwhen government spends more money than government takes in. Now, when\ngovernment does this, government has to borrow and thus it competes with\nthe private borrowers for the available capital. And right now government\nis choking off the flow of capital that is essential to the construction\nindustry, to people who would like to build homes, to business and indus-\ntry which needs capital to expand, and to provide jobs for our people.\nThe interest on the national debt is already $30 billion a year. And\nrecently they voted to extend the debt limit, and to spend and to borrow\nmore.\nNow, there's no great secret about balancing a budget. Your con-\ngressman knows how to do it. Balancing a budget is like protecting your\nvirtue; you have to learn to say \"no\". Then when we've balanced the\npresent budget we must start on the budget for '76, and for that one,\nwe should aim at a surplus so that we can start making payments on that\nnational debt.\nWho can do this. The Democratic leadership, the present leadership\nthat I've just been speaking about? Well they've had a majority in both\nhouses of the Congress for 40 of these 44 years---the last 20 years un-\ninterrupted, and today when they tell us that they have the answer and\nthat we don't have the answer, what's to stop them from putting into\neffect their answer. There isn't anything we could do to stop them if\nat any time they wanted to solve any of these problems.\n-4-\nBut in all these years they have practiced a policy, and this is\nwhat seems to me very arrogant that today when they would blame some-\none else for inflation, they think that our memories are so short that\nwere not going to recall that all these years they have deliberately\nplanned an annual inflation rate telling us that it was necessary to\nmaintain prosperity. And in these same years, those of us who have\nto bear that term \"conservative\" to describe our philosophy have said\nit\nwon't work that inflation is like radioactivity; it's cumulative.\nIt piles up in the body and pretty soon it's out of control, and the\npatient is very sick, indeed. And today, our body politic is very\nsick indeed. But they call this obstructionism.\nLet me give you a comparison between two periods in our recent\nhistory. Back in the New Deal days, faced with a Depression, but\npracticing the planned economy, the new economics, no fault with the\nintention of trying to do good, between 1932 and 1937 the annual in-\nflation rate was 7½ percent, and by 1938, there were 19 percent of the\nwork force of this nation unemployed. Then we had a term when Dwight\nDavid Eisenhower became president. For one brief two-year period he\nhad a Congress in both Houses of his own persuasion. Federal employment\nwas reduced by 10 percent; the inflation rate was less than one-half of\none percent. Unemployment was less than four percent and real wages\nwere going up nine times as fast as the increase in the cost of living.\nAnd yet today there are those who will tell us that we must have a tax\nincrease in order to cure inflation. That's like telling a drunk another\ndrink will sober him up. The same political double-talk applies to the\nsame campaign year crocodile tears were shed over the tax structure that\nthey've just discovered is riddled with loopholes benefitting the rich\nat the expense of the poor. Well, who could stop them from changing it\nif they wanted to. As a matter of fact we might like to help them.\nThe first suggestion that I would make would be to make the income tax\nso simple that a working man wouldn't have to hire legal help every\nyear to tell him how much he owes the government. Another very simple\nimprovement might be that any legislator who proposes a spending measure\nhas to propose a tax bill at the same time to pay for it. And how com-\nplicated would it be to take our progressive tax system and adjust the\nvarious surtax brackets to the Cost of Living Index so that when a\nworking man gets an increase that only keeps pace with the cost of\nliving, he doesn't move up through a couple of tax brackets to find\n-5-\nout he's worse off than he was before he got the raise. They won't do\nthis, of course. The record proves it. The only way we're going to\na\nget that kind of fiscal sanity is when you return/ congressman like Jack\nEdwards to Washington, and when throughout the rest of the country we\ncan send others like him until we have a majority there that will do\nwhat we know is right.\nWhat we are hearing now are voices that want more and more government.\nI have become a student of history and I have been very fascinated with\nthe story of an ancient city-state in Greece. They had a custom that\nwhen anyone proposed a government program, he did so with a noose around\nhis neck tied to the limb of a tree standing on a chair. If they liked\nhis proposal, they removed the noose; if they didn't, they removed the\nchair. And I have developed a morbid fascination with the customs of\nancient Greece.\nOur government has grown to where not even the Office of Management\nand Budget knows how many bureaus, boards, commissions and agencies there\nare. But all of them have the power to make regulations, having the full\nauthority of law. The Federal Registry which lists these regulations has\nalmost as many pages as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Small businessmen,\nand there will be heads nodding yes in the room when I say this, in America\nspend a total of 130 million man-hours a year filling out government-\nrequired paperwork. It adds $50 billion to the cost of doing business,\nall of which turns up in the price of the product, and then the government\nspends $15 billion a year finding a place to store all that paper. You\ntake the Interstate Commerce Commission. In 85 years it has accumulated\n43 trillion railroad rate rulings with no index. I submit that no one\ncan make a case that the Interstate Commerce Commission is necessary and\nshould remain in existence. Indeed, the Congress should take a good look\nat any number of agencies whose excessive regulations harass business and\nindustry and keep them from expanding to provide the goods and the\nservices our people need, as well as the jobs.\nOh my, what happens with government and those regulations. We have a\nbusinessman in California small businessman they walked in on him one\nday; they told him he had to suddenly install separate men's and women's\nwashrooms for his employees. He only has one employee. And at home\nthey sleep in the same bed and use the same bathroom they're married.