Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526521
label
Fifth District Weekly Radio Reports, October-December 1967
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526521
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Fifth District Weekly Radio Reports, October-December 1967
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Weekly Radio Reports
subjects
Great Britain
Economics
Federal budget
Inflation (Finance)
Legislation
Meat
National security
Poverty programs
Taxation
Veterans
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
War protests
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526521
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1967-12-31
month
12
year
1967
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-10-01
month
10
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
eff8d93dffe06772
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D36, folder "Fifth District Weekly Radio
Reports, October-December 1967" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and
Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D36 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3, D. C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 36
October 2, 1967
WHERE DO WE STAND WITH OUR DEFENSES?
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
What's the status of our defenses against an ememy attack? Are we prepared to
meet it--and to repel it-and to defeat the attacker?
These are questions which are presently plaguing many members of Congress who
are, as you are undoubtedly aware, at "odds' with the policies of Defense Secretary
McNamara. Whether Mr. McNamara or his critics is right, only time will tell. However,
I might note that, if the Secretary is wrong, We might not be around to talk about it.
I am going to discuss this vital issue with you--the battle between Mr. McNamara
and concerned members of Congress.
To start with, let me put the whole matter briefly. Congress does not believe in
economizing in the strategic defenses of our country. I share the view of the vast majority
of Congress men that this is false economy. It is folly to take chances in these critical times.
Secretary McNamara disagrees and frequently makes major defense decisions based on cost
rather than need. When the nation's security is at stake, however, cost should be the least
significant factor.
Let me give you some instances of McNamara's economy moves. The House
Armed Services Committee has issued a report which gives some figures that quite frankly
alarm me. The Soviet Union, says the report, is spending about 14.5 billion dollars on its
strategic forces--its attack force, in other words. We are spending only 8 billion dollars,
a little more than half as much. Actually, this is only 10 percent of our total military
spending. All through the 1950's the comparable percentage was 25 percent.
Congress, of course, wants to know why McNamara doesn't want to at least match
the Soviet increase in spending and military production and capability in this vital area.
Although the Soviet Union's long-range bomber strength is twice ours, the Secre-
ORD
tary of Defense wants to retire the B-52 bomber which has been the backbone of our striking
force. The Secretary contends that the usefulness of bombers is growing less and less.
He
LIBRARY
believes that, in a short time, they will be out-of-date as weapons of defense-that they
more -
2 -
will be superseded by the Minutamen, Polaris and other missiles--none of which have ever
been test-fired with nuclear warheads.
Congress' opinion is that, though this may happen eventually, there is an "in-
between time" that we have to worry about. In fact, many Congressmen believe that some-
time in the mid-1970's, we may be without any long-distance bombers at all.
As a matter of fact, we have, ready for engineering development, new manned
strategic aircraft. These aircraft were designed to fill the in-between time gap that has
Congress so alarmed and worried. Funds to spend on this manned strategic aircraft project
have already been approved. But Mr. McNamara, in an economy move, impounded these
funds. The question now is: Can missiles fill our total defense need?
Another bone of contention between Congress and the defense secretary is the
Polaris submarine. Mr. McNamara has decided to call a halt to their production after six
more units are finished. Congress questions this decision. Because of what we may be
facing in 1970, a halt in Polaris production could be most unwise, especially as the Soviet
submarine fleet presently numbers some 400 units and is still growing.
The TFX airplane has spelled nothing but trouble. It has cost much more than
anticipated and continues to remain far from the goal of being suitable for both the Air
Force and Navy. Congress has learned of many technical problems connected
:
with this plane. For example, the Navy version of the aircraft is too heavy for aircraft
carrier landings. There have been other reports that the Air Force version shakes so much
when only half-loaded with bombs that the pilot cannot read his flight instruments. Once
again, McNamara's cost-effectiveness program seems to have broken down.
Well that, in brief, is the story of Mr. McNamara and the Congress. Based on
the secretary's previous record for being wrong, I am seriously concerned about his present
policies--and will continue to keep you posted on what is, perhaps, the biggest problem
now facing our country.
This is Congressman
reporting from Washington.
(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV
Studio. For additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts,
contact the Committee's Public Relations Office.)
###
GEERLD FORD LIBRARY
Japed 10/4/67
you with 1 lydil adil
SCRIPT TAPED FOR FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO USE ON WEEKEND
This is your Congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
One of the most important functions of Congress--one that Congress is to some
extent
neglecting these days--is its role of checking closely into the operation of many,many
Federal programs.
It is Congress' duty to act as watchdog, so to speak, over its legislative
once
acts. Too often, however having passed the legislation to put some program in
the execution 00 implementation as closely of as those it programs should
force, it doesn't follow up. It doesn't see to it that the program is run properly.
into In I effect honestly law it believe operate doesn't that as see if effecturely Congress that had the done be its they job/of overseer properly, 're if enacted
does
it had evaluated more thoroughly the programs it enacted, we would not be faced
S the programs as they operate more Thoroughly
today with the threat of a tax increase. that Pres. Johnson has recommended
for example are some of the areas where Congress has not
Recently, and that Pid. two billion goo say that dollars who part do in arm not sales--two make an billion, honest rests not effort million--were to keep financed the agencies well Congress
Here just one alarming example the of Congress' blame failure to followothrough. on
of
various
informed
by Export-Import Bank credits, without the knowledge of the House Banking and Currency
Committee. Yet, this is the committee which has the responsibility for checking
a substantial part L the blame in this case
on
Export-Import
Bank
affairs.
na conscious effort to prevent the Congress from
rests with the bank ituly because it made
knowing what was being done behind the scene,
This trend in the workings of Congress could have very serious results. It
could diminish the role Congress plays in our political system--unbalancing, in effect,
the tri-partite system of government which now serves us
and has well serveding Congress over is one the year
in oler Fid.gov
institution, capable of humanizing the governmental process by correcting the often
arbitrary nature of administrative decisions.
judgest
Congress must, in my-opinion, reestablish its role in government--must play a
more aggressive and positive role not only now, but in the 1970s and beyond
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
-2-
As you know, during the last few years new programs have sprouted like
mushrooms from the Executive Branch. 1 poured out in support of
many during We have many That many billions approved programs many them. Congress
In 1965 and and 1966 the white House recommended
and the
well intertioned
these programs. Many were good programs and much needed. But, as you also know,
many have been woefully mismanaged. The poverty program for has been
in many instor instances country Throughout Rad has
even too high though one admin. the programed cost & and were at
riddled with waste and extravagance in some instances. The same for the foreign the local
level the management at the
aid program--and many others.
wash. level has been for
from the best.
Unfortunately, the Administration too often keeps the facts on the operation of
these programs from the public 145 Too often, a rosy hue is put on program activities
that need instead a bright light. Only when things get really scandalous does the
real truth come out. But we just can't afford to wait till "things get really
scandalous" before acting. Too much of the taxpayers' money is involved, and the
results that will accrue from giving the Administration a free hand in running the
various programs are for too important to pass over. lightly This is where Congress and must of play emphasize must
avery key role.
improve to
itemf
To better this situation, Congress should take four major steps:
1. Establish a subcommittee on legislative review in each of the standing
committees of the House.
2. Give priority to this review function on at least two days each month.
dig out information
3. Increase each committee's power to obtain information from the Executive
agencies.
4. Make clear to new members of Congress the vital importance of the legislative
review function of Congress.
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
I believe these steps are necessary to keep the Federal government from
assintials are
your goo, my gov,
turning into a bureaucratic state. It is up to Congress to probe, assume to dig to and lind to the upose to
once facts public again opinion. its them the go of
rightful role political eystem.
this is done better. then that's
This is your Congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting from Washington. will what run all of wout. us
####
BERRID FORD NEBRARK
Script taped Oct. 11, 1967 for weekend Good radio use.
O.K.
pain
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3, D. C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 37
October 9, 1967
THE CASE FOR ECONOMY
This your is Congressman Jerrytord, reporting to you from Washington.
When the Great Society was first inaugurated, the theme song of the Congress
might well have been, "we're in the mood to spend, simply because you ask it." It would
take its tune, of course, from that old hit song, "I'm in the mood for love." "
Congress, in those days, was very much "in the mood" to love everything about
the Great Society--and to do everything its leader asked.
Today, things are different indeed. Members of Congress-Democrats and Re-
publicans alike--have decided that "spending" isn't the answer to all our problems, that it
hasn't produced the results that were promised and that something drastic must be done about
our growing national debt and deficit. and most of all inflation
In other words, Congress has now come to the conclusion that a new set of lyrics
to that old favorite might well be written which would go, "we're in the mood to cut."
What has brought this about-face? Why have some Democrats at last joined
with Republicans to "cut" instead of to spend? The immediate answer, of course, is President
Johnson's proposed 10 percent tax increase.
The Administration insists that a tax increase is one of the things that is necessary
if inflation isn't going to run riot. But many legislators are convinced that a tax increase
must be accompanied by a sizable spending cut if it is going to do any good .for the economy.
They are sure that a tax increase alone will not prevent prices from rising still further.
This change in mood is shown very clearly by a recent vote in the House Ways
and Means Committee, when Democrats joined Republicans in sufficient strength to put
on
the proposed 10 percent tax increase until the Administration has come up with some sizable
and believe
and meaningful spending cuts. The vote showed beyond doubt the mood of Congress. It was
the
20 to table the tax increase and only five against doing so.
Concerning the proposed 10 percent surcharge, I would like to quote from
editorial in The New York Times the other day. "Unfortunately," said The Times, "the
on FORD LIBRARY
- more -
- 2 -
dent's proposal for a 10 percent surcharge will do nothing now to halt the present wave of
inflation...certainly it is too small to make a dent in a Federal budget deficit estimated to
run from 19 billion dollars to 29 billion dollars. A safer and surer way to guard against price
rises is to reduce Federal spending." Unquote.
