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
66327970
label
Correspondence – February 1983 (5)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
66327970
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Correspondence – February 1983 (5)
citationUrl
collections
Records of the White House Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff (Reagan Administration)
Michael K. Deaver's Correspondence Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
66327970
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1985-12-31
year
1985
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
cd4622f0b72befe8
ocrText
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 10, 1983
Dear Mr. Goergen:
Thank you for your recent letter. It
is always encouraging to hear from people
like you who have been long-time advocates
of the President's philosophy of limited
government and individual freedom. I know
that President Reagan is as grateful for
your support as I am.
Regarding your interest in serving within
the Administration, I can only recommend that
you write to the White House Presidential
Personnel Office directly.
Again, thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
Mr. William H. Goergen
P.O. Box 782
Encino, CA 91316
ESTATES UNLIMITED, INC.
Financial Services - Mid West & Southwest Offices
February 4, 1983
Michael K. Deaver
White House
Washington, D.C. 20050
Dear Mr. Deaver:
My contact with you over the last several years has been minimal, there-
fore I am enclosing some memos that may jog your memory. In any event,
I am and have been a supporter of President Reagan and his administra-
tion, which you are an important part of. I reside most of the year in
California for business reasons, but I vote in Iowa. I influenced a
friend of mine, a Mr. Jack Schroeder to act as State Finance Chairman
for the Reagan campaign in Iowa. I was happy to assist in any way I
could.
The second half has just started for the administration and it looks
like its third down and long yardage, but I am confident that the Head
Coach and his assistants can make the big play or plays to succeed.
The general public is not informed of the good policies and programs
that the Administration has put in motion. The public should be in-
formed in a way that will down-play the yet unsolved economic and social
ills of the country and inform them that you are diligently working on
the cure.
I had the pleasure of escorting Mr. Pat O'Brien to the pre-Rose Bowl
"Dinner for Champions" where Pat was a part of the program. Pat is a
friend of mine, as well as the President's, and he remarked to me on the
way home from the dinner how the President stays by his convictions re-
gardless of the criticism of the opposing party and some of the media.
I am old enough to remember how during the F.D.R. administrations, the
way F.D.R. picked out one or two trusted members of the media such as
Edward R. Murrow and related his policies to them and they in turn too
would relate to other members of the media and the public which usually
united the people behind him. There was no TV at that time, only the
radio and press, but it might be well to adopt a similar type method.
It bothers me that the administration is accused by many to benefit the
rich and ignore the poor. The method of determining who qualifies for
Social Security retirement benefits should be altered to eliminate some
and add benefits to others and still save enormous amounts of money and
also indicate to the public the administration is sympathetic to the
needy. I will elaborate on the plan if there is an interest.
Page Two
February 4, 1983
Michael K. Deaver
As a contracted financial public relations consultant to an independent
oil company, I have watched with interest Mr. Watt's efforts as Secre-
tary of the Interior and on a scale of one to ten, I would have to give
him a nine.
I also hope the administration pushes to put more economic and admini-
strative duties on to the state governments and reduces the Federal
bureaucracies. This will make the state governments more responsible
and hopefully more efficient and conservative with the taxpayers'
money.
In conclusion, I have a few good productive years left and would welcome
a chance to assist the administration succeed in its tenure of office.
Respectfully yours,
WILLIAM H. GOERGEN
Tom H Gargen
P.O. Box 782
Encino, California 91316
Tel. (213) 344-2685
RONALD REAGAN
477-8231 SUITE 812
10960 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024
February 16, 1976
Mr. William H. Goergen
President
Estates Unlimited, Inc.
Post Office Box 782
Encino, California 91316
Dear Bill:
Thank you for your nice note and offer of help to
Governor Reagan's campaign.
I do think it would be better if you discussed your
ideas with Mr. Charles Black, Governor Reagan's Mid-
west coordinator. I am sending on your note to him
and you should be hearing from him directly.
Thanks again for your offer of support.
Sincerely,
Michael K. Deaver
MKD:bls
CC: Mr. Charles Black
Michael K. Deaver
10960 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90024
213/477-8231
August 25, 1980
Mr. William Goergen
President
Estates Unlimited, Inc.
Post Office Box 782
Encino, California 91316
Dear Mr. Goergen:
I'm sorry, but I'm on a plane practically all
the time from now through the election.
If you'd be good enough to put your thoughts
in a letter, I'd be delighted to go over them
and respond, or put you in touch with the
appropriate person in the campaign.
Thank you for your continued interest.