\n-6-\nDo you remember that cyclamate scandal. A few years ago suddenly\ncyclamates were bad for us---the artificial sweetener in the soft\ndrinks. Millions of dollars of soft drinks were pulled off the shelves,\nand thrown into the gutter\nmillions of dollars of loss for the busi-\nness community because they were going to be dangerous to our health.\nNever mind the people with diabetic problems who required artificial\nsweeteners. Now the Federal Drug Administration sort of quietly has\njust eased out the word that they might have acted a little hastily.\nIt seems that they were feeding 20 rats cyclamates. Three of them\ndeveloped tumors suspected of being malignant. But the amount of\ncyclamates they were being fed would be the equivalent of a human being\ndrinking 875 bottles of that soft drink a day. I submit that without\nthe cyclamates, drinking 875 bottles of soft drink a day is dangerous\nto your health.\nThey've got an agency in Washington\na\nBureau of Indian Affairs.\nIt's like so many of those others; they have acres and acres of desks,\nrows and rows of people sitting at all the desks. One day they came\nin and saw a fellow sitting way back in the corner at his desk, sitting\nthere with his head down on his arms, sobbing as if his heart would\nbreak. They finally persuaded him to tell them what was wrong. He\nsaid, \"My Indian died.\"\nThe mandate of the American people two years was against bigger and\nbigger government and greater and greater costs, accompanied by what\nCicero called the Arrogance of Officialdom. Now many candidates today\npay lip service to reducing government size, and the tax burden, and\nthere again, all those things, too. Well don't let them get away with\nit. Make those who would serve in high place state clearly where they\nstand philosophically, and what answers they would propose for the great\nproblems besetting us. How they feel about Watergate isn't good enough\nwhen we're choosing people who will be making decisions that affect our\nlives and the lives of our children for a great many years to come.\nYou know the record of your congressman; you don't have to listen to\npromises and wonder whether they will be kept. His record is sound,\nconservative principles, and efforts to reduce federal spending are up\nthere for everyone to see. He stands for extending personal freedom,\n-7-\nfor curbing inflation, and for easing the tax burden. He would strengthen\nthe free enterprise system and lessen the power of government, and as you\nhave just been told, he has received for the fifth time in a row that\nwatch-dog-of-the-treasury award which means he has succeeded in fighting\nagainst the increased cost of government.\nYour congressman was very kind to me in his introduction, in telling\nsome of the things that we've done in California. I'll refer to them\nagain simply because I think we should know that this system that we've\ntalked about--this conservatism that we believe in--does work. When I\ntook over, I followed an administration that had been a little brother\nto big brother in Washington for so long that everytime Washington\nsneezed, the gesundheit was heard in Sacramento. The state was spending\na million dollars a day more than it was taking in. It was insolvent\nand on the brink of bankruptcy. They were hiring, and had been hiring\nfor a number of years, more than 5,000 new employees a year, adding them\nto the state payroll. We were the welfare capital of the world, as Jack\ntold you. Our caseload was soon going up at a rate of 40,000 additional\npeople a month. By January, when these eight years come to an end,\nthere will be the same number of employees there were eight years ago,\neven though some departments have had a 66 percent workload increase be-\ncause of our growth in population. The governor, whoever he is when he\ntakes office, will be the first governor in 22 years to inherit a balanced\nbudget and a $400 million surplus. Jack told you about the welfare and\ncorrecting that welfare was a little harder. We had a few frustrating\nyears of making efforts to correct it, and finally we got another citizens'\ncommittee, put them to work to dig into it and find out what we could do\nwhen they came back with a recommendation for the most comprehensive re-\nforms ever attempted. The democratic leadership in the Legislature,\nsimilar to that other leadership I've been talking about, refused in an\nunprecedented act to allow the Governor to appear before a joint session\nand even present the program for their consideration. So we went over\ntheir heads to the people. And when the people heard our story, they\nproved that government by the people works if the people work at it.\nPublic opinion was built up to where they capitulated, but it wasn't easy.\nThey put up quite a fight. They told us the plan wouldn't work; the case-\nload would increase; it would dump the burden on the counties; it would\nincrease the local property taxes; the needy would starve in the streets;\nand we would have a $700 million deficit. Outside of that, they couldn't\n-8-\nfind much wrong with what we wanted to do.\nWell, that was just about 31/2 years ago, and as Jack told you, yes,\nthe welfare rolls are no longer increasing by that great amount; they're\nstill decreasing and we do have those 400,000 fewer people. He told you\nalso that the property taxes didn't go up; they've been going down for\ntwo years in a row. And statewide the taxpayers did save that vast sum\nof money. But we increased the grants to the truly needy by 41 percent.\nCap Weinberger, the secretary of HEW in Washington, has taken some of\nour personnel there, and they're now going around the country showing\nother states how to implement the same kind of reforms, and last year,\nfor the first time. in the history of welfare, the national caseload went\ndown also. It went down in those states that have implemented the reforms.\nBut the battle isn't over. They constantly introduce legislation now,\nand\neven though it's been passed--legislation to whittle away/to eliminate one\nby one the reforms we passed. One of our reforms was an experiment. We\nhad to get federal permission. They wouldn't let us do a statewide exper-\niment but they gave us the right to take 35 of our counties--we had to\nnegotiate for that--we got 35 counties in which we were allowed to get\nthe counties and the cities and the villages and the communities to\ncome up with useful work projects for the communities that were not now\nbeing performed. And then we were permitted to make able-bodied welfare\nrecipients report and work at those community work projects in return for\ntheir welfare grants.