With a faraway war draining our resources, "cut-spending-before-increasing-taxss"
seems to be the mood--not only of the House of Representatives but the country as well.
And I emphasize I am talking about domestic spending--not funds needed to support the war
effort.
As a matter of fact, the tax-shears have already been sharpened and used on some
of these programs. Minor cuts have been made that are at least a first tentative step in the right
'direction. For instance, the House rejected a 13.2 billion dollar appropriation bill for two
Cobinet Departments--Labor and Health, Education & Welfare--because it contained 20.6
of press
million dollars more than the Administration requested.
But even more encouraging is a statement made by Congressman George 0. Mahon,
Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. He said his committee would
probably bring to the House this week a bill cutting back some of the funds that Congress has
already voted. This means that the committee believes Congress has voted too much money
for certain specific objectives and that the various agencies will have to get by on less money.
Well, that, in brief, is the present mood of Congress and it looks as if it's a
lasting mood. My guess is that specific and sizable cuts will have to be made in the present
budget if Congress is even going to consider--let alone agree--to the President's 10 percent
tax raise.
st hould be noted that
steadless the President has resisted curbs on his spending activities
and has been reluctant to change his legislative proposals. Apparantly to wrong
than presidente
This your is Congressman Jerry Ford,
to your
reporting/from Washington. I'll
be
talking with you again next week over this same station.
###
FORD & LIBRARY
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3. D. C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 38
October 16, 1967
VETERANS' DAY, 1967
Note: The following script on Veterans' Day is being sent to you in
advance so that you can make maximum use of it on radio-TV
or in newsletters and news releases.
This is Congressman
reporting from Washington.
Veterans' Day--Armistice Day, as it used to be called--is one of our great
national holidays. It is the day when we quietly and solamnly remember and salute this
nation's veterans, whatever war they may have fought in.
"Armistice Day," originally established in remembrance of the day on which
World War One ended, became "Veterans" Day" in 1954. General Eisenhower was our Presi-
dent then. As one of America's most famous military leaders, President Eisenhower wanted
all veterans remembered. He felt we should not limit the observance of a national holiday
to the one happy occasion that ended the first world war. lke wanted it to be wider in scope,
to be--as he put It--"a day of rededication to the task of achieving an enduring peace."
"An enduring peace"--is that just another dream always beyond our reach? Is
it unfindable as the rainbow's end or the fountain of youth? That is what many Americans are
asking themselves today.
Since our country proclaimed itself a free Nation, Americans have fought many
wars for an enduring peace. Today, we are fighting once again for that same elusive ob-
jective. Today, the same questions are again being asked: Is 'right' honestly and truly on
our side? Are we right to be involved in the struggle in Vietnam? Does the ultimate peace
of the world really depend on the outcome of that war?
Perhaps the saddest part of it all is that the facts that we are getting about the
war are too often garbled and contradictory. We are told one thing today; tomorrow, we
may be told quite a different story. We say to ourselves, "perhaps we could reach some sort
of a conclusion if we only knew the facts."
But we are not getting the facts.
I well remember Defense Secretary McNamara's comment only four short years
ago that-and I quote--"the corner has been turned" in the Vietnam war. He said American
- more -
- 2 -
troops would start being withdrawn from that country by the end of that year. That was 1963.
I well remember the secretary telling Congress a few months later that most of the
15,000 troops in Vietnam would be home by the end of 1965. He also stated at the time that
the United States--and again I quote him--"should not assume the primary responsibility for the
war in South Vietnam."
Within months after making these statements, the United States escalated the bomb-
ing of North Vietnam and increased the number of American troops over there from about
15,000 to 175,000. At that time--1965--McNamara said--again I quote him--"we are no longer
losing the war."
Today, as you know, we have nearly half a million men in Vietnam and have
suffered more than 100,000 casualties. And the end of that war is nowhere in sight.
Today, too, Americans are asking the same questions about this frustrating war in
Southeast Asia that their forefathers must have asked in the midst of other wars: When will it be
over? When will the armistice come?
Like Americans everywhere, I share these concerns. But I want the war ended on
terms which are just and ressonable--which will not desecrate the memories of the men and
women who died in that faraway land for the freedoms which we hold so dear back home. That's
the thought I want to leave with you as we salute the nation's veterans on this day established in
their honor.
This is Congressman
reporting from Washington.
(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio.
For additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts, contact the Com-
mittee's Public Relations Office.)
###
SCRIPT RECORDED OCT. 18, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
Quite Frankly, It's time
somebody set the record straight on the fight over federal
spending.
The lastor pace for the high level of federal spending we now are witnessing was
set in the 89th Congress when the President was able to push through every
program he sent to Capitol Hill.
I and many others warned early in 1966 that national priorities should be
established and that domestic spending should be scaled down to offset costs
of the Vietnam Our warnings were ignored.
Warn Regrettably,
Fed.
In January, 1966, the President sent Congress a $112.8 billion budget.
But a year later--last January--the President revealed that federal spending
the
for the period July 1966 through June 1967 would total $126.7 billion instead.
mike
lower
The President had more news for the Nation in January 1967. He submitted
a $136.5 billion budget which included a call for a 6 per cent income tax
surcharge and ran an estimated $8.7 billion into the red.
But then in August of this year the President officially confirmed the
fact that this Nation has been plunged into fiscal chaos at the federal level.
then
He predicted a federal deficit of $28 billion and asked Congress for an income
tax surcharge of 10 per cent to make a $7 billion dent in that expected deficit.
First of all, let me point out to you that the $28 billion deficit fore-
cast by the President is a consequence of the Administration's failure to scale
back domestic spending as an offset to Vietnam War costs.
FORD LIBRARI & GERALD
-2-
May I also remind you that the cost of living rose by 3.3 per cent in
1966 due to inflation touched off by excessive federal spending.
today and probably will Tomorrow.
Inflation is continuing The current price rise is at an annual rate of
more than 4 per cent.
Congress is refusing even to consider the President's proposed tax
and The let melplain is that economy-minded why members of N)
increase at this time. Why? answer
Congress are determined to force deep cuts in federal spending. My party is
leading that fight. and we expect to continue in the future
We are concerned about inflation--deeply concerned. But we know--as
nearly every economist appearing before the House Ways and Means Committee
m
has testified--that a dollar cut out of federal spending has nearly twice as
much impact on inflation as a dollar of tax increase.
We know that the American people agree with us that deep cuts in federal
spending are a better way to fight inflation than is a federal income tax
increase. as proposed by the President
We are in Washington to speak for the American people--and that is exactly
what we
as are elected doing. officials are doing
The President would have the people believe that if prices go up it will
be because the Congress has refused to approve his tax increase proposal.
Prices are going up and they will continue to go up as long as the federal
government spends far more than the people can afford.
The President would have the people believe that Congress is forcing him
to cut highway construction by 50 per cent. The truth is that the highway
GERALE money FORD LIBRARY
-3-
comes from special gasoline and automotive tax funds and not from income tax
receipts. This an embarrass the Congress.
grame S just by tempt the WAT. to
Those of us who are fighting for spending cuts instead of endorsing the
President's income tax increase are doing so because we believe this is the
the must important stys
first step in bringing fiscal sanity back to Washington.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the
Nation's capital. I'll be talking with you again next week over this same
station.
####
GERALD FORD LIORARY
SCRIPT ACCORDED OCT. 10, 1907, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS
This is your congressmen, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
It's time somebody set the record straight OR the fight over federal
spending.
The pace for the high level of federal spending we now are witnessing was
set in the 89th Congress when the President was able to push through every
program he sent to Capitol Hill.
I and others warned early in 1966 that national priorities should be
established and that domestic spending should be scaled down to offset costs
of the Vietnam War. Our warnings were ignored.
In January, 1966, the President sent Congress a $112.8 billion budget.
But a pear later--last January--the President revealed that federal spending
for the period July 1966 through June 1967 would total @126.7 billion instead.
The President had more news for the Nation in January 1967. He submitted
a $136.5 billion budget which included a call for a 6 per cent income tax
surcharge and ran an estimated $8.7 billion into the red.
But then in August of this year the President officially confirmed the
fact that this Nation has been plunged into fiscal chaos at the federal level.
He predicted a federal deficit of $28 billion and asked Congress for an income
tax surcharge of 10 per cent to mke a $7 billion dent in that expected deficit.
First of all, let me point out to you that the $28 billion deficit fore-
FORD
cast by the President is a consequence of the Administration's failure GERALE to scale
RARY
back domestic spending as an offset to Vietnam War costs.
-2-
May I also remind you that the cost of living rose by 3.3 per cent in
1966 due to inflation touched off by excessive federal spending.
Inflation is continuing. The current price rise is at an annual rate of
more than 4 per cent.
Congress is refusing even to consider the President's proposed tax
increase at this time. Why? The answer is that economy-minded members of
Congress are determined to force deep cuts in federal spending. My party is
leading that fight.
We are concerned about inflation--deeply concerned. But we know--as
nearly every economist appearing before the House Ways and Means Committee
has testified--that a dollar cut out of federal spending has nearly twice as
much impact on inflation as a dollar of tax increase.
We know that the American people agree with us that deep cuts in federal
spending are a better way to fight inflation than is a federal income tax
increase.
We are in Washington to speak for the American people--and that is exactly
what we are doing.
The President would have the people believe that if prices go up it will
be because the Congress has refused to approve his tax increase proposal.
Prices are going up and they will continue to go up as long as the federal
government spends far more than the people can afford.