Sincerely,
Twine
Michael K. Deaver
MKD:bd
clear Larraine
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
2 was saddened to hear of your mothers
death I know how close mustoniss were
and how much you her.
Plase know that you mul see are in
my thoughts and prayers.
I'm expected to think Suggy and Steve
may insit w asbigton in Way. 2ts always
to ice realpseople here. always mike
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Mrs. Lorraine Price
1418 Floribunda Ave. #204
Burlingame, CA 94010
2-10-83
lee engoged The family picture
on you Christmes card- -
steve and 2 may be in Washing ton
D.C. The end f may. 27 would
be feen to see you or at least
Calee you. 2.11 get your
same member from Jean Y Birl.
Johe care -
have.
sungs sture 1
group-
Dear Caralyn Y mike.
Just a short have to the
you not Item is Grandmather
died on January KTH in
Burling ame. she reacly did not
know anyone in cluding Luraine
must 20 the time for The leat 6
monihs. she was 89- It was
sad a death always is but it
was a blessing also- of you
want to drop Lmore a hate her
addressis 1418 Floribundu AVE # 204
Buslingame, CAME 94010
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 10, 1983
Dear Marge:
This is to acknowledge your letter of January 13
bringing to my attention a copy of the letter
addressed to the Presidential Gift Unit by Mr. Ron
Smith about the desire of Mr. Madjid Moghaddasian
to present to the President and Mrs. Reagan the
portrait he has painted of them.
I do indeed appreciate your kindness in writing me
about this artist, but the President and Mrs. Reagan
both have such busy schedules, time does not permit
this presentation. I am sure you will understand
they have so many wonderful requests from people who
want to present them with artwork that it has become
impossible for them to accept them.
With my best wishes to you,
Sincerely,
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Deputy Chief of Staff
Assistant to the President
Miss Marge Boynton
711 Willow Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
711 Willow Avenue
Ukiah, Ca. 95482
January 13, 1983
Mr. Michael Deaver
Whitehouse
Washington, D. C. 20500
Thank
Dear Mike:
I am enclosing a copy of a letter that is self explanatory.
I have become acquainted with Madjid just recently because
someone suggested that perhaps I could help him. He is a
student attending our community college. He is slightly
under thirty I believe.
I find him very refreshing because he is so terribly ex-
cited over the possibility that he might be able to present
his paintings as a gift to the Tresident of the United States.
This has become 3 dream of his. Madjid is not a political
person at all. He plans to live here permanently as soon as
he can but he maintains pride and love for his homeland.
What I believe to be important here is the intent. Majie,
as he is called, wants to give these raintings to President
Reagan as a gesture of peace and good feelings. It is my
thinking that perhaps this is the sort of human interest
stories that the president likes.
There are some persons here in Ukiah that are arranging an
art exhibit for Majie in combination with a fund raiser so
he could be sent to Washington to give these paintings to
the president and Nancy.
I would appreciate it very much, Mike, if you feel this is
something that would appeal to the president, if you would
have someone pursue it. 1 know that quite frequently requests
of this type can easily be filed away unless someone is made
aware. Anything you can do would be appreciated. If you have
any questions or comments, please contact me.
Please greet the president and Nancy for myself and my husband
and do tell the president that we are very proud of him and
think he is doing a tremendous job despite the press and the
usual activists. History once again, as they did in Celifornia,
will record him as one of our more outstanding leaders. Just
tell him to hang in. Contrary to the media, no one supports
him except the people!
Thanks, Mike, and continued good happenings to you. Everytime
1 read that you are considering leaving Washington, I hope that
you will reconsider. The next two years will pass very ruickly.
Then you can come home to California
maybe.
Sincerely,
CC
marge
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 11, 1983
Dear Patti:
I very much appreciate your enthusiasm and support for the
President's State of the Union address. As you suggest,
signs that America is "on the mend" are growing.
Thanks also for your comments on Administration proposals
limiting the use of federal money for lobbying and other
forms of political advocacy. The Office of Management and
Budget and the principal agencies engaged in procurement,
including the Department of Defense, have proposed regulations
that are designed to ensure that federal tax dollars are not
used, directly or indirectly, for the support of political
advocacy. Although as an Administration, we appreciate and
rely on the political efforts of our supporters, we also feel
that it is important to make clear that political advocacy
is not to be conducted at the expense of the taxpayer. The
proposal you wrote about will be applied on an across-the-
board basis to contractors and grantees alike, to supporters
as well as critics of the Administration.