\nLast year in California we placed 76,000 welfare recipients into\nprivate industry jobs and 47,000 of them found their way into those\nprivate industry jobs by way of that community work project. And yet\nlast week, I had to veto a bill that would have cancelled this program\nout charging that it was unjust and slave labor. Oh yes, the $700 million\ndeficit. That turned out to be an $850 million surplus and we gave it back\nto the people in a one-time tax rebate.\nNow that isn't as easy as Jack and I have made it sound. When you\napproach the Legislature and suggest giving back $850 million to the tax-\npayers, that is like getting between the hog and the bucket---one gets\nbuffeted about a bit. One senator said to me he considered giving the\nmoney back an unnecessary expenditure of public funds. But I will give\nthem one thing; they never rest. You know, we make a fatal mistake if\nwe think when we win a victory of this kind that it's permanent. It's\nlike carrying a basket of kittens. As fast as you push the head of one\n-9-\nof them down when he's trying to get out, there are two more over here,\nif you've ever had that experience.\nWe appointed a task force a year ago to look into our own welfare\nreforms to see if there was anything else we had missed. And they\nfound out something else. They discovered a new target that was as\nout of control today as welfare was a few years ago food stamps.\nThey have found fraud, abuse, administrative confusion, and counter-\nfeiting. And like so many other free (?) goodies, it started out as a\nlegitimate idea. It was to distribute an agricultural surplus to the\nneedy. There were 367,000 people then in the nation who were getting\nthese food stamps to the cost of $26 million. By next year, 16,000,000\nwill be getting them to the cost of $4billion. By 1977, one out of four\nAmericans 60,000,000- be eligible for food stamps, at what cost\nwe can only guess because the cost increases several times faster than\nthe increase in numbers.\nWhat do you say to a man who calls you from another state and tells\nyou that he earns $100,000 a year, is sending his son to college in\nCalifornia and what do we mean by giving his son food stamps. And we\nhave to tell him, that if his son asked for them under the regulations,\nwe can't refuse him. What do you say when you find out that a young lady\navoids the work requirement by being a half-time student at one of our\ncolleges and thus she's eligible for food stamps; she's studying to be\na witch. We called and checked to find out, and they said, \"Yep, so\nshe's a witch on food stamps now.\"\nMost of the recommendations that we've made will have to be under-\ntaken at the federal level, and I must say, that our conservative legis-\nlators in Washington are prepared and are preparing legislation right\nnow to do this. The program first of all should be moved from the\nAgriculture Department to HEW because it is a welfare program, and Earl\nButz agrees with this. The eligibility rules should be tightened so\nthat students supported by their parents aren't included. There should\nbe a minimum age requirement because believe it or not we have found\nthis is an actual fact youngsters, running away from home, join communes\nand then the government subsidizes them by providing food stamps. Strikers\nare receiving food stamps which puts government on one side of a labor\ndispute when government should be a neutral referee, and we think that\nshould be prevented in the future.\n-10-\nAnd there must be greater protection against counterfeiting, or\neven stealing. They are as negotiable as currency. And right now\nthey're delivered in a manner as if they're wastepaper. But, also,\nin Los Angeles just recently, we uncovered a multi-million dollar\ncounterfeiting ring counterfeiting not money, but food stamps.\nOur congressional delegation, as I say, is enthusiastic about\nthis. Now I know one thing. A lot of taxpaying citizens are tired\nof seeing an able-bodied fellow, well-dressed and seemingly alright,\nstanding in the checkout line of a supermarket ahead of them buying\nwhether\nT-bone steaks with food stamps, and they're wondering/after they pay\ntheir taxes they can afford hamburger.\nYou know, we've heard much in this last horrendous year and a\nhalf about special interest groups seeking special attention from\ngovernment. Well, I'd like to call your attention to one special\ninterest group that hasn't had enough attention from government or\nenough representation in government for too long a time. It's made\nup of a cross-section of Americans of every political persuasion, of\nevery religion, of every race, of every ethnic background. They're\nfarmers and city folk; they're workers and shopkeepers, they're a great\nhost of people that some of the elite would like to refer to as the\nmasses of the common man. I prefer to think of them as a very uncommon\ngroup of men and women unsung heroes who get up in the morning and\nsend the kids to school, who go to work, pay their bills, support their\nchurch and charity. They ask nothing of freedom but freedom itself and\nvery little of government except to be safe in their homes and on their\nstreets.\ngreat\nNow, Jack Edwards is one that does represent that/group of unsung\nheroes, and he knows that without them this whole system of ours would\nlong since come unglued. Right now they're in their time of discontent,\nand why not. Government only seems to know of their existence at tax\ncollecting time and it's taking 45 cents out of every dollar that the\ncitizen earns. The good life that they've worked for and deserve seems\nto be just out of reach. Capitalizing on their discontent are political\ndemagogues, crying gloom and doom, shaking their faith in themselves and\nin this free system of ours. In all too many classrooms throughout the\nnation, our sons and daughters are being told that ours is a sick\nsociety, that it must be pulled down and rebuilt from the ground up.\nAppealing to the worst in us, the demagogues tell us that we can have a\n-11-\nbigger slice of the pie only by taking away someone else's slice. Well,\nit's time to answer the doomcriers and to silence the demagogues with\nthe facts, and the facts are on our side. A sick society couldn't produce\nthe men that have been put on the moon in these last few years. A sick\nsociety did not produce those other men who returned to us a year and a\nhalf ago after years of savage torture in captivity in Vietnam, and stepped\noff those planes unbroken, proud, blessing their country and their God.\nAnd we should be telling the demagogues right now we can all have a bigger\nslice of pie if government will get out of the way and let the private\nenterprise system build a bigger pie.