RALD FORD LIBRARY
The President would have the people believe that Congress is foreing him
to cut highway construction by 50 per cent. The truth is that the highway money
-3-
comes from special gasoline and automotive tax funds and not from income tax
receipts. This is just an attempt to embarrass the Congress.
Those of us who are fighting for spending cuts instead of endorsing the
President's income tax increase are doing so because we believe this is the
first step in bringing fiscal sanity back to Washington.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the
Nation's capital. I'll be talking with you again next week over this same
station.
....
ALD SERALD LISEARY FORD
SCRIPT RECORDED WEDNESDAY, OCT. 25,1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to youfreen from Washington.
There have been an increasing number of news reports ing that more and more members
steries
of the U.S. House of Representatives are turning dove-ish. At the same time,
newsmen writing these stories emphasize that if a vote were taken in the House a
heavy majority would be recorded in support of our basic national Vietnam. interests as well
as perhaps the struggle
There is a deeper meaning in all this--a meaning that shouldbe pointed up
at this time.
The signifizanewzinction so-called increase in dove-ishness does not indicate
a slackening of our resolvexxx in Vietnam. But it does underscore the fact that
only one out of three Americans now is satisfied with the
President's present Vie tnam policy. and This surveys is according that have to all been the polls reported
in the news medio
At the same time, it should be noted that an overwhelming majority of
total
Americans are opposed to U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam.
What it all adds up to is that the American people are feeling increasingly
frustrated by the Vietnam War. They xxx8x cannot understand why the greatest
military power on earth cannot subdue a tiny and soulex supposedly primitive enemy.
The incressingzx growing dissatisfaction withxtx in Congre SS and among the
people with the President's Vietnam policy has great sifn significance,
that we shoult and leern run
a need for constant review and modification if necessary of the policy. It also,
It does not mean that the policy should be drastically altered but it does indicates
shows that the Congress and the American people believe the Johnson Administration
made a mistakex terrible mistake in its palimxxmbasic decision regarding conduct
of the Vietnam War. That mistake was the decision to follow a policy of gradualism
in Vietnam, and to turn up the pressure little by little instead of hitting the
enemy hard and fast Y from the www.zhaginningx air and from the sea at the very
I'm recall the recent comments by
beginning. former who undermed a palicy of
gradualism when you are faced by an efnemy in war
I think the fact that the President recently ordered air strikes against all
but one of the Mig airfields in North Vietnam is proof that he and other top
Administration officials privately recognize their mistake. The facts are that
the PrestNentx Johnson Administration now is carrying out air strikes in ****
FORD
North Vietnam that should have been ordered żwoxymarsxxgx nearly two years ago.
Early in August of I urged year that we stop pulling our air punch in Vietnam.
this
Since
LIBRARY
that time our bombers have hit all but five of the 57 targets which were on an off-limits
list until then. However, we still have not shut off the flow of supplies through
the port of Haiphong--and this the a most vital step.
according is to all the military experts
n a step nuded to protect
servicement who habe been
the lives of american
ordered to Wetnan by
Pres. Johnson
-2-
Our determination in Vietnam is not weakening. I am sure the American
people still feel it was right that we should seek to halt Communist aggression
the Administration has
in South Vietnam. But I believe they also feel that made some serious
mistakes in ENX its conduct of the war.
At the same time,
the American people are disgusted by the kind of
anti Vio bream War protest recently staged at the Pentagon.
It should be NEW noted that there were two peace demonstrations in Washington
that day. One took place at the Lincoln Memorial. By all accounts itwas
orderwly and dignified. The other was the viodent and in some instances obscene
demonstration at the Pentagon.
I
finend believe in the right of responsible dissent--the kind of dissent expre ssed
by the protesters gathered at the Lincoln Memorial. But I believe the Pentagon
protest brought shama on America. No American has the right to preach
anarchy or to demean our (men in uniform.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington. I'll
be visiting with you again next week over this same station.
####
GERALD R. LISERAT FORD
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reparting to youfreen from Washington.
There have been an increasing number of news reports that more and more members
of the U.S. House of Representatives are turning dove-ish. At the same time,
newsmen writing these stories emphasize that if a vote were taken in the House a
heavy majority would be recorded in support of our struggle in Vietnam.
There is a deeper meaning in all this--a meaning that should be pointed up
at this time.
The so-called increase in dove-ishness does not indicate
a slackening of our resolve:box in Vietnam. But it does underscore the fact that
only one out of three Americans now is satisfied with the
President's present Vietnam policy.
At the same time, it should be noted that an overwhelming majority of
Americans are opposed to U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam.
What it all adds up to is that the American people are feeling increasingly
frustrated by the Vietnam War. They кинйх cannot understand why the greatest
military power on earth cannot subdue a tiny and mark supposedly primitive enemy.
The incremmingsx growing dissatisfaction withoctx in Congress and among the
people with the President's Vietnam policy has great xifn significance, in my view.
It does not mean that the policy should be drastically altered but it indicates
a need for constant review and modification of the policy. It also, I believe,
shows that the Congress and the American people believe the Johnson Administration
made a mistakerx terrible mistake in its decision regarding conduct
of the Vietnam War. That mistake was the decision to follow a policy of gradualism
in Vietnam, and to turn up the pressure little by little instead of hitting the
enemy hard and fast X from the air and from the sea at the very
beginning.
I think the fact that the President recently ordered air strikes against all
but one of the Mig airfields in North Vietnam is proof that he and other top
Administration officials privately recognise their mistske. The facts are that
the ********* Johnson Administration now is earrying out air strikes in thax
North Vietnam that should have been ordered nearly two years ago.
Early in August I urged that we stop pulling our air punch in Vietnam. Since
that time our bombers have hit all but five of 57 targets which were on an off-limits
list until then. However, we still have not shut off the flow of supplies through
the port of Haiphong--and this is tim a most vital step.
Our determination in Vietnam is not weakening. I am sure the American
people still feel it was right that we should seek to halt Communist aggression
the Administration has
in South Vietnam. But I believe they also feel that succion made some serious
mistakes in ENE its conduct of the war.
At the same time, I am sure the American people are disgusted by the kind of
anti-Vistnam War protest recently staged at the Pentagon.
It should be NEW noted that there were two peace demonstrations in Washington
that day. One took place at the Lincoln Memorial. By all accounts it was
ordermly and dignified. The other was the viodent and in some instances obscene
demonstration at the Pentagon.
I believe in the right of responsible dissent--the kind of dissent expre ased
by the protesters gathered at the Lincoln Memorial. But I believe the Pentagon
protest exexemisex brought shame on America. No American has the right to preach
anarchy or to demean our men in uniform.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington. I'll
be visiting with you again next week over this same station.
####
GERALD FORD
Script recorded Turday, Oct. 31, 1967 For Weekend the ty
Fifth District Stations
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3, D. C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 40
October 30, 1967
THE CRUELEST TAX--INFLATION
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
Higher prices a rise in the cost of living inflation Call it what you like. It
seems like an inevitable economic disease in today's world--a kind of creeping paralysis for
which there is no known cure. Some claim that a boost in taxes will stop the spread of the
disease. Some claim that a cut in Federal spending will do the trick. Some even claim that
a little inflation is desirable.
Irankly can't subscribe to the theory that a little inflation is a good thing-because a
"little inflation" doesn't stay "little" for very long.
very
Today, in fact, inflation has reached a critical stage. Just the other day, for
example, the government announced that prices continued to rise at a very fast clip in September.
Not only consumer prices went up, but wholesale prices pose CS well. This portends another jump in
retail prices in the coming months.
At the same time this increase in the consumer price index was announced, another
government report dramatically pointed out the seriousness of today's inflation. It showed then
the nation's 45 million payroll workers on the average can't buy as much with their paychecks
today as they could with smaller ones only two years ago.
Yet, this inflation--spurred on by ever-increasing doses of Federal spending--shows
no sign of abating. In fact, a Congressional economist predicted a few days ago that a con-
tinuation of the present spending policies will result next year in the "worst price explosion in
In other words
recent history" that the cost of living will jump between five and six percent in 1968.
I do not like to think what this will do to those people on fixed incomes--particularly
our older generation lotk. When they retired they didn't expect to insideous live extravagantly. But neither did
they expect their retirement income to be eaten away by inflation. Already, they have been
and emphasize without
forced to do without a lot of things that they were used to. Already, the price of food has
FORD
sirable housing. Another big jump in prices will really hurt them.
seriously affected their eating habits. Rent increases have forced many of them into less GERALE de-
LIBRARY
But inflation hurts everybody, of course, not just our senior citizens.
more -
- 2 -
Hard-earned salary increases are wiped out almost overnight by the steady rise of
prices The money young couples put into savings accounts for an emergency or fain rainy day is
that we have in the pact 2½ years
eroded.
Who's responsible for this problem?
The chief culprit is the free-wheeling, big spending Administration in Washington.
While preaching economy, government officials keep talking of spending more and more-thus
its well to nott
feeding the fires of inflation, Since 1960, might note, the cost of living has shot up nearly
13 percent. The dollar each you of (earned and spent in 1960 will buy only 77 cents worth of food cr
clothing or shelter today.
Although many of US in Congress have tried to head off this spending binge, trying
to force the President to spend less, in short, we haven been entirely successful. But I assure
have been only partially
the Fed. level
you I will continue to support such efforts, because family believe less government spending at will mean
more purchasing power for individual Americans.
now the President really means what he says about inflation--such as the other day when
he called it the "cruelest" form of taxation-then he will agree with those of US in Congress who
are pressing for a reduction in Federal expenditures.
pard and working day after day after day
Dreal
This is Congressman
reporting from Washington.
(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio.
For additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts, contact the Com-
mittee's Public Relations Office.)