As you may know, the OMB-Defense proposals were submitted for
public comment. We have been hearing a wide variety of views
on the subject, and many suggestions have been well taken. We
intend to continue listening to persons offering comments on
the OMB-Defense proposal, and expect to come up with a set of
fair and balanced final regulations that protect the right of
persons to engage in political advocacy while at the same time
making sure that it is not financed with federal grant or
contract funds.
Thanks again for offering your kind words and letting us know
of your concerns.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
Mrs. Patricia M. Hawkins
United for Arizona
3003 North Central Ave., Suite 2000
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
TO:
Jan Wright
FROM:
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
Information
Action
Please I
Signature Per 14890
United
for
Octrizona
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
NORMAN P. McCLELLAND
Chairman, Board of Trustees
January 26, 1983
President
Shamrock Foods Company
Phoenix, Arizona
WILSON BARRETT
Vice Chairman of the Board
Valley National Bank of Arizona
Mr. Michael K. Deaver
Phoenix, Arizona
Assistant to the President &
JACK D. DAVIS
Senior Executive Vice President
Deputy Chief of Staff
United Bank of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
The White House
KATHRYN N. DUSENBERRY
Washington, D.C. 20500
Vice President
City Van and S:orage
Member, Pima County
Dear Mike:
Board of Supervisors
Tucson, Arizona
RALPH W. ELSNER
President Reagan's address last evening was,
Vice President
Motorola Inc.
by far, the best speech I've ever heard. It was
Scorisdale, Arizona
brilliant! Congratulations to all of you --
JAMES C. O'MALLEY
Chairman of the Board
it's truly what we need and America is definitely
The O'Malley Companies
Phoenix, Arizona
"on the mend"!
A. MILTON WHITING
Chairman and President
Kaibab Industries
On another subject, I've attached a recent
Phoenix, Arizona
clipping from The Wall Street Journal regarding
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
U.S. Funds for Lobbying. I am a bit concerned
P. MORDIGAN HAWKINS
Mike. As I read it, the definition of "federal
contractor" could reach into many businesses.
The complexity of administering this could
conceivably dry up many lobbying efforts and PACs.
Am I over-reacting? Please advise and let me know
)
who I can talk-to, if appropriate.
Many thanks.
Path Warm regards,
Patricia Mordigan Hawkins
(Mrs. Jasper S. Hawkins, Jr.)
Executive Director
PMH:jm
encl.
063hl
SUITE 2000
3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012
(602) 274-6624
Wall Street Journal, January 21, 1983
Curbs on Use of U.S. Funds for Lobbying
Planned for Businesses, Nonprofit Groups
Byo WALL STREET JOURNAL staff Reporter
induced the employees there to write their
WASHINGTON-The Reagan administra-
congressmen in support, say, of a missile
tion proposed new limits on the use of fed-
system or airplane made by the company.
eral money for lobbying, electioneering or
Also, the proposal would for the most
litigating.
part require contractors and grantees to
The administration asked for commeris
keep separate offices. computers, autos and
on the proposal, which would apply to non-
other such things for their lobbying or politi-
profit groups getting federal grants and also
cal operations. A company airplane used for
to businesses supplying goods or services to
administering a federal contract couldn't be
the Pentagon or other government agen-
used to fly company officials to Washington
cies.
to lobby, for example. Further, contractors
The proposed rules would prohibit the use
and grantees would have to use their own
of federal money by grantees and contrac-
money exclusively to pay dues to lobbying
tors for attempting to influence balloting at
associations.
any governmental level, for the administra-
In the nonprofit area, officials at the
tion of a political-action committee, for at-
White House Office of Management and
tempting to influence government decisions
Budget gave as an example a hypothetical
directly or through swaying public opinion,
group that had received a federal grant to
for participating in litigation on behalf of
promote better health services for the poor.
others, or for supporting trade associations
If the group then organized a political rally
or other groups that spend more than $100,-
to promote more federal funding for health
000 a year on political advocacy or that have
programs, it couldn't use for that purpose
political advocacy as "a substantial organi-
any duplicating machines, telephones, desks
zational purpose."
or other facilities paid for, even in part, by
the federal grant. "The organization would
The rules would prohibit grantees and
be free to hold the rally-but it would do so
contractors from using federal money for
at its own expense," an OMB official said.
paying any part of the salary of persons
While much stricter than present stan-
whose work includes political advocacy.
dards, the proposed new rules still contain
Thus, even a part-time lobbyist would have
some potential loopholes. Federal money
to be paid entirely from nonfederal funds.
could still be used, for example, to "provide
technical advice or assistance to a govern-
An even tougher provision would bar the
ment body." Under the technical-advice pro-
use of federal money for paying salaries of
vision, contractors might well supply
any employee whom the employer has "re-
friendly congressmen with self-promoting.
quired or induced" to engage in political ad-
federally financed aid, much as the Penta-
vocacy, even during nonworking hours. Un-
gon itself, which is also legally barred from
der this provision. a military contractor
lobbying. manages to keep platoons of "leg-
might risk losing the whole payroll for an
islative liaison" employees busy feeding in-
entire manufacturing facility if the business
formation to legislators.