\nBut what our people need to be told, also, today is: double our\ntroubles and we're still better off than any people anywhere else on\nearth. We have more freedom; we have more material possessions; we\nlive better; and with our material blessings has come a compassion that\nis unequalled by any other people in the world. We've shared our wealth\nmore widely among our people than any society in the history of mankind.\nWe have more churches, more libraries, we support with voluntary contri-\nbutions more symphonies, more operas, more non-profit theaters, and publish\nmore books than all the rest of the world put together. One-third of the\nyoung people who are getting a college education in the world are getting\nit in the United States, and I submit that all of this is in spite of and\nnot because of the social tinkering that's been going on for the last\nfour decades.\nNow we can restore our people's faith in their own capacity for\ngreatness. We can convince our sons and daughters of how much there is\nto really love in this land of ours. I think we have come to one of those\nmoments, as I said before, when history would reveal that philosophy is\nmore important than Party labels. We saw this a few weeks ago when your\nAlabama senator, James Allen, led the fight against a bill called the\nConsumer Protection Plan which was an all-out assault on our concept of\nprivate enterprise. But with the Democratic Party today in the hands\nof those that highjacked that convention two years ago, I think we, as\nRepublicans, must recognize that we are the vehicle; we are the ones who\ncan raise the banner around which all Americans--Democrats, Republicans\nand Independents who want a free America--can rally. And to do this, we\n-12-\nhave to counter some false imagery that's been created by a great many\nof the radical Left in our midst that we're the party of the rich, that\nwe cater to powerful interests who seek special favors of government.\nAnd here again, the truth is our weapon. For more than a quarter of a\ncentury we've been unable to equal our opponents in campaign spending.\nSeventy-five percent of our contributions come in gifts of $100 or less,\nand we outnumber our opponents five to one in that kind of small\ncontributor. But you say, well that couldn't be true in 1972; we've\nheard all about that and all the spending. Well, it's true that we did\nspend on Republican candidates, on radio and television alone, $20 million\nin the '72 campaign. Our opponents spent $34 million. Then there are\nthose dairy contributions- $577 thousand to Republican candidates,\n$613 thousand to Democratic candidates. I've never been able to figure\nout why a rich Republican is a fat cat and a rich Democrat is a public-\nspirited philanthropist.\nBut you know, there is a man in our land today who has called for\na veto-proof Congress on behalf of the people he claims to represent.\nHe already claims that it is reported that he owns 230 congressmen and\n57 senators a clear majority in both houses. And now he's willing to\nspend tens and tens of millions of dollars to achieve a two-thirds\nmajority so that not even a presidential veto can stop him from getting\nwhat he believes is best for the people of the United States. Well, I\ndon't believe that even the rank and file union membership of this\ncountry wants one of their leaders or anyone else in this country to\nhave that kind of control over the government of the people of America.\nThe record proves that your candidate isn't in anyone's pocket.\nHe represents this district; he represents his state, and the reason\nthe Californian is here is because in so doing, he represents this\ncountry the way it should be represented. And I hope and trust that he\nwill be back in Congress for a long time to come.\nI suppose I could have summed all of this up in just one little\nstatement that was made by a Senator Hill in 1878. What it's really\nall about and what the issue of this election is all about. He said,\n\"I do not dread industrial corporations as instruments of power to\ndestroy this country. But there is one corporation which we may all\nwell dread that corporation is the federal government. If this great,\n-13-\nambitious, ever-growing corporation become oppressive, who shall check it.\nIf it become unjust, who shall trust it. Watch and guard with sleepless\ndread that corporation which can make all property and the rights of all\nstates, people and all liberty and hope its plaything in an hour, its\nvictims forever.\"\nLadies and gentlemen, I must tell you we are much closer to seeing\na drastic change at what we have termed a free country than any of us\nI think realize. It is later than we think. And so I say to all of you:\nplease communicate, please talk to those others who may think they're\ngoing to sit out this election because it won't make very much difference.\nMake people's government work. Send your congressman back there and then\ndo all you can to elect these other candidates to see that the philosophy\nthat we believe in and that has brought us here tonight is the philosophy\nthat guides America in the future. Thank you very much.\n# # #\n-14-\nSPEECH BY GOVERNOR RONALD\nCIVIC AUDITORIUM\nALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO\nAPRIL 9, 1968\nGOVERNOR CARGO, REVEREND CLERGY, MY FELLOW CURRES III' HERE or ThE PLATE-\nFORM WHO HAVE NOW JUST LEARNED THE TRUTH, THAT THE HARDES\" \"\"() PLAY\nTN SHOW BUSINESS IS AN EATING SCENE (LAUGHTER). you HAVE WARMED MY\nHEART, AND I CAN'T TELL you HOW GRATEFUL I AM FOP THIS MARM WELCOUP AUD\nFOR YOUR KIND WORDS. I KNOW SOMETHING OF WHAT IT COST YOU TO COME HERF\nAND HAVE THIS LUNCH. THE ONLY THING I CAN SAY ABOUT IT, IN THE WAY OF\nNCOURAGEMENT, IS IF WE DON'T WIN, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE REGULAR PRICE\n*R A BOX LUNCH. (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)\nBY, DAVE, WHEN YOU SAID THAT I WAS A PROBLEM SOLVER, or COURSE, THAT'S\nTHE THING I GOT A LOT OF PRACTICE LATELY. I WAS FUMBLING THROUGH THE\nPAPERS ON THE DESK ONE DAY, I THOUGHT THERE OUGHT TO EE A LETTER OF\nRESIGNATION IN THERE SOME PLACE. SOMEBODY SAID TO ME, 'CHEEP UP, THINGS\nCOULD BE WORSE', so I CHEERED UP, AND SURE ENOUGH, THEY COT WORSE.\n(LAUGHTER)\nTHERE IS A FELLOW ON THE RADIO IN SACRAMENTO, I DONMT KNOW VHO BE IS, Dum\nTHE OTHER MORNING I HEARD HIM ON THE CAR RADJO, AND HE SAID SOMETHING AND\nI'LL LOVE HIM FOREVER. HE SAID 'EVERY MAN SHOULD TAKE A WIFE, BECAUSE\nSOONER OR LATER SOMETHING IS BOUND TO HAPPEN THAT YOU CAN'T BLAME OF THE\nGOVERNOR'S (LAUGHTER) I DON'T MEAN TO SOUND LIKE I AM COMPLAINING.