###
DEPALD R FORD LIBRARY
SCRIPT RECORDED
, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO
STATIONS.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
One of the most sacred rights of the American people is their right to know,
their right to be kept informed by their government about what is happening in
the country.
Currently it is obvious that the Administration is keeping from the American
people the true extent of the Communist role in the so-called peace demonstration
Oct. 21 at the Pentagon and the degree of Communist influence within the antiwar
movement throughout the United States.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk earlier this month said: "We haven't made
public the extent of our knowledge" for fear of touching off "a new McCarthyism."
I believe this is an entirely erroneous approach to the question of the
people's right to know. The American people are entitled to this information
which Mr. Rusk hints at--otherwise they may be misled with regard to the antiwar
movement in this country.
As for Mr. Rusk's fear of "a new McCarthyism," I believe the American
people are far more mature now than they were when Joe McCarthy had them looking
for Communists behind every bush.
We all know that the Radical Left took the lead in planning and running the
antiwar demonstration at the Pentagon. It was no accident, either, that demon-
strations were held simultaneously elsewhere in the world.
The leader of the mob here was David Dellinger, editor of the leftist
FORD
monthly magazine, "Liberator."
GERALD R
-2-
Last November Dellinger visited North Vietnam and met with Ho Chi Minh.
His passport was taken away when he returned but he got it back by promising
not to return to Hanoi. Despite that promise, Dellinger made a second trip to
Hanoi last summer. And in September, he went to Bratislava, Czechoslovakia,
where he was one of 41 Americans who talked with North Vietnamese officials and
a dozen Viet Cong delegates.
The hippies who took part in Dellinger's show at the Pentagon are simply
pathetic dropouts from society. But there were some honestly concemed antiwar
demonstrators who joined with the Communists and the New Leftists in protesting
the Vietnam War. Unfortunately, they played right into the hands of Hanoi.
The Communists got what they wanted--pictures of American troops and police-
men having to fight off a mob of their fellow citizens trying to storm the
symbol of U.S. military power, the Pentagon.
Of course, our troops and policemen were just doing their duty--and doing
it with magnificent restraint in view of all the abuse they had to take. But
that isn't the way it will look in the Communist propaganda organs.
Inretrospect, loyal Americans who are sincerely protesting the Vietnam War
should be more careful about the kind of company they keep. And it might be
well for government agencies with the power to withhold permits for demonstrations
near federal buildings to consider whether the proposed demonstration likely
will lead to violence.
I believe firmly in the right of responsible dissent. But no American
citizen has the right to engage in anarchy and to seek to disrupt the functions of
-3-
government in this country.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I'll be talking with you again next week over this same station.
###
SCRIPT RECORDED TUESDAY,
B, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO
STATIONS.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
One of the most sacred rights of the American people is their right to know,
their right to be kept informed by their government about what is happening in
the country.
Currently it is obvious that the Administration is keeping from the American
people the true extent of the Communist role in the so-called peace demonstration
Oct 21 at the Pentagon and the degree of Communist influence within the antiwar
movement throughout the United States.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk earlier this month said: "We haven't made
public the extent of our knowledge" for fear of touching off "a new McCarthyism."
I believe this is an entirely erroneous approach to the question of the
people's right to know. The American people are entitled to this information
which Mr. Rusk hints at--otherwise they may be misled with regard to the antiwer
movement in this country.
As for Mr. Rusk's fear of "a new McCarthyism," I believe the American
people are far more mature now than they were when Joe McCarthy had them looking
for Communists behind every bush.
We all know that the Radical Left took the lead in planning and running the
antiwer demonstration at the Pentagon. It was no accident, either, that demon-
strations were held simultaneously elsewhere in the world.
The leader of the mob here was David Dellinger, editor of the leftist
monthly magazine, "Liberator."
-2-
Last November Dellinger visited North Vietnam and met with Ho Chi Minh.
His passport was taken away when he returned but he got it back by promising
not to return to Manoi. Despite that promise, Dellinger made a second trip to
Hanoi last summer. And in September, he went to Bratislava, Czechoslovakia,
where he was one of 41 Americans who talked with North Vietnamese officials and
a dozen Viet Cong delegates.
The hippies who took part in Dellinger's show at the Pentagon are simply
pathetic dropouts from society. But there were some honestly concerned antiwer
demonstrators who joined with the Communists and the New Leftists in protesting
the Vietnam War. Unfortunately, they played right into the hands of Hanoi.
The Communists got what they wanted--pictures of American troops and police-
men having to fight off a mob of their fellow citizens trying to storm the
symbol of U.S. military power, the Pentagon.
Of course, our troops and policemen were just doing their duty--and doing
it with magnificent restraint in view of all the abuse they had to take. But
that isn't the way it will look in the Communist propaganda organs.
retrospect, loyal Americans who are sincerely protesting the Vietnam War
should be more careful about the kind of company they keep. And it might be
well for government agencies with the power to withhold permits for demonstrations
near federal buildings to consider whether the proposed demonstration likely
will lead to violence.
I believe firmly in the right of responsible dissent. But no American
citizen has the right to engage in anarchy and to seek to disrupt the functions of
-3-
government in this country.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I'll be talking with you again next week over this same station.
...
GERALD R. FORD
Vsed 11-8-47
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3, D. C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 41
November 6, 1967
THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY
This is Congressman
reporting from Washington.
It seems all we hear in Washington these days is talk about money--money for war,
money for poverty, money for defense, money for welfare, money for hundreds and hundreds of
other government projects.
What is often forgotten is that this money we hear so much about doesn't belong to
the Government or the President or the Congress. It is your money and mine--and that of all
it's their money
Americans who pay taxes A The government doesn't have any money of its own; it is merely the
guardian of the American taxpayer's money.
This is why everyone must be fully of the manner in which Washington spends his
money. After all, you watch your personal spending; you should watch what happens to your
money after you give it to Uncle Sam. Honestly, in the form of Fed. taxation.
And just what is happening I'd like to discuss with you today how your money is
being spent--and where those spending policies are taking our gou., us. yours and mine
since 1960
First, let me say flatly that the Federal Government has gone spend-crazy/and there
has been remarkably little outcry against it. If this trend continues, economists say that by the
Fed. goi
each year
end of this decade the budget will double to 160 billion dollars, deficits will total almost 100
billion dollars and the national debt will go up to 400 billion dollars.
Meantime, the Administration in power and government agencies are behaving as if
money grew on trees. Their demands are practically endless.
The postmaster general wants quite a few billion for new facilities. The space agency
and even farcher
wants a like amount to go to Mars and Venus. Transportation is scheduled for new billions of
probably freed
government help. Educational interests want more billions. Cleaning up water pollution is
talked about as a job. Air pollution may be just as costly. The needs of our
and very 100 Billion seriously dollar and very Properly
cities--so say the mayors--will run into hundreds of billions of dollars. Rent subsidies and
purchase subsidies, more billions.
yourd
FORD LIBRARY
The list is endless. Although many of these are worthwhile projects, the taxpayers'
pockets do have bottoms to them--and they are beginning to get a little light.
-
more
-
- 2 -
A lot of people believe that it is solely the war in Vietnam that is responsible for
the huge increase in Fed government spending. This is not the case. Domestic programs are chiefly
responsible. Let me cite some figures.
In the last eight years, while defense spending has grown by 68 percent, non-defense
spending has grown 97 percent. Welfare and health spending has grown 210 percent. To rewrite
a phrase that has been used over and over, our guns are swimming in butter.
The question is, of course, what can be done about this orgy of extravagance?
In the first place, nothing can be done until there has been a drastic change in our
national attitude towards government spending. We've got to realize that whatever temporary
benefits may accrue from unlimited spending are just that--temporary. The final results are
very likely to beNTragie. very
We've got to stop the so-called "crash" approach to our problems and we've got to
face the fact that money in unlimited quantities will not solve every problem. We must also fight
against the attitude of many that government knows best, that Washington can do it better--if
only we provide the money. That's simply not true.
of the
One of the Nation's top economists--Maurice Stans President Eisenhower's budget
director--add another recommendation, probably the most important of all. Mr. Stans says--
and I quote him:
"We need somehow to bring realism into the expectations of the people, to do what
is possible to help the underprivileged to help themselves, and to stop those agitators who whet
public appetites with slogans and undeliverable promises. At the heart of itall, we need some-
how to get people to realize that there is no instant tomorrow." Unquote.
This is Congressman
reporting from Washington.
(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio.
For additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts, contact the Com-
mittee's Public Relations Office.)
###
FORD LIBRARY
SCRIPT RECORDED
, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
Changes updating a federal program which dates back to 1907 are being
enacted in the Congress--changes which will benefit Michigan along with the other
states.
Legislation which will help the states institute or greatly improve meat
inspection programs now is halfway through the Congress. It recently passed
the House by a vote of 403 to 1. I was most happy to support it.
The new legislation, when it completes its trip through Congress, will
broaden and modernize meat inspection programs throughout the Nation. It will
provide payments to the various states of up to 50 per cent of their meat
inspection costs if they come up to Federal standards. The bill also offers
the States federal help program lanninguand technical and laboratory
assistanceX and federal help with program planning.
There has been a federal meat inspection law for 60 years, dealing with
meats that are shipped from one state to another. The new law now being
fashioned breaks new ground by encouraging the states to do a better job of
inspecting meats that do not cross state lines.
Michigan is considered to have a model state meat inspection law. But you and I
know that
the State Agriculture Department lacks the funds to do a
complete job, to cover every one of the slaughter houses doing business solely
in Michigan. I want to see Michigan improve its program,
and the
new federal legislation will make this possible.
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
-2-
as those in Michigan.