19890
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 11, 1983
Dear Bob:
You're right. It was a delightful evening we shared at
the Second Inaugural Anniversary. I hope everyone
enjoyed the 'entertainment' as much as the entertainers.
Carolyn asked me to thank you for the booklet on whole
grains. She found it very interesting.
Thanks for your very supportive remarks.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
Mr. Robert D. Stuart, Jr.
The Quaker Oats Company
Merchandise Mart Plaza
Chicago, Illinois 60654
QUAKER
The Quaker Oats Company, Merchandise Mart Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60654
Chairman
(312) 222-7450
February 3, 1983
Mr. Michael K. Deaver
Deputy Chief of Staff and
Assistant to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Hank
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mike:
That was a very pleasant dinner party the
Deavers and the Michels hosted Tuesday evening.
Barbara and I especially enjoyed visiting with
you and Carolyn. The unrehearsed "Mike and Bob"
show was super and gave a warm touch to the whole
occasion.
Please tell Carolyn that I've found and scanned
the F-Plan Diet, which has been such a "hot
seller" in the U.K. And, of course, we believe
this approach is "right on," as you will see
from the little booklet on the value of whole
grains that I'm enclosing for Carolyn's interest.
I admire your dedicated service to the President,
at a whale of a financial sacrifice. Three cheers
for what you're doing! I hope our paths will
cross soon again.
Kind regards,
Bb
Robert D. Stuart, Jr.
RDSjr/lk
Enclosure
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 11, 1983
Dear Harvey:
I apologize for being SO late in sending you our
thanks for the Hickory Farms items. That's a gift
that the whole family is able to enjoy - and did!
Carolyn and I appreciate your generosity and
thoughtfulness.
Best personal regards,
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
Mr. Harvey Goldstein
10960 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 826
Los Angeles, California 90024
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 11, 1983
Dear Celestine and Jim:
I can't begin to tell you how much Carolyn
and I appreciated the lovely dinner you
gave in our honor last Friday. We enjoyed
our old friends and the wonderful new friends
we met that evening. It certainly ranked as
one of our most memorable evenings in Washington
or anyplace else.
Thank you again for your generosity and
thoughtfulness.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
Dr. and Mrs. James Cheek
8035 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20012
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 11, 1983
Dear Dr. Macomber:
Thank you SO much for the exceptional
tour of the Vatican Art Show. It was
spectacular, and we especially enjoyed
Margaret Frazier's expertise and guidance.
We look forward to seeing you in Washington
soon.
With best wishes.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
Dr. William B. Macomber, President
Metropolitan Museum of Art
5th Avenue at 82nd Street
New York, N.Y. 10028
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 11, 1983
Dear Fred:
Thanks for your thoughtfulness in sending
"Viewpoint". I intend to share this with
the staff.
With best wishes.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
Mr. Fred L. Dixon
Folger Nolan Fleming Douglas, Inc.
725 Fifteenth Street
Washington, D.C. 20005
FOLGER NOLAN FLEMING DOUGLAS
INCORPORATED
725 FIFTEENTH STREET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
FRED L. DIXON
February 7, 1983
Thank
Hon. Michael K. Deaver
Assistant to the President
and Deputy Chief of Staff
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mike:
This fine piece of research by our Senior
Vice President might be helpful in your thinking
on this problem.
We are delighted that you are here to help
lead us out of this complicated morass.
All good wishes to you in the coming year.
Sincerely
Fred
Fred L. Dixon
FLD:cc
Enclosure
FOLGER NOLAN
FLEMING DOUGLAS
INCORPORATED
VIEWPOINT
December 1982
Third World Debt
A Tangled Web of Finances and Politics
Even the most optimistic observers of the current domestic and global recession
warn that the expected economic- recovery could be seriously imperiled by an
international "financial accident". At a time when the abundance of dismal news
has become oppressive, the euphemism "financial accident" has gained wide
acceptance in the vernacular of economists and political analysts, perhaps because
it softens the sting of its true meaning. Stripped of its polite veneer, the term
refers to the potential for the repudiation or default of its debt by a sovereign
government, with all the attendant unpleasant consequences for the international
banking system. If such an event were to occur, however, it would not be an
accident at all, but rather the product of deliberate decisions undoubtedly more
heavily freighted with political considerations than with economic concerns.