\n1 KNOW THIS MUST BE TRUE OF YOU, THE LETTERS THAT MEAN THE MOST OF ALL,\nARE THE ONES FROM THE KIDS, AND THEY COME IN, AND THERE WAS ONE THE OTHER\nDAY FROM A LITTLE GIRL NAMED MARIE, AND SHE ASKED MY OPINION, SHE SAID:\n'DO YOU THINK THE TEACHERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HIT US ON THE KNUCKLES\nWITH A RULER?' SHE SAID: 'I DON'T THINK SO'. P.S., 'IF MY HANDWRITING\nMV HAND TS SORE'.\n(2)\nLL, DO YOU REMEMBER BACK IN '64, ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ. NOW WE KNOW\nAT HE MEANT. (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE) THE CREDIBILITY GAP IS SO GREAT,\nAT WE HAVE TO WORRY THAT MAYBE HE TOLD US THE TRUTH THE OTHER DAY\nPING WE WOUDN'T BELIEVE HIM. (LAUGHTER) OF COURSE, WE STILL HAVE\nBBY. YOU KNOW, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE YESTERDAY THAT BOBBY WAS TELLING\n$ THAT HE WANTED A JOHNSON-HUMPHREY TICKET. NOW WE KNOW WHERE TO.\nLAUGHTER) THERE IS A LOT OF TALK THAT IF BOBBY SHOULD BECOME THE\nANDIDATE, WHO WOULD BE HIS RUNNING MATE. WELL, THAT'S KIND OF SILLY.\nE WON'T HAVE ANY. WHO EVER HEARD OF A VICE-KENNEDY? (LAUGHTER) BUT,\nOU CAN'T DENY BOBBY LOVES THE POOR, AND HE IS GOING TO DO HIS BEST TO\nEEP US THAT WAY. (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)\nERE IT IS, ANOTHER ELECTION YEAR. THEY'VE GOTTEN OUT A HANDBOOK IN\nHE OTHER PARTY, AND I'VE SEEN IT, AND THIS IS TRUE. IT'S FOR CAMPAIGNERS,\nND IT HAS ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CAMPAIGNING CANDIDATES IN THE\nEMOCRATIC SIDE, AND AMONG ONE OF THE INSTRUCTIONS IS THAT THEY SHOULD\nVERY CAREFUL IN THEIR CAMPAIGNING NOT TO LET FINANCE GET OUT OF HAND.\nOT TO LET OUTGO EXCEED INCOME. NOW, IF THEY ONLY HAD A BOOK LIKE THAT\n'OR THE OFFICE HOLDERS. (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE) WE ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE\nTHE WORLD WHOSE MONEY CAN GO TO EUROPE AND WE CAN'T. (LAUGHTER AND\nPPLAUSE) UNDER THE INCREASE IN THE POSTAGE RATES, WE CAN'T EVEN WRITE\nTAKES THE COMBINED TAXES FOR FIVE (5) FAMILIES TO PAY THE COST OF THE\n'EDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR ONE SECOND. DID YOU JUST BLINK YOUR EYES? WELL\nEFORE YOU GOT THEM OPENED, THE GOVERNMENT HAD SPENT $4,550.00, BUT LIKE\nIUBERT HERATIO HUMPHREY SAID, 1A BILLION HERE, AND A BILLION THERE, IT\nUP'. (LAUGHTER) HUBERT, NOW THERE'S A MODEST MAN, (LAUGHTER) WITH\nGREAT DEAL TO BE MODEST ABOUT. (LAUGHTER) HE APPROACHES EVERY PROBLEM\nAN OPEN MOUTH. (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)\n(3)\nFOR DECADES, THE LEADERSHIP OF THAT PARTY HAS TRIED TO TAKE EVERY\nPROBLEM AND MAKE IT THEIRS, AND THAT GOES FOR JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING\nELSE WE OWNED. LOOK HOW THEY HAVE BEEN SOLVING THE FARMERS PROBLEMS.\nDO YOU REMEMBER THAT OLD GAQ, THAT GAG BASED ON DEFINITIONS?\nSOCIALISM: THIS WAS IF YOU HAD TWO COWS, THEY TAKE ONE, AND THE\nGOVERNMENT WOULD: GIVE IT TO YOUR NEIGHBOR. COMMUNISM: IF YOU HAD\nTWO COWS THE GOVERNMENT WOULD TAKE BOTH OF THEM, AND GIVE YOU THE MILK.\nWELL, OUR GOVERNMENT, THEY TAKE BOTH COWS, SHOOT ONE, MILK THE OTHER,\nTHROW THE MILK AWAY, AND BUY BUTTER FROM HOLLAND. (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)\nTHEIR IDEA OF HELPING THE FARMER IS TO BUY HIM A MILKING MACHINE, AND\nTHEN TAKE HIS ONLY COW IN PAYMENT OF TAXES.\nIN 1920, YOU COULD TELEPHONE FROM NEW YORK TO SAN FRANCISCO FOR $20.75,\nAND FOR THAT SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY YOU COULD SEND 1,037 LETTERS. NOW, IT\nONLY COSTS A DOLLAR TO MAKE THAT TELEPHONE CALL, AND FOR THAT AMOUNT YOU\nCAN ONLY SEND 16 LETTERS. so, THE GOVERNMENT IS INVESTIGATING THE 'BELL\nSYSTEM' (LAUGHTER) THEY ARE SPENDING $425,000.000 IN THE FEDERAL\nGOVERNMENT ON PUBLIC RELATIONS, JUST TO TELL US HOW WELL OFF WE ARE.\nNEVER HAVE so FEW, SPENT SO MUCH, TO TELL US SO LITTLE. CIVILIAN BUREAUS\nARE MULTIPLYING LIKE WIRE COAT HANGERS IN A CLOSET.\nI REMEMBERED FOR THREE YEARS NOW, THIS ADMINISTRATION. DURING THIS THREE\nYEARS THE PRESIDENT HAS ASKED CONGRESS FOR PASSAGE OF 1,057 PROPOSALS,\nAND CONGRESS HAS ENACTED 655 OF THESE, MOST OF WHICH INCREASE THE SPENDING\nOF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. HEALTH AND WELFARE HAS INCREASED IN THESE\nTHREE YEARS 71%. THE AID TO EDUCATION 107.7%. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT\n158.8% BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, THE PRESIDENT RECENTLY, PIOUSLY, TOLD US\nTHAT THE NATION COULD FACE A RETURN TO STRONG INFLATIONARY PRESSURES,\nWHICH COULD ROB THE POOR AND THE ELDERLY, AND THE MILLIONS WHO ARE ON\n[XED INCOMES. AND, THE IMPLICATION WAS, THAT WE WERE NOT NOW HAVING\nNFLATION. WELL, TRAGICALLY AN ENTIRE GENERATION HAS GROWN TO ADULTHOOD\n)T KNOWING ANYTHING ELSE. IN THIS YEAR ALONE, OUR MONEY WILL BUY\n+ BILLION DOLLARS LESS THAN IT WOULD LAST YEAR. THE THOUSAND DOLLARS\nHAT YOU, PERHAPS, HAVE IN THE BANK THAT'S EARNING $45 IN INTEREST, WELL,\nJBTRACT $28.21 BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT WILL LOSE THIS YEAR IN PURCHASING\nOWER. THE PRESIDENT SIGNED A CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION RECENTLY THAT\nOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN THE GOVERNMENT BY 2%,\nND THEN WITH A CYNICISM, THAT IS ALL TOO PREVALENT IN GOVERNMENT TODAY,\nASKED IN HIS BUDGET FOR AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES OF\n5,600., WE'RE FACED WITH A FISCAL CRISIS OF GREATER PROPORTIONS THAN\nNYTHING WE HAVE KNOWN, SINCE THAT DARK FRIDAY IN OCTOBER OF 1929. BUT,\nHOSE IN POWER, LACK THE COURAGE TO TAKE ANY OF THE STEPS THAT ARE\nECESSARY, LEST SOME OF THEM PROVE POLITICALLY UNPOPULAR. THEY GO THEIR\nLISSFUL WAY. WE ARE TOLD THAT THE BUDGET IS AS PRUDENT AS THE\nOVERNMENT COULD MAKE IT. DOWN TO BARE NECESSITIES, AND THE NEEDS OF\nPEOPLE. AND, YET, THEY HAVE SPENT $249,000 IN A RESEARCH PROGRAM\nALLED THE DEMOGRAPHY OF HAPPINESS. THEY CONDUCTED THIS RESEARCH IN\nUERTO RICO, WHICH WAS A GOOD PLACE TO FIND HAPPY PEOPLE, THEY HAVE NO\nNCOME TAX THERE, AND WHAT DO YOU THINK WE GOT FOR OUR $249,000? WELL,\nSTUDY FINALLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION, THAT PEOPLE WHO EARN MORE ARE\nAPPIER THAN PEOPLE WHO EARN LESS. (LAUGHTER) THAT THE YOUNG ARE HAPPIER\nHAN THE OLD, AND THAT THE WELL AND HEALTHY ARE HAPPIER THAN THE SICK.\nJOLIET, ILLINOIS AN IMIGRANT TO THIS COUNTRY, WHO HAD BECOME AN ADOPTED\nITIZEN DIED, AND IN HIS WILL, HE LEFT HIS WHOLE FORTUNE OF $170,000 TO\nGOVERNMENT TO HELP PAY OFF THE DEBT. IN DUE TIME, A PROBATE COURT IN\nLLINOIS PROCESSED THIS WILL, DEDUCTED $27,000 WHICH WAS THE STATE OF\nLLINOIS' SHARE IN INHERITANCE TAX, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS FIGHTING\nHE CASE. AND, THE GOVERNMENT IS CLAIMING THEY ARE FIGHTING THE CASE,\nWANTING THE $27,000, BECAUSE THEY CLAIM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A\nCHARITABLE INSTITUTION. (LAUGHTER) AND, THEY'VE GOT A GOOD CASE.\nLAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)\nMILLION AMERICANS ARE RECEIVING SOME FORM OF DIRECT PAYMENT FROM\nOVERNMENT. EITHER DIRECTLY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, OR FROM STATES\nINDER FEDERAL FINANCE GRANTS. WELFARE PROGRAMS THAT NUMBERED 239 IN\n964, NUMBER 458 NOW, AND WE'RE PROMISED MORE. INDEED, ONE WONDERS IF\n'HE SCRIPT OF LAST WEEKS SURPRISING ANNOUNCEMENT HASN'T BEEN IN THE\nWORKS FOR QUITE SOME TIME. BY A STRANGE COINCIDENCE, THERE IS A\n:OVERNMENT PUBLICATION OUT, IT IS CALLED THE VICE-PRESIDENT'S HANDBOOK\n'OR LOCAL OFFICIALS. IT'S PRINTED AT TAX PAYERS EXPENSE, BUT YOU CAN'T\n,OOK AT THIS BOOK WITHOUT THINKING THAT HERE IS QUITE AN IMPRESSIVE\nCAMPAIGN DOCUMENT. THE PRESIDENT IS DISMISSED IN THE BOOK WITH ONLY\nONE PICTURE. BUT, HUBERT HORATIO HUMPHREY IS ALL THROUGH THE BOOK,\nHOTOGRAPHED USUALLY WITH HAPPY SMILING CHILDREN. THE FACT IS, THE\nBOOK BEARS THE VICE-PRESIDENT'S SEAL, AND THE MESSAGE IS HAPPY, AND\nINSUBTLE. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS 17 AND 1/2 BILLION DOLLARS TO SPREAD\nROUND THIS YEAR AMONG THE STATES, CITIES, AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES. ARE\nOU GETTING YOUR SHARE? ARE YOU PASSING UP YOUR CUT BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE\nPROCEDURES? AND THEN, IN THE FORWARD OF THE BOOK, THE VICE-PRESIDENT\nEXPLAINS, HE'S YOUR MAN. HE GOES ON TO EXPLAIN THAT IF RED-TAPE GETS IN\n'OUR WAY, DON'T BOTHER TO CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN OR YOUR SENATOR, JUST\nIN TOUCH WITH OLE HUBERT. HE'LL STRAIGHTEN IT OUT, AND SEE THAT YOU\nTHE MONEY.\nN WASHINGTON, THE SLOGAN ONCE WAS \"WALK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK\",\nIT'S \"WALK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG SACK\". (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)\nA LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO, I INHERITED A GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA THAT\nHAD BEEN, FOR EIGHT YEARS, A LITTLE BROTHER TO BIG BROTHER IN\nWASHINGTON. FOR ALL THAT TIME, WHEN WASHINGTON SNEEZED, THE GEZUNDTHEIT\nCOULD BE HEARD IN SACRAMENTO. (LAUGHTER) AND YOU KNOW, THERE WERE TIMES,\nWHEN- I LOOKED AT WHAT I HAD INHERITED THAT I WASN'T SURE WHETHER I'D\nBEEN ELECTED GOVERNOR, OR APPOINTED RECEIVER. (LAUGHTER) CALIFORNIA\nRANKS THIRD IN THE NATION IN THE NUMBER OF THOSE WHO ARE POVERTY STRICKEN,\nBUT NUMBER ONE IN THE AMOUNT OF FEDERAL POVERTY FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN\nALLOCATED. BUT, IT DIDN'T ALLEVIATE POVERTY. IT CREATED AN ADMINISTRATIVE\nNIGHTMARE. OVER THE LAST DECADE, WHILE WE'VE INCREASED OUR POPULATION\nIN THAT STATE BY 39%, WE'VE INCREASED THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE GETTING\nWELFARE BY 247%, AND THAT'S WHY, FOLLOWING THE WATTS RIOTS, WHEN MORE\nFEDERAL MONEY WAS FUNNELED IN, A NATIONAL MAGAZINE DID A RESEARCH LATER,\nAND FOUND OUT THAT SOME 50% OF THE TOTAL FUNDS HAD GONE TO THE\nADMINISTRATORS. THAT'S WHY, I ALSO DISCOVERED WHEN I WAS ELECTED THAT\nI HAD A RIGHT, AS GOVERNOR, TO VETO SOME OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY PROGRAMS.\nOF COURSE, BEING TOTALLY INEXPERIENCED, I' DIDN'T KNOW I WASN'T SUPPOSED\nTO EXERCISE THAT VETO. (LAUGHTER) SO I DID. (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)\nTHERE WAS ONE PROGRAM IN FRESNO, THAT WAS TO TEACH AND SCHOOL DEMONSTRATORS\nAND PICKETS. AND, IF THERE WAS ONE THING WE DIDN'T HAVE A SHORTAGE OF,\nIT WAS DEMONSTRATORS. BUT, THE ONE THAT I DELIGHTED IN VETOING, WAS A\nPROGRAM THAT AT FIRST GLANCE YOU WOULD THINK WAS RIGHT DOWN OUR ALLEY.\nIT WAS A PROGRAM TO PUT THE HARD-CORE UNEMPLOYED, IN ONE OF OUR COUNTIES\nTO WORK, CLEARING OPEN PARK LANDS. BUT, A LITTLE INVESTIGATION REVEALED\nTHERE WERE 17 OF THE HARD-CORE UNEMPLOYED, BUT MORE THAN HALF OF THE\nBUDGET WAS GOING TO 7 ADMINISTRATORS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE 17 GOT TO\nWORK ON TIME, AND THE PROGRAM ALSO CALLED FOR THE 17 HAVING TO TRAVEL\n(7)\nA TOTAL OF 12,000 MILES, AND THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN THE BUDGET FOR\nTHEIR SHELTER OR THEIR TRANSPORTATION. THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE\nHAS DISCOVERED A JOB CORP TRAINING PROGRAM IN CALIFORNIA WITH 1,869\nENROLLEES, BUT WITH A STAFF OF 1,078. IT'S NO WONDER THAT IT IS COSTING\nAN AVERAGE OF $50,000 FOR EVERY GRADUATE OF THIS PROGRAM. THIS ISN'T\nPECULIAR TO CALIFORNIA. A CHICAGO ORGANIZATION WAS AWARDED $872,000\nTO TEACH BASIC READING AND ARITHMETIC TO DROP-OUTS. IT'S A WORTHY\nPURPOSE. A SHORT TIME AFTER THE SCHOOL WAS STARTED, A TRIBUNE REPORTER\nWENT DOWN WITH A LOGICAL QUESTION, TO SEE HOW THEY WERE DOING, AND HE\nINTERRUPTED A CRAP GAME. HE WAS INFORMED IT WAS RECESS. THE TEACHERS\nPAY, HE LEARNED, WASN'T EXCESSIVE, BUT THEN NEITHER WAS THEIR WORK. TWO\nOF THEM WERE IN JAIL, ONE CHARGED WITH MURDER, AND ONE CHARGED WITH\nCONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER. THREE WERE OUT ON BOND FOR WAITING TRIAL\nFOR RAPE. ANOTHER WAS ON TRIAL FOR AGGRAVATED BATTERY, AND STILL ANOTHER\nWAS ON PROBATION FOR A BURGLARY CONVICTION, AND THE DIRECTOR SAID IT WAS\nTOO EARLY TO SAY WHETHER THE PROGRAM HAD BEEN SUCCESSFUL. (LAUGHTER) IN\nADDITION TO THEIR SALARY, THE TEACHERS WERE PAID $5.00 A HEAD FOR EVERY\nDROP-OUT THEY BROUGHT IN, AND SINCE THEY WERE AUTHORIZED TO GIVE THE\nDROP-OUTS $45.00 A WEEK PLUS A FAMILY ALLOWANCE, THE MOST FERTILE\nRECRUITING GROUND WAS AT THE NEAREST SCHOOL, WHERE THEY WERE TALKING\nTHE KIDS INTO DROPPING OUT IN ORDER TO GET THAT KIND OF PAY.\nIN NEW HAVEN, $27,000,000 HAS BEEN SPENT ON THE HOUSING, EDUCATION,\nJOB TRAINING AND PLACEMENT, IN WHAT IS ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS OF THE\nNATIONS ALL MODEL POVERTY PROGRAMS. BUT, THE DESERVING POOR, MOST OF\nWHOM ARE NEGROES IN THAT COMMUNITY, DIDN'T GET WHAT THEY DESERVED.\nPROBABLY BECAUSE THE DIRECTOR WAS GETTING $30,000, AND A DOZEN OTHERS\nOF HIS STAFF WERE GETTING SALARIES RANGING FROM $12,000 TO $20,000.\nHE ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD HERE RAN TO 50%. THERE WERE 250 PHONES FOR\n74 IN STAFF, THERE WERE 23 OFFICES THAT HAD BEEN VACANT FOR A YEAR, BUT\nHE PHONES WERE STILL HOOKED UP IN THOSE OFFICES. YOU CAN GET AROUND\nEW HAVEN IN 15 MINUTES, FROM PLOWED GROUND TO PLOWED GROUND, BUT THE\n'RAVEL EXPENSES FOR THE STAFF WAS $161,000. NOW, ON THIS DAY OF TRAGEDY,\n'HE CONGRESS WILL BE TOLD THAT SOMEHOW THE PROBLEM HAS FAILED OF\nSOLUTION, BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH MONEY HAS BEEN APPLIED TO ITS SOLVING. AND,\nTHE CREDIBILITY BECOMES A MORALITY GAP, AND TOGETHER THEY FORM A\nLEADERSHIP GAP ON A SCALE THAT WE'VE NEVER KNOWN, AND SHOULD NO LONGER\nTOLERATE (APPLAUSE). WE HAVE GIVEN OF OUR TREASURE WITH A GENEROSITY\nUNMATCHED IN ALL OF MAN'S HISTORY. WE'RE DESPISED ABROAD, AND THOSE\nAT HOME WHOM WE SOUGHT TO HELP, SINK DEEPER INTO POVERTY BECAUSE THEY,\nAND WE, HAVE BEEN THE VICTIMS OF POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM AND EXPEDIENCY.