27 other states also have
Residents of some states are not as fortunate
While
laws requiring inspection of animals before and after slaughter, 12 states have
only a voluntary system, two have very limited inspection laws and eight have
none.
The aim of the federal meat inspection amendments now being fashioned into
law is to help the states meet their responsibilities for providing high quality
meat inspection. I think it is highly important that the federal government
and the states cooperate to eliminate practices which endanger the public
health or in any way defraud consumers. The problem of meat inspection is a
matter which affects every family in America.
The House rejected a move to extend federal meat inspection to all packing
plants intrastate as well as interstate which have gross sales of more than
$250,000 a year. This would have cost the federal government $31.2 million
more a year, but it would not have assured the inspection of the small plants
doing business entirely within a state. I and a large majority of the House
preferred the approach of federal-state cooperation.
Once the Senate has approved the House-passed meat inspection bill, we can
look forward to improved meat inspection throughout the country. Besides
offering help to the states, the legislation clarifies and more clearly defines
the authority of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to regulate the marking,
labeling, and packaging of carcasses, meats and meat food products moving
interstate. The bill also extends to imported meats the same standards that
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
-3-
apply to meat and meat products produced and processed within the United States.
The net result is that new protection will be afforded the American
consumer.
This legislation should encourage the confidence of today's homemaker in
the wholesomeness of our meat supplies. It thus strengthens the meat packing
and processing industry--an industry which has $16 billion in gross annual sales
and buys $13 billion worth of livestock a year from the American farmer.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I'll be talking with you again next week, same time, same station.
# # #
SCRIPT RECORDED
L FOR WEEKEND use BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
Changes updating a federal program which dates back to 1907 are being
enacted in the Congress--changes changes which will benefit Michigan along with the other
states.
Legislation which will help the states institute or greatly improve meat
inspection programs now is halfway through the Congress. It recently passed
the House by a vote of 403 to 1. I was most happy to support it.
The new legislation, when it completes its trip through Congress, will
broaden and modernise meat inspection programs throughout the Nation. It will
provide payments to the various states of up to 50 per cent of cheir meat
inspection costs if they come up to Federal standards. The bill also offers
the States federal help with program planning and technical and laboratory
assistance.
There has been a federal meat inspection law for 60 years, dealing with
meats that are shipped from one state to another. The new law now being
fashioned breaks new ground by encouraging the states to do a better job of
inspecting meats that do not cross state lines.
Michigan is considered to have a model state meat inspection law. But it
LIBRARY
is acknowledged that the State Agriculture Department lacks the funds to do a
complete job, to cover every one of the slaughter houses doing business solely
and will
in Michigan. I want to see Michigan improve its programs
makethispossitle.
-2-
Residents
of many - other donothere states are not asgood as fortunate. aprogram While 20 Michigan states.hafe
laws requiring inspection of animals before and after slaughter, 12 states have
only a voluntary system, two have very limited inspection laws and eight have
none.
The sim of the federal meat inspection amendments now being fashioned into
law is to help the states meet their responsibilities for providing high quality
meat inspection. I think it is highly important that the federal government
and the states cooperate to eliminate practices which endanger the public
health or in any way defraud consumers. The problem of meat inspection is a
matter which affects every family in America.
The House rejected a move to extend federal meat inspection to all packing
plants-intrastate as well as interstate--which have gross sales of more than
$250,000 a year. This would have cost the federal government $31.2 million
more a year, but it would not have assured the inspection of the small plants
doing business entirely within a state. I and a large majority of the House
preferred the approach of federal-state cosperation.
Once the Senate has approved the House-passed meat inspection bill, we can
look forward to improved meat inspection throughout the country. Besides
offering help to the states, the legislation clarifies and more clearly defines
the authority of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to regulate the marking,
RD
labeling, and packaging of carcasses, meats and meat food products moving
RARY
interstate. The bill also extends to imported meats the same standards that
-3-
apply to meat and meat products produced and processed within the United States.
The net result is that new protection will be afforded the American
consumer.
This legislation should encourage the confidence of today's homemaker in
the wholesomeness of our meat supplies. It thus strengthens the meat packing
and processing industry--an industry which has $16 billion in gross annual sales
13
and buys $10 billion worth of livestock a year from the American farmer.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I'll be talking with you again next week, same time, same station.
# # #
FORD
SCRIPT RECORDED WEDNESDAY, NOV. 15, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
The big news last week on Capitol Hill was the Battle of the Poverty Bill.
That battle was fought in the House, where Republicans tried to redirect
the War on Poverty and make it a success.
We tried to save tax money but at the same time expand the total investment
in the War on Poverty by enlisting the all-out help of business and industry.
Our goal was to fund the program at roughly the same level in tax dollars as at
present but to bring billions more into the anti-poverty effort through the
channels of private enterprise. The Administration demanded $400 million more
in taxpayer funds st a time when the Nation is threatened with a $30 billion
deficit.
Republicans wanted to remove all politics from the Anti-Poverty Program.
Instead, the Administration injected far more polities into the program than it
now is suffering from.
Republicans unsuccessfully sought to bar all political activity from the
anti-poverty program, partisan and nompartisan--to require that local community
action boards be made up one-third of the poor, one-third of local public
officials and one-third of spokesmen for private and public community agencies.
Republicans wanted to make the anti-poverty program job-oriented is the
belief that the best answer to poverty is a goodepaying job. We wanted to increase LIBRAN
the productivity of the poor so that employers would be willing to pay for théer
-2-
services. To that end, we sought to crease Job Opportunity Boards which would
work under and with the local Community Action Boards.
Republicans wanted to set up a State Community Action Commission to work
with local community action boards and coordinate the War on Poverty statewide.
Repbblicans sought to give the Office of Economic Opportunity here in
Washington primarily a policy-making and guidance role in the War on Poverty
instead of a largely operating role as at present. We felt the War on Poverty
could be fought much more effectively if OEO had only community action programs
to worry about in terms of operations, so we sought to turn such programs as
Head Start and the Job Corps over to the Nealth-Education-Welfere Department to
be administered through the U.S. Office of Education. We also wanted to create
a three-man Council of Economic Opportunity Advisers in the Office of the
President to chart the longtern course of a crusade against poverty, just as the
President's Council of Economic Advisers points up trends in the economy and
makes its recommendations to the President and to the Nation.
We sought to take all of these constructive steps and to redirect the
anti-poverty program into channels of longterm success. We wanted to move it in
a New Direction for the good of the country, but we were accused of trying to
kill it. Republicans are content to let the people decide the merits of the case.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I'll be talking with you again next week, same time, same station.
FORD LIBRARY
....
SCRIPT RECORDED WEDNESDAY, NOV. 15, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
in th House of Rep
The big news last week on Capitol Hill was the Battle of the Poverty Bill.
That battle was fought in the House, where Republicans tried to redirect
the War on Poverty and make it a success.
dollars
We tried to save tax money but at the same time expand the total investment
in the War on Poverty by enlisting the all-out help of business and industry.
Our goal was to fund the program at roughly the same level in tax dollars as at the
present but to bring billions more into the anti-poverty effort through the
channels of private enterprise. The Administration demanded $400 million more
in taxpayer funds at a time when the Nation is threatened with a $30 billion
deficit. The Democratic majority frustrated every Republican move to emlist private
enterprise in the Poverty War as a full-fledged partner, but Republicans didxnams score
a victory for the taxpayer when tax money for the program was held to the current level.
Republicans wanted to remove all politics from the Anti-Poverty Program.
We regorrisly opposed the Greene amott.
Instead, the Administration injected far more politics into the program than it
now is suffering from.
Republicans unsuccessfully sought to bar all political activity from the
anti-poverty program, partisan and nonpartisan--to require that local community
action boards be made up one-third of the poor, one-third of local public
officials and one-third of spokesmen for private and public communítyAagencies. service
Republicans wanted to make the anti-poverty program job-oriented in the
belief that the best answer to poverty is a good-paying job. We wanted to increase
the productivity of the poor so that employers would be willing to pay for their
FORD LIBRARY "y GERALD
-2-
services. To that end, we sought to create Job Opportunity Boards which would
work under and with the local Community Action Boards.
Republicans wanted to set up a State Community Action Commission to work
with local community action boards and coordinate the War on Poverty statewide.
Republicans sought to give the Office of Economic Opportunity here in
Washington primarily a policy-making and guidance role in the War on Poverty
instead of a largely operating role as at present. We felt the War on Poverty
could be fought much more effectively if OEO had only community action programs
to worry about in terms of operations, so we sought to transfer surn such programs as
Head Start and the Job Corps over to the Health-Education-Welfare Department to
be administered through the U.S. Office of Education. We also wanted to create
a three-man Council of Economic Opportunity Advisers in the Office of the
President to chart the longterm course of a crusade against poverty, just as the
President's Council of Economic Advisers points up trends in the economy and
makes its recommendations to the President and to the Nation.
We sought to take all of these very constructive steps and to redirect the
anti-poverty program into channels of longterm success. We wanted to move it in
a New Direction for the good of the country, but infortenately we\were accused of trying to
kill it. Republicans are content to let the people decide the merits of the case.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I'll be talking with you again next week, same time, same station.
####
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
SCRIPT RECORDED WEDNESDAY Nov. 22, 1967, for weekend use by FifthDistrict Stations
This is your Congressman, JerryFord, reporting to you from Washington.
The biggest news right now is that the Johnson Administration wants to make a deal
on
with the Congress on spending and taxes.
The Administration's fiscal crisis now has reached the point where President
most
Johnson has releuctantly agreed to lcut his spending this fiscal year by a least
the
inretures
$4 billion if Congress will give him an income tax increase in the same amount.
The fact that the President is willing to take such a spending cut after
fetter than 4
resisting any holddown in spending for years is an indication of how desparate
his Administration has become.
It is interesting to note, in this connection, that Republicans in the House
have tried to get the Johnson Administration to adopt an economy course ever since
I became Minority Leader in January, 1965.
We have repeatedly sought to cut the President's spending plans 5 per cent across
unfortunating the boards
We
failed in every instance in the overwhelmingly Democratic 89thCongress,
which President Johnson proudly called "my Congress."
have
ERALD R. LISAARY FORD
We scored some successes in the present Congress and we succeeded in getting
the House to adopt a spending limitation which would hold Administration spending
2
have
to the level we had been seeking. But theAdministration until now stubbornly
this economy
resisted the move and the spending-minded Senate refused to follow the House lead.
Now the President is talking about a possible $35 billion deficit and the
Administration has confessed to the need for just the kind of spending limitation
in the house
I and others have urged.
Unfortunately the Johnson Administration is not contrite enought about
has
the spending binge it had been on for four years. The president is offering to
cut his spending by $4 billion or more only in exchange for a tax increase.
own
He is not letting his income tax increase proposal stand on its merits. He
is saying, 'there are people in the Congress who insist spending should be
reduced this year by five billion dollars; you let me have my tax increas and
I'll cut spending by at least $4 billion.'
In other words, the President is agreeing to reduce the present level of
the House
his spending only because I and other economy-minded members of Congress have
said he must do that if his income tax increas is to get any consideration.
The deal President Johnson now is offering Congress is a symbol. Written
FORD
on it is the Bibilical warning, "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." Or perhaps the
these
Johnson Administration's present fiscal situation is best described in the 4 words,
3
"They have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind."
The desperation spending cut-tax increase package the Johnson Administation
filter
now is sending to Congress is the fruit of year after year of deficit spending--
since 1960, the last year the federal budget was balanced.
better
It is the fruit of actions taken by the President and the 89th Congress,
À The Congress that was in spistence in 1965 and 1966
when the pattern was set for a sharp upward surge in federal domestic spending
at the same time that Vietnam War costs were moving toward the present $26 billion
a-year level.
bilter
It is the fruit of inaction on inflation in early 1966, when an attack on
the rise in living costswould have done the most good.
As your Congressman, I have done everything in my power to see to it that
by the Federal Hoo.
your tax dollars are spent wiselyn But the voices of prudence and economy in
1965, 1966
and although we have more now
the Congress are simply too few.
than use had before who want
were
economy, we still are not in the
This is Jerry Ford, reporting to you from WAshngton. I'll be talking with 1)
majority Nevertheless we will
you again next week, same time, same station. continue our fight to
save your tax dollar.
FORD LIBRARY "If BERALD
SCRIPT RECORDED WEDNESDAY Nov. 22, 1967, for weekend use by FifthDistrict Stations
This is your Congressmen, JerryFord, reporting to you from Washington.
The biggest news right now is that the Johnson Administration wants to make a deal
with the Congress on spending and taxes.
The Administration's fiscal crisis now has reached the point where President
Johnson has releuctantly agreed to lcut his spending this fiscal year by a least
$4 billion if Congress will give him an income tax incream in the same amount.
The fact that the President is willing to take such a spending cut after
resisting any holddown in spending for years is an indication of how desparate
his Administration has become.
It is interesting to note, in this connection, that Republicans in the House
have tried to get the Johnson Administration to adopt an economy course ever since
I became Minority Leader in January, 1965.
We repeatedly sought to cut the President's spending plans 5 per cent across
the boards
We failed tn every instance in the overwhelmingly Democratic 89thCongress,
which President Johnson proudly called "my Congress."
ALD R. LIBRAR FORD
We scored some successes in the present Congress and we succeeded in getting
the House to adopt a spending limitation which would hold Administration spending
2
to the level we had been seeking. But theAdministration until now stubbogaly
resisted the move and the spending-minded Senate refused to follow the House lead.
Now the President is talking about a possible $35 billion deficit and the
Administration has canfessed to the need for just the kind of spending limitation
I and others have urged.
Unfortunately the Johnson Administration is not ;contrite enought about
the spending binge it had been on for four years. The president is offering to
cut his spending by $4 billion or more only in exchange for a stax increase.
He is not letting his income tax increase proposal stand on its merits. He
is saying, 'there are people in the Congress who insist spending should be
reduced this year by five billion dollars; you let me have my tax inc reas and
I'll cut spending by at least $4 billion.'
In other words, the President is agreeing to reduce the present level of
his spending only because I and other economyminded members of Congress have
said he must do that if his income tax increas is to get any consideration.
The deal President Johnson now is offering Congress is a symbol. Writtapro
LIBRARY 'y the
on it is the Bibilical warning, "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." Or perhaps GERA
Johnson Administration's present fiscal situation is best described in the words,
3
"They have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind."
The desperation spending cut-tax increase package the Johnson Administation
now is sending to Congress is the fruit of year after year of deficit spending--
since 1960, the last year the federal budget was balanced.
It is the fruit of actions taken by the President and the 89th Congress,
when the pattern was set for a sharp upward surge in federal domestic spending
at the same time that Vietnam War costs were moving toward the present $26 billion
a-year level.
It is the fruit of inaction on inflation in early 1966, when an attack on
the rise in living costs would have done the most good.
As your Congressman, I have done everything in my power to see to it that
your tax dollars are spent wisely. But the voices of prudence and economy in
the Congress are simply too few.
This is Jerry Ford, reporting to you from WAshngton. I'll be talking with
you again next week, same time, same station.
GERALD R-FORD
SCRIPT RECORDED TUESDAY, NOV. 28, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Wash ington.
There may be a long, hard road ahead before Congress takes final action on
increases in Social Security benefits and in payroll taxes to pay for the rise
in benefits.
The reason is that the bill passed by the Senate on Nov. 22 is substantially
different from the legislation approved by the House last August 17.
This means that certain members of the House and the Senate must get together
to try to compromise the differences in the two bills. This group, known as
a conference committee, then will come back to the House and the Senate for
approval of whatever compromise agreements they reach.
Sometimes such agreements are reached quickly. But the prospect on the
Social Security legislation is that some tough and perhaps lengthy bargaining
lies ahead for the conference committee.
The Senate bill goes farther than the House in raising Social Security
benefits. But of course it also greatly increases future payroll taxes to pay for
them--the payr$11 taxes that must be paid by most working Americans every year of
their working lives.
Under the House bill, an employee paying the maximum Social Security tax
would see his payroll tax go up from the present $290.40 to $334.40 next year
and then rise steadily until it hit $429.40 in 1973. Under the Senate bill, the
same employee would have his payroll tax raised from the present $290140 to $352.00
FORD LIBRARY "y GERALD
-2-
in 1968 and then would see it go up steadily each year until it climbed to
$610.20 in 1973. So, by 1973, the maximum payroll tax to be paid by an employee
under the Senate bill would be nearly $200 higher than under the House bill.
We should note too that payroll taxes paid by employees must be matched by their
employers. Although 1973 seems rather far off, it's really just a little more
than five years from now.
The House bill would provide that nobody on Social Security would get
less than $50 a month in benefits. Minimum monthly benefits under the Senate
bill would be $70. The minimum now is $44.
There is much more in the Social Security legislation than simply changes
in benefits and in payroll taxes. The Senate bill, for instance, is 423 pages
long.
The legislation would make extensive changes in Federal-State welfare
programs, and this will give the House and Senate conferees a bone to chew on.
The House is trying to tighten up on welfare and to force as many persons as
possible off the welfare rolls and into gainful employment. The Senate softened
up these proposed changes in the welfare program.
There was some liberalizing of the Social Security program in the Senate
bill without any action to pay the cost. One such amendment would allow retired
persons and widows to earn as much as $2,400 a year without losing any of their
old-age insurance benefits. Thischange would add about $500 million to the
cost of the program. There WD uld be no offsetting increase in revenue to pay for it.
The present earnings limitation is $1,500 a year. The House bill would
raise it to $1,680. This increased program cost is provided for in the
bill. BERA FORD LIBRARY
In the first full year of operation, the Senate bill would raise the
-3-
present level of Social Security benefits by about $6.5 billion, with no provision
for paying part of that cost. This is $1.7 billion more than the Administration
asked for.
olhing
Our senior citizens desperately need help. But the level of federal payroll
taxes is climbing painfully high. For that reason it's a good bet something closer
to the House bill than the Senate version will finally be adopted.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington. I'll
be back with you next week, same time, same station.
####
FORD
SCRIPT RECORDED TUESDAY. NOV. 28, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO
This is your congressman, Berry Ford, reporting to you from Wash ington.
There may be a long, hard road ahead before Congress takes final action on
more
increases in Social Security benefits and in payroll taxes to pay for the rise
in benefits.
The reason is that the bill passed by the Senate on Nov. 22 is substantially
different from the legislation approved by the House last August 17.
This means that certain members of the House and the Senate must get together
to try to compromise the differences in the two bills. This group, known as
a conference committee, then will come back to the House and the Senate for
approval ofwhatever compromises agreements they reach.
Sometimes such agreements are reached quickly. But the prospect on the
Social Security legislation is that some tough and perhaps lengthy bargaining
lies ahead for the conference committee.
The Senate bill goes considerably farther than the House bill in raising
both Social Security benefits and future payroll taxes to pay for them.
The House bill provides for #124 per cent increase in benefits; the Senate
bill, for 15 per cent.