\nWHATEVER YOU MAY THINK OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, WHETHER YOU APPROVED OR\nDISAPPROVED, SOMETHING OF AMERICA IS BEING BURIED TODAY. (APPLAUSE)\nIT BEGAN WITH OUR FIRST ACCEPTANCE OF COMPROMISE WITH THE LAW. ACCEPTANCE\nOF THOSE WHO WOULD APPLY THE LAW UNEQUALLY BECAUSE OF RACE OR RELIGION,\nAND ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE WHO ADVOCATE BREAKING THOSE LAWS, WITH WHICH THEY\nARE IN DISAGREEMENT. AND, IT INCLUDES THOSE WHO ARE IN GOVERNMENT. UNLESS\nAND UNTIL THEY HAVE THE COURAGE TO SAY THAT THE LAW WILL BE ENFORCED\nEQUALLY TO ALL, AT ALL TIMES, AND WITH NO EXCEPTIONS. (PROFUSE APPLAUSE)\nIN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, I'VE BEEN TRAVELLING UP AND DOWN CALIFORNIA,\nQUIETLY. NO PRESS NOTICE, AND NO FAN-FARE. I'VE BEEN MEETING WITH FINE\nRESPONSIBLE CITIZENS IN OUR MINORITY COMMUNITIES. IN OUR NEGRO AREAS,\nAND WITH THOSE FINE AMERICANS OF MEXICAN DESCENT, WHO MAKE UP SUCH A\nPROPORTION OF OUR POPULATION THERE. IN CITY AFTER CITY, I'VE SEEN THESE\nGOOD PEOPLE, WITH UNBELIEVABLE PATIENCE, OVERCOMING THEIR FRUSTRATIONS\nAS PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN LAUNCHED WITH GREAT PROMISE, AND THEN DIE OF MIS-\nIN AGEMENT OF THE KIND I'VE DESCRIBED, OR ON THE WHIM OF SOME\nEAUCRAT IN THE DISTANT CAPITOL. AND, I'VE LEARNED IT FIRST-HAND\nRCM THEM, BECAUSE I WENT TO LISTEN. HOW OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM HAS\nLED THEM, HOW THEIR YOUNG ARE GRADUATED FROM CLASS TO CLASS, SIMPLY\nBECAUSE THE YEAR IS ENDED, AND NOT ON ANY BASIS OF WHETHER THEY'VE\nLEARNED WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO LEARN. AND, FINALLY, THEY ARE HANDED\nA\nMEANINGLESS DIPLOMA, AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE TO GO WITH IT.\nPLAUSE) I'VE LEARNED HOW OUR ECONOMY HAS NOT BEEN EXTENDED, OR\nEXTENDED ITS BOUNTY TO ALL OF OUR CITIZENS WHO ARE WILLING TO TRY AND\nWILLING TO WORK. I'VE LISTED TO THEIR HOPES AND THEIR HOPELESSNESS, AND\nI'VE HEARD THEIR PLEA. AND, SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH, IT ISN'T FOR MORE\nWELFARE. IT'S FOR JOBS. IT ISN'T TO BUS THEIR PUPILS, THEIR STUDENTS,\nEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS TO OTHER SCHOOLS, IT IS INSTEAD, FOR GOOD\nHOOLING AND DISCIPLINE IN THE SCHOOLS NEAR-AT-HAND WHERE THEIR\nCHILDREN ARE ATTENDING. (APPLAUSE)\nKNOW THAT I SPEAK IN A DEMOCRATIC STATE, AS TO THE MAJORITY OF\nIROLLMENT IN PARTIES. BUT, LET ME MAKE IT PLAIN, AND I HOPE THAT IT IS\n,AIN, THAT I AM SPEAKING OF THE LEADERSHIP IN THAT PARTY. I KNOW WHAT\nMEANS TO CROSS-OVER, AND CROSS PARTY LINES, BECAUSE I SPENT MOST OF\nY\nLIFE AS A DEMOCRAT. AND TO THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY BE TOYING WITH THE\nDEA, EITHER OF CROSSING THE LINE AT THE BALLOT BOX, OR ACTUALLY RE-\nEGISTERING, LET ME JUST INTERJECT NOW AND SAY. IF YOU HAVE ANY FEELING\nF GUILT OR BETRAYAL AT LEAVING YOUR PARTY, AND I KNOW THAT FEELING, I\nAD IT ALSO, THEN, RID YOURSELF OF THAT FEELING BECAUSE IT ISN'T THE\nEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT YOU ARE LEAVING, THE LEADERSHIP OF THAT PARTY HAS\nONG SINCE LEFT YOU. (APPLAUSE) WE, AS REPUBLICANS, HAVE LET THE\nOPPOSITION PARTY PREEMPT A WHOLE HUMITARIAN FIELD OF SUBSIDY OF OUR\nF LOW HUMAN BEILGE, AND THEIR RECORD IS ONE OF COLOSSAL FAILURE. THEIR\nUNDER THE SECOND AND THIRD GENERATION OF THE\nWITY SHOULD THE REPUBLICANS HAVE GIVEN UP THIS FIELD TO THE ENEMY? WHY\nSHOULDN'T WE STAND UP AND SAY THIS IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY, AND WE ARE\nBETTER QUALIFIED TO ANSWER THE PROBLEM? IS NOT OUR PHILOSOPHY BASED\nON A BELIEF IN INDIVIDUAL MAN, HIS FREEDOM AND HIS RIGHTS? WELL, WE'RE\nDEALING WITH INDIVIDUALS. THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DEAL WITH THIS AS IF\nTHIS IS SOME GREAT FACELESS MASK OUT THERE. BUT, EACH ONE IS UNIQUE,\nEACH ONE IS CRYING OUT IN HIS SOUL FOR HIS RIGHTFUL HERITAGE OF HUMAN\nDIGNITY, AND THE RIGHT TO SHAPE HIS OWN DESTINY. HERE, WE HAVE A\nCHANCE, AS REPUBLICANS, TO PROVE THAT WE ARE MORE THAN JUST NEGATIVE\nCRITICS. OUR CHANCE TO PROVE THAT OURS IS THE WAY. THE WAVE OF THE\nFUTURE. LET'S DO THIS NOT AS SOME CRASH EFFORT, BECAUSE WE FEAR A\nLONG HOT SUMMER. LET'S DO IT, BECAUSE IT'S A GOOD THING TO DO. BECAUSE,\nIT'S MORALLY RIGHT. (APPLAUSE) BUT, LET OUR PROMISE BE NOT OF SOME\nINSTANT TOMORROW, SOME UNREACHABLE UTOPIA. LET'S MAKE OUR PROMISE\nHONEST. THAT, WE CAN'T DO IT TOMORROW, WE CAN'T DO IT NEXT WEEK. IT'S\nA LONG HARD ROAD, BUT WHAT WE WILL PROMISE, IS THAT WE WILL DO WHATEVER\nHAS TO BE DONE TO SAVE HUMAN BEINGS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO STOP DESTROYING\nTHEM. (APPLAUSE)\nI WAS IN WASHINGTON LAST WEEK WHEN THE BURNING AND THE LOOTING STARTED.\nI WAS IN THAT MASSIVE TRAFFIC JAM AS THE GOVERNMENT LITERALLY CLOSED\nDOWN, AND YOU COULD TASTE THE PANIC IN THE AIR. LATER, WHEN THE CURFEW\nHAD CLEARED THE STREETS, WE DROVE TO THE AIRPORT THROUGH THE PALL OF\nSMOKE THREADING OUR WAY THROUGH THE CROWDS OF LOOTERS, AND PASSING THE\nCOLUMNS OF TROOPS ON THEIR WAY. TROOPS ON THEIR WAY INTO THE BURNING\nCAFITOL OF THE MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH. AND, NO WHERE, WAS THE\nHEY REFER TO US AND THE EVENTS OF THE LAST FEW DAYS AS PROVING THAT\nE ARE INDEED A SICK SOCIETY. WELL, MANY OF US ARE SICK, WE'RE SICK\n)F THAT KIND OF TALK FROM THOSE WHO TOOK OUR TREASURE, AND WHO DEPEND\n)N US TO STAND BETWEEN THEM AND THE BARBARIANS WHO WOULD CROSS THEIR\nBORDERS WITHIN THE HOUR, IF WE WITHDREW OUR MANTEL OF PROTECTION.\n(PROFUSE APPLAUSE) WE'RE SICK OF THE SO-CALLED LEADERSHIP AT HOME,\nTHAT HAS LEFT THE SHIP-OF-STATE ADRIFT WITHOUT RUDDER OR COMPASS.\nTHERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE OF GUARD IN THE PENTAGON, THE REGIME OF ROBERT\nMcNAMARA ENDS AS IT BEGAN, WITH A WOE-BEGONE DEMONSTRATION OF MILITARY\nINEPTITUDE. THE PLAY HAD A SEVEN YEAR RUN, BEGINNING WITH THE BAY-OF-PIGS,\nAND CLOSING WITH THE HUMILIATING THEFT OF ONE OF OUR SHIPS, AND THE\nKIDNAPPING OF 83 YOUNG AMERICANS, AND THE MURDER OF ONE OF THOSE. AND,\nIN THE LAST, AS IN THE FIRST, THERE WAS A FOUNDERING OF PURPOSE, AND\nTHE LOSS OF NERVE, AND, AS HAS BECOME FASHIONABLE OF LATE, WITH THOSE\nCLEVER MEN WHO PRESIDE OVER OUR MILITARY FORCES AND STRATEGY, THEY\nCONGRATULATED THEMSELVES ON SIDE-STEPPING ANOTHER DECISION AND AVOIDING\nACTION. THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR OUR INABILITY TO HAVE AIR\nFORCE PROTECTION MOVE OUT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENSE OF THE PUEBLO, WAS THAT\nALL THE FIGHTERS ON ALERT IN KOREA ARE EQUIPPED ONLY FOR NUCLEAR\nRETALIATION. BUT, HASN'T THAT BEEN THEIR MOST PERSISTENT CLAIM? THE\nCLAIM OF THIS ADMINISTRATION THAT WE MOVED AT A COST OF FIVE HUNDRED\nBILLION DOLLARS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, FROM A NUCLEAR FOOTING TO\nONE THAT WOULD AVOID THE THREAT OF THE BOMB, AND GIVE US A FLEXIBLE\nRESPONSE? FLEXIBLE RESPONSE? WE'VE HAD NO RESPONSE AT ALL. OUR SHIP\nHAS BEEN STOLEN, OUR YOUNG MEN KIDNAPPED, AND OUR GOVERNMENT ASSURED\nUS IT IS UPSET, STRONG LETTER FOLLOWS. GOVERNMENT'S ONLY EXCUSE FOR\nBEING, IS TO GUARANTEE THE COLLECTIVE STRENGTH OF ALL, IN DEFENSE OF\n(12)\nEN ONE AMONG US, WHENEVER AND WHEREVER THE RIGHTS OF THAT ONE ARF.\nIREATENED. (APPLAUSE)\nE, AS REPUBLICANS, SHOULD READ THE MESSAGE OF THE WIND THAT'S BLOWING\nCROSS THIS LAND, THE WIND THAT WAS BLOWING ON NOVEMBER 8TH OF '66,\nAND IN THIS LAST YEAR'S ELECTION. MILLIONS OF AMERICANS, INDEPENDENTS,\nDEMOCRATS, AND REPUBLICANS, VOTED AGAINST WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON. WORKING\nMEN AND WOMEN HAVE DISCOVERED THAT THEY ARE NOT THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE\nGREAT SOCIETY, THEY ARE PAYING FOR IT. THEY VOTED AGAINST TAXING\nTHEMSELVES TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE, AND THE STANDARD OF LIVING FOR OTHERS\nTHAT IS OFTEN MORE THAN THEY CAN AFFORD FOR THEIR OWN FAMILIES. THEY\nVOTED AGAINST GOING DEEPER AND DEEPER INTO DEBT AS A NATION, WITH THE\nIDEA THAT WE CAN AFFORD ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING, SIMPLY BECAUSE WF. THINK\nOF IT. THEY REPUDIATED THE IDEA THAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST ALWAYS GROW\nLARGER AND MORE COSTLY AND MORE POWERFUL, AND THEY VOTED AGAINST\nCONTINUING AN EASY ATMOSPHERE OF PEACE AND PROSPERITY, WHILE SOME YOUNG\nAMERICANS DIE EACH DAY IN DEFENSE OF FREEDOM. THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS\nOF AMERICANS, THOSE FORGOTTEN MEN AND WOMEN, WHO WORK AND SUPPORT THEIR\nCOMMUNITIES AND PAY FOR ALL THE SOCIAL TINKERING, ARE GROPING FOR AN\nANSWER TO THEIR DOUBTS, AND ARE SEEKING A CAUSE IN WHICH THEY CAN INVEST\nTHEIR IDEALISM AND THEIR ENERGY, AND THEY'RE NOT A SICK SOCIETY. THEY'RE\nTOO SELF RELIANT TO SELL THEIR DREAMS OF THE FUTURE FOR THE DULL SECURITY\nOF THE ANTI, AND THEY'VE BEEN TOO LONG WITHOUT REPRESENTATION IN THE\nHIGHER ECHELONS OF GOVERNMENT. THEY BELIEVE IN THIS NATION, AS A NATION\nUNDER GOD. THAT THEIR FREEDOM IS THEIRS BY DIVINE RIGHT, AND NOT BY\nGOVERNMENT WHIM. THEY BELIEVE THE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT\nTHEM FROM THE LAWBREAKER, AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. (APPLAUSE)\nNOW, IF THIS WERE JUST AN ORDINARY ELECTION YEAR, POLITICS, AS USUAL,\nJOULD INDICATE THAT OUR PARTY SHOULD TAKE POSITIONS THAT WERE NOT\n)NATTRACTIVE FROM ANY VIEWPOINT. BUT, THERE IS A NEED IN THIS PARTICULAR\nYEAR FOR STATESMANSHIP, AND STATESMANSHIP DEMANDS THAT WE FACE REALITY\nWITH A FAITH IN THE PEOPLES WISDOM. THERE IS A MORALITY GAP, AS I SAID,\nIN OUR LAND. A TENDENCY TO ACCEPT WRONG DOING IN HIGH PLACES, ALMOST\nAS IF THOSE IN GOVERNMENT ARE NOT BOUND BY THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED RULES\nOF CONDUCT, AND YOU AND I SEEMED TO HAVE LOST OUR CAPACITY FOR ANGER.\nBELIEVE THE PEOPLE IN THIS LAND ARE CRYING OUT FOR A LEADERSHIP THAT\nWILL SAY, NO PLACE IN THIS NATION SHALL THERE BE HIGHER STANDARDS OF\nHONOR AND INTEGRITY, THAN IN THE HALLS OF GOVERNMENT. (APPLAUSE) WE'VE\nREACHED A TURNING POINT IN TIME, THIS, NOW, IS OUR MOMENT OF DESTINY.\nLET US, AS REPUBLICANS, RAISE A BANNER TO WHICH THE PEOPLE OF EVERY\nPARTY CAN REPAIR. BUT, LET'S CHOOSE THE COLORS WELL, FOR THE PEOPLE\nARE NOT IN THE MOOD TO FOLLOW THE SICKLY PASTELS, THE CYNICAL SHADES OF\nTHOSE WHO WOULD BUY THE PEOPLES VOTES WITH THE PEOPLES MONEY. WILL WE\nRESPOND WITH POLITICS, AS USUAL? OR, WILL BE RECOGNIZE THAT AS A NATION,\nWE FACE OUR MOMENT OF TRUTH. THE TIME FOR BREAD AND CIRCUSES IS PAST.\nIT'S TIME NOW, FOR GOVERNMENT. A GOVERNMENT THAT BELIEVES THAT ITS\nRESPONSIBILITY IS TO PRESERVE THE VALUES THAT MADE THIS NATION GREAT.\nTIME FOR GOVERNMENT TO USE ITS POWER TO PROTECT EVERY CITIZEN WHOSE\nRIGHTS ARE DENIED, WHEREVER IN THE WORLD THAT CITIZEN MIGHT BE. TIME\nFOR A GOVERNMENT THAT WILL OFFER THE HAND OF FRIENDSHIP TO EVERY NATION,\nBUT NOT OUT OF FEAR. PEACE IS OUR PURPOSE, BUT WE WILL NEVER BE WITHOUT\nTHE STRENGTH TO PRESERVE THAT PEACE. (APPLAUSE) THAT WE'LL OFFER A\nLEADERSHIP THAT WILL HAVE THE COURAGE TO TELL THE PEOPLE THE UNPLEASANT\nFRUTH, WITH FAITH IN THEIR COURAGE, AND THEIR WILLINGNESS TO SUPPORT US\nIN THE HARD DECISIONS THAT LIE AHEAD.\n\"LL STOP TRYING TO BUY THE WORLD'S AFFECTION, AND START EARNING 1\"\"\nSPECT. (PROFUSE APPLAUSE) AND, WE'LL PEAFFIRM OUR BELIEF THAT GOD\nSTENDED MAN TO BE FREE, TO CHART HIS OWN COURSE, AND TO EARN MIS OWN\nALVATION. LET US, AS REPUBLICANS, HAVE THE COURAGE TO LIFT THAT KIND\nF BAHNER IN THIS ELECTION YEAR, ONE THAT ASKS FOR THE BEST OF ALL OF\nIS, INSTEAD OF PROMISING WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE BEST FOR ONLY SOME OF US.\nWE'RE WATCHED BY MILLIONS OF AMERICANS, A VOTING BLOCK CROSSING RACIAL,\nSELIGIOUS, ETHNIC, AND YES, PARTY LINES. AND, THERE ARE: OTHERS WHO ARE\nWATCHING, MILLIONS OF YOUNG AMERICANS, OUR SONS AID DAUGHTERS, WAITING\nTO SEE IF ONCE AGAIN WE'LL LET OURSELVES BE DIVIDED BY LABELS, APPLIED\nCOMPLETE WITH HYPHEN, BEFORE WE USE THE WORD REPUBLICAN. THEY'RE\nWATCHING TO SEE IF WE PLACE MORF IMPORTANCE ON THOSE SUADINGS AND ON\nCLD PAST PARTY GRUDGES, THAN WE DO ON THE CHALLENGE THAT CONFRONTS US.\nFOR WITH THEIR YOUTHFUL WISDOM, THEY KNOW THE PRICE THEY'LL PAY IF WE\nFAIL TO MEET OUR CHALLENGE, BECAUSE THE STAKE WE PLAY FOR NOW, IS THE\nFUTURE IN WHICH THEY MUST LIST.\nAN OHIO DOCTOR, A SIMPLE MAN, WROTE: \"FOR ONE SHINING GLORIOUS MOMENT\nOF HISTORY, WE HAD THE KEY, THE OPEN DOOR, AND THE WAY WAS THERE BEFORE\nUS, MEN THREW OFF THE YOKE OF CENTURIES .AND THRUST FORWARD ALONG THAT\nWAY WITH SUCH BRILLIANCE, THAT FOR A LITTLE WHILE, WE WERE THE LIGHT\nAND THE INSPIRATION OF THE WORLD. NOW THE KEY HAS BEEN THROWN CARELESSLY\nASIDE; THE DOOR IS CLOSING, WE ARE LOSING THAT WAY.\" YOU AND I CAN HAVE\nNO GREATER CHALLENGE, NO GREATER RESPONSIBILITY, NO GREATER GIFT TO\nLEAVE TO OUR CHILDREN, THAN THE RESTORATION OF THAT AMERICAN DREAM.\n(APPLAUSE)"
}