Under the House bill, an employee paying the maximum Social Security tax
would see his payroll tax go up from the present $290.40 to $334.40 next year
and then rise steadily until it hit $429.40 in 1973. Under the Senate R.FD bill, LIBRA the
same employee would have his payroll tax raised from the present $290.40 to $352.00
-2"
in 1968 and then would see It go up steadily each year until it climbed to
$610.20 in 1973. So, by 1973, the maximum payroll tax to be paid by an employee
under the Senate bill would be nearly $200 higher than under the House bill.
We should note too that payroll taxes paid by employees must be matched by their
employers. Although 1973 seems rather far off, it's really just a little more
than five years from now.
The House bill would provide that nobody on Social Security would get
less than $50 a month in benefits. Minimum monthly benefits under the Senate
bill would be $70. The minimum now is $44.
There is much more in the Social Security legislation than simply changes
in benefits and in payroll taxes. The Senate bill, for instance, is 423 pages
long.
The legislation would make extensive changes in Federal-State welfare
programs, and this will give the House and Senate conferees a bone to chew on.
The House is trying to tighten up on welfare and to force as many persons as
possible off the welfare rolls and into gainful employment. The Senate softened
up these proposed changes in the welfare program.
There was some liberalizing of the Social Security program in the Senate
bill without any action to pay the cost. One such amendment would allow retired
persons and widows to earn as much as$$2,400 a year without losing any of their
old-age insurance benefits. Thischange would add about $500 million to the
GERALD
LIBRARY
proposed increase in benefits.
The present earnings limitation is $1,500 a year. The House bill would
A1
-3-
raise it to $1,680.
In the first full year of operation, the Senate bill would raise the
present level of Social Security benefits by about $6.5 billion. That exceeds
the Administration's requestaby $1.7 billion. Wull-year benefits would total
$3.2 billion under the House bill.
It's a pretty good bet that something closer to the House bill than the
Senate version will would finally be adopted.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I'll be back with you next week, same time, same station.
....
GERALD R. LISEARY FORD
Radio-Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3. D. C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 45
December 4, 1967
LESSON FROM ENGLAND
This is Congressman
reporting to you from Washington.
When Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced to the world that he had decided to
devaluate the English pound, most Americans, I think, didn't quite understand what this meant.
But they did understand that the devaluation was a big event with even some unpleasant implica-
tions for them.
For, suddenly the American dollar was under enormous pressure throughout the world
as a result of the British action. Indeed, there was much talk that our dollar might also have
to be "officially" devaluated. What happens in England is, therefore, of great interest to US.
And what happened is basically this: The average British family faces hard times.
It is going to have to tighten its belt and "do without." The roast beef of Old England is going
to be off a lot of menus. The British people won't starve, but they may have eat. a lot of dull,
dissatisfying meals in the future.
I realize that the present Administration in this country has pledged "unequivocably"
that there will be no dollar devaluation. In recent months, Prime Minister Wilson had done the
same thing where the pound was concerned. He declared again and again that his government
was "unalterably" opposed to devaluation. Sruwhat has happened? The value of the pound has
been lowered from two dollars and eighty cents to two dollars and forty cents by Mr. Wilson him-
self. Pledges from No. 10 Downing Street couldn't save the pound. Can pledges from the White
House save the dollar?
The British have been living beyond their income for a long time, just as we have in
this country. An economic policy of "spend and spend" has been theirs for a long time also. They
were warned, as we have been warned, that there would be a day of reckoning to face. Well,
it arrived. The prime minister was forced to face the economic facts of life and break his oft-
repeated pledges.
FORD
is
But, devaluation for Britain is, I believe, only a beginning. Let me quote from on
article in the Richmond, Virginia, Times Dispatch, which makes the point well. The writer is
talking about the problems that led up to the present financial crisis. He says--quote=="..nor
-
more
-
- 2-
will these problems be solved quickly or alone by the drastic act of devaluation. Higher interest
rates, increased taxes, spending cuts and possibly tough new controls on wages, prices and credit
will accompany devaluation, making the Labor government's earlier austerity program--which
failed to save the pound--seem almost like a picnic." Unquote.
Of course, the White House is going to "pledge unequivicably" that there will be
no devaluation of the dollar, as it has already done. I am only wondering how far away is our
day of reckoning.
The only bright side to the picture that I can see is this. If the British crisis can force
US to cut spending--to put our financial house in order--then it will not have been in vain.
Britain has learned somewhat brutally that it cannot live beyond its means. It has been forced
to recognize that it must pay its way. It realizes now how ridiculous was that pledge about na-
tional debts--namely, that "it's only money we owe ourselves."
Has Britain's tragic example taught US anything? That is the question. If it hasn't,
then the present Administration may well say--as Madame Pompadour did in France--"after us,
the deluge."
This is Congressman
reporting from Washington.
(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio.
For additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts, contact the Com-
mittee's Public Relations Office.)
###
SCRIPT RECORDED WEDNESDAY, DEC. 6, 1967, FOR werkend USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO
This is your congressmen, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
The most significant developments in the Congress in recent days are
the reaching of an agreement between the House and Senate on the shape of the
anti-poverty program through mid-1969 and the fact that the federal government's
spending picture is coming into focus.
You may remember that the Senate passed a $2.2 billion anti-poverty bill
and the House approved a $1.6 billion measure. Certain House and Senate members
picked to work out the differences in the two bills finally agreed on a spending
ceiling for the program for this year of just under $2 billion.
Actually, this was perhaps the least important compromise on the anti-poverty
bill as it applies to the fiscal year ending this June 30. The reason I say
this is that House Appropriations Committee Chairman George Mahon, Democrat of
Texas, made it known long ago that his committee would not approve more than
$1.6 billion in spending for the anti-poverty program this fiscal year.
Two actions by the Congress determine the course of the anti-poverty program.
One is the authorization bill just agreed to, with its spending ceiling of
nearly $2 billion, and the other is the appropriation bill which actually spells
out how much can be spent on the program.
The most important change in the anti-poverty program is one which was
FORD
opposed by House Republicans and mumbers of both parties in the Sem te. It
RALD
BRARY
turns control of the community action phase of the anti-poverty program to City
Hall. Southern Democrats in the House wanted this change so local politicians
-2-
in their districts could ride herd on local community action programs. House
Republicans believe, along with Negro Congressman Augustus c. Hawkins,
Democrat of California, that this poverty program change will force the poor to
"go hat in hand to City Hall." Northern Democrats in the House agreed to the
change to win Southern support fortheir bill.
The final version of the anti-poverty authorization bill provides for a
so-called bypass of City Hall control but I don't think it means much. The bypass
would allow the Office of Economic Opportunity to set up a community action
program if local officials failed to do so and would let OEO turn the program
over to a private agency if local officials failed to operate it to OEO's
satisfaction. In practice, I don't think this bypass provision will work. It
would have been far better to work toward greater involvement of the poor in
the operation of local community action programs--not less. I think the andnded
anti-poverty program will tend to shut the poor out. Certainly it puts City Hall
in the driver's seat, and in some cities this is a dismal prospect.
I said earlier that the federal fiscal picture is beginning to come into
focus. I was referring tothe fact that the Johnson Administration's budget
director recently indicated the federal deficit this year would run under
$20 billion--without a tax increase.
This will come about only because economy-minded members of the House have
been pressuring for deep cuts in federal spending in an attempt to bring
GERALD R LIBRARY FORD
runaway federal spending under control.
-3-
We should never put the dollar above the national good but we should
seek balance in our fiscal affairs. We cannot solve every problem with
federal dollars, and we should remember that every dollar we spend must be
accounted for. There is always a day of reckoning. It is always the people
who pay.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I'll be back with you next week over this same station.
#####
BERALD FORD GRANN
SCRIPT RECORDED WEDNESDAY, DEC. 6, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
The most significant developments in the Congress in recent days are
the reaching of an agreement between the House and Senate on the shape of the
anti-poverty program through mid-1969 and the fact that the federal government's
dearer
spending picture is coming into focus.
You may remember that the Sem te passed a $2.2 billion anti-poverty bill
abill that involves
and the House approved 1 $1.6 billion measure. Certain House and Senate members
picked to work out the differences in the two bills finally agreed on a spending
ceiling for the program for this year of just under $2 billion.
Actually, this was perhaps the least important compromise on the anti-poverty
next
bill as it applies to the fiscal year ending this June 30. The reason I say
this is that House Appropriations Committee Chairman George Mahon, Democrat of
Texas, made it known long ago that his committee would not approve more than
$1.6 billion in spending for the anti-poverty program this fiscal year.
Two actions by the Congress determine the course of the anti-poverty program.
One is the authorization bill just agreed to, with its spending ceiling of
nearly $2 billion, and the other is the appropriation bill which actually spells
out how much can be spent on the program.
The most important change in the anti-poverty program is one which was
us.
opposed by House Republicans and members of both parties in the Sem te. It
over
turns control of the community action phase of the anti-poverty program to City
particularly in the big metropolitan areas like Chicago, n.y., Dersit,etc,
Hall Hall, Southern Democrats in the House wanted this change so local politicians RD
badey
GERALD LIBRARY
-2-
respective
in their districts could ride herd on local community action programs. House
Republicans believe, along with Negro Congressman Augustus C. Hawkins,
Democrat of California, that this poverty program change will force the poor to
"go hat in hand to City Hall." Northern Democrats in the House agreed to the
change to win Southern support for their bill.
The final version of the anti-poverty authorization bill provides for a
so-called bypass of City Hall control but quite frankly I don't think it means much. The bypass
very
would allow the Office of Economic Opportunity to set up a community action
program if local officials failed to do so and would let OEO turn the program
over to a private agency if local officials failed to operate it to OEO's
satisfaction. In practice, I don't think this bypass provision will work. It
would have been far better to work toward greater involvement of the poor in
the operation of local community action programs-not less. I think the amended
anti-poverty program will tend to shut the poor out. Certainly it puts City Hall, programs
of their involvement in the many
Big
airyHall, in the major metropoliton and in areas,
the driver 8 seat, some cities this is a very dismal prospect.
with all the political ramifications
I said earlier that the federal fiscal picture is beginning to come into
focus. I was referring toche fact that the Johnson Administration's budget
director recently indicated the federal deficit this year would run under slightly under,
$20 billion--without a tax increase,
This will come about only because economy-minded members of the House have
been pressuring for deep cuts in federal spending in an attempt to bring
runaway federal spending under control.
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
-3-
abriously,
We should never put the dollar above the national good but we should
seek balance in our fiscal affairs. We cannot solve every problem with
move more
federal dollars, and we should remember that every dollar we spend must be
accounted for. There is always a day of reckoning. It is always the people
who pay.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I'll be hack with you next week over this same station.
#####
GETALO FORD LIBRARY
Radio Television Script
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL
WASHINGTON 3, D. C.
LINCOLN 4-3010
Script No. 47
December II, 1967
CHRISTMAS, 1968, AND BEYOND
Note: We are sending you this holiday script in the
thought it may provide material for a Christmastime
talk over your District stations or for newsletters or
other use.
This is Congressman
wishing you a Merry Christmas and a happy
and prosperous New Year.
I believe, that before next year is over and another Christmas rolls around, much
will happen to lighten our hearts and provide renewed confidence in the future. I believe that
when next year is over, we will all be able to look back and say "much has been gained."
And I'm not speaking just about the elections coming up next November.
This year, 1967, has been a year of tension and gloom. It was, as if we, as a
nation, were lost in a dark forest of critical events with no paths leading to sunlight 07 solutions.
I think that most of US have dreaded the future, have been afraid to look ahead.
Nineteen-sixty-eight and beyond will be different, I believe. The trees in the
forest will start to thin out and between the dark branches the sun will shine. We will even count
the passing days eagerly, because they will lead to a happy climax. I believe that so much we
have wished for will be closer to our reach next year.
In the last few years, too many of US have lost pride in our country, have been
ashamed of the road it has taken, have been bewildered at the twistings and turnings that seem
to lead nowhere. We have asked ourselves, "what goals are we striving for? What is our aim?
Where are we, as a nation headed?" And because we have not known, we have drifted; we have
been afraid.
Overseas, we have witnessed United States prestige deteriorate to the point where
Uncle Sam is no longer revered and respected. We have seen our embassies stoned and sacked;
our citizens set upon and attacked.
(ORD
In Southeast Asia, we are fighting a war which we seem to have no determination
to win. And we see casualties mounting daily. But, still, we can begin to see the faint glim-
merings of the end in sight--if only our resolve holds out.
- more -
- 2 -
Before 1968 is over, I am convinced we will have done much to restore our
national pride and to regain our national courage and international respect. We will know bet-
ter where we are headed. A definite course will begin to be laid out that Americans can approve
of. And because it is definite and its goals known, we will tread proudly over that course. We
will not hesitate because of timidity or fear.
A country that is loaded down with debt and no end in sight, like an individual
loaded down with debt, cannot be a happy country. Explain it away as you will, shut your
eyes to it as you will, there is always the subconscious knowledge that the day of reckoning
must come. There is the continuing and subtle fear that the reckoning may be nearer and more
bitter than we think. Next year, and beyond, we will--we must-face our debt situation and
stop dreaming up alibis for our prodigal spending. We must--we will--stop our drifting toward
possible bankruptcy.
Yes, I am optimistic about the future. My rose-colored glasses are freshly polished
and clear. In my crystal globe, I see a far-reaching change. I see Uncle Sam a leader again
and confident. 1 see him respected once more and admired. I see his opinions listened to and
considered, instead of being sneered at and derided. I see his example being followed.
By Christmastime, 1968, I predict America will be headed back onto the course
which made it the greatest nation in the world. And both Americans at home and people abroad
will breath a sigh of relief.
So I wish you with confidence, "A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year."
This is Congressman
reporting from Washington.
(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio.
For additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts, contact the Com-
mittee's Public Relations Office.)
###
SCRIPT RECORDED WEDNESDAY, DEC. 13, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY DISTRICT STATIONS
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the nation's
capitol.
This will be my last Washington report to you until next year. I think it is
appropriate that I tell you what kind of a job I think Congress has done this
year and where it could have been better.
First of all, Congress deserves a vote of taxpayer thanks for cutting federal
spending this fiscal year by roughly $4 billion. If the budget bureau director's
arithmetic works out right, this should bring the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's
deficit down to $19.8 billion. That's still a huge deficit, but the Democratic
majority in the Congress successfully resisted the efforts of some of us to reduce
it to a smaller figure.
The Congress refused to go along with the President's move to increase your
income tax bill by 10 per cent. I think that was wise. Not only are the American
people already heavily burdened with taxes, but there's good reason to believe a
tax increase might damage the economy and create unemployment.
The 90th Congress passed some good legislation this year.
We put the Teacher Corps on solid footing, authorizing it for three years
and turning the recruitment, selection and training of these teachers for slum
schools over to local schools and colleges. This program eventually should pay
dividends for us all in improved citizenship and earning potential for our slum
children.
Congress greatly improved federal and state meat inspection with a program of
50-50 matching funds to get states voluntarily to bring inspection in intra-state
meat plants up to federal standards. This must be done within three years at the
most, or federal inspection becomes mandatory in the intrastate plants.
The House passed a Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Assistance Act which
makes funds available to the states to launch a War on Crime in accordance with
approved state plans.
In a tremendous show of bipartisan support, the Congress approved a three-year,
$428 million program to attack air pollution problems on a regional basis.
We passed a Comprehensive Health Act, which allocates federal funds to
communities to fight rats, communicable diseases and drug addiction.
We increased Social Security benefits, acted to improve the operations of
Medicare, tightened up on Medicaid, revised the welfare laws to encourage welfare
recipients to go to work. We also prevented a nationwide rail strike by approving
an Administration plan which required railroad management and the unions to submit
their dispute to arbitration.
There were, of course, areas where Congress fell short.
The President should have proposed and Congress should have approved
legislation to improve our handling of national emergency strikes. I don't think
the kind of compulsory arbitration we forced on the railroads and the rail unions
is the proper answer.
I also regret that the 90th Congress failed to become a reform Congress.
By that I mean the Congress should have passed an Election Reform law, a clean
elections law like the one reported out with bipartisan support by a House elections
subcommittee. The Congress also should have enacted into law a plan for modernizing
the operations of Congress so that it can better serve the people. The Senate passed
a congressional reorganization bill but the Democratic leadership of the House
failed to bring it to the House floor for action.
On the whole, however, the 90th Congress did a pretty good job.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you for the last time this
year and wishing you a Merry Christmas--and the very best in 1968. I'll be back
with you in the New Year over this same station.
####
FORD
y
GERALD
SCRIFT RECORDED WEDNESDAY, DEC. 13, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY DISTRICT STATIONS
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the nationás
Capitol.
This will be my last Washington report to you until next year. I think it is
appropriate that I tell you what kind of a job I think Congress has done this
year and where it could have been better.
First of all, Congress deserves a vote of taxpayer thanks for cutting federal
spending this fiscal year by roughly $4 billion. If the budget bureau director's
arithmetic works out right, this should bring the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's
deficit down to $19.8 billion. That's still a huge deficit, but the Democratic
majority in the Congress successfully resisted the efforts of some of us to reduce
it to a smaller figure.
The Congress refused to go along with the President's move to increase your
income tax bill by 10 per cent. I think that was wise. Not only are the American
people already heavily burdened with taxes, but there's good reason to believe a
tax increase might damage the economy and create unemployment.
The 90th Congress passed some good legislation this year.
We put the Teacher Corps on solid feeting, authorising it for three years
and turning the recruttment, selection and training of these teachers for slum
schools over to local schools and colleges. This program eventually should pay
dividends for us all in improved citizenship and earning potential for our alum
children.
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
Congress greatly improved federal and state meat inspection with a program of
50-50 matching funds to get states voluntarily to bring inspection in intra-state
meat plants up to federal standards. This must be done within three years at the
most, or federal inspection becomes mandatory in the intrastate plants.
The House passed a Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Assistance Act which
makes funds THE available to the states to launch a War on Crime in accordance with
approved state plans.
In a tremendous show of bipartisen support, the Congress approved a three-year,
$428 million program to attack air pollution problems on a regional basis.
We passed a Comprehensive Health Act, which allocates federal funds to
communities to fight rats, communicable diseases and drug addiction.
We increased Social Security benefits, acted to improve the operations of
Medicare, tightened up on Medicaid, revised the welfare laws to encourage welfare
recipients to go to work. We also prevented a natienwide rail strike by approving
an Administration plan which required railroad management and the unions to Submit
their dispute to arbitration.
There were, of course, areas where Congress fell short.
The President should have proposed and Congress should have approved
legislation to improve our handling of national emergency strikes. I don't think
the kind of compulsory arbitration we forced on the railroads and the rail unions
is the proper answer.
I also regret that the 90th Congress failed to become a reform Congress.
FORD
By that I mean the Congress should have passed an Election Reform law, a clean
LIBRARY
GERAL
elections law like the one reported out with bipartisan support by a House elections
subcommittee. The Congress also should have enacted into law a plan for modernising
the operations of Congress so that it can better serve the people. The Senate passed
a congressional reogganization bill but the Democratic leadership of the House
failed to bring it to the House floor for action.
On the whole, however, the 90th Congress did a pretty good job.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you for the last time this
year and wishing you a Merry Christmam--and the very best in 1968. I'll be back
with you in the New Year over this same station.
####
FORD