In an international environment fraught with tensions engendered by the
breakdown of detente, a worldwide recession of unusual severity, and changing
leadership in major nations around the globe, it is hardly surprising that the
level of apprehension regarding mounting international financial strains and
delinquent loans has reached the level of near-hysteria. Consider the magnitude
of the problem:
1. The debt burden of developing countries (all countries except for the
major "industrial" or "oil-exporting" nations) has surged from about
$100 billion in 1973 to an estimated $640 billion this year. More than
half of this amount is owed to commercial banks in the West, and much
of that is short-term debt. The remainder is due to governments and
international lending agencies, such as the World Bank.
2. The debt service payments of developing countries have multiplied
severalfold over the same ten year period, and in some instances,
represent almost insurmountable drags on the debtor nations' financial
resources. Interest payments alone are expected to consume 45% of
Brazil's export earnings this year. Comparable figures are 44% for
Argentina and 37% for Mexico. Awesome as these percentages are, they
make no provision for repayment of principal.
3. As foreign debt problems have mushroomed, world bankers have become
increasingly wary of exposure to overseas loans. It is estimated that
the number of commercial banks willing to participate in loan
syndications to foreign countries may contract from more than 1,000
currently to about 100 within a year. Such a trend clearly will
increase risks for the major banks in the United States and abroad
which are deeply involved already, and may be forced to become more
so. The nine largest U.S. banks, for example, have loans outstanding
just to Mexico and Brazil which exceed their total capital.
4.
The developing countries contain three quarters of the world's popula-
tion. They are at once important suppliers of raw materials and
foodstuffs to the industrialized world, and a major import market for
manufactured goods. About one third of U.S. exports go to non-OPEC
developing countries, our largest single customer group.
The accumulation of debt by the so-called less developed countries (LDCs) is not
a new phenomenon. Such countries normally have relatively low incomes,
especially on a per capita basis, and for many years have required net inflows of
investment capital or loans from abroad to supplement their domestic savings in
order to support economic growth.
What is new, at least over the last decade, is the alarming rate of expansion of
LDC debt, and the increasing role of commercial banks in meeting the voracious
appetite of developing nations and Eastern bloc countries for foreign exchange.
This surge in overseas borrowing was triggered initially by the OPEC oil price
shock of late 1973, and the need to finance the resulting balance of payments
deficits of oil-importing nations. The problem was aggravated by the acceleration
of inflation worldwide in the wake of the leap in oil prices; by the second oil
price shock in 1979; and by the stagnating world economy since 1980. The global
recession not only sharply reduced LDC exports, but also caused a severe slump
in commodity prices. At the same time, interest rates soared, magnifying still
further the total need of LCDs for borrowed funds, in many instances simply to
pay the interest on previously outstanding loans.
It is clear with the benefit of hindsight that many developing nations borrowed
excessively during the years of rising inflation and negative or minimal real
interest rates; and by so doing, avoided making necessary economic policy
adjustments. On the other side, in the absence of strong private loan demand in
the industrialized nations, commercial banks became more aggressive in their
pursuit of LDC borrowers, and somewhat casual in their evaluation of credit
risks. The denouement of this unfortunate series of misjudgments has been
accelerated by such events as the war over the Falkland Islands, the plunge in
world oil prices, and the imposition of martial law in Poland, which pushed
beyond the brink the already precarious finances of Argentina, Mexico and
Poland, respectively.
With the inability of these countries to meet their current obligations well
publicized in recent months, the whole matter of Third World debt has been
propelled to almost daily prominence in the financial press, replete with dire
predictions and warnings of imminent disaster. The problem is indeed real,
enormous in scope, and extremely serious. It is not, however, insoluble.
In order to appreciate the nature of the risks involved in the inability of a
sovereign government to service its debt, it is useful to consider the major
options available to a debtor nation. These include:
1. Total repudiation of foreign debt. While perhaps tempting over the
short term, this is not a workable solution for a country that depends
on foreign trade and will continue to require capital inflows in the
future. Upon repudiation of its debt, a nation would risk the immediate
freezing of its assets abroad, would be cut off from any further access
to Western bank credit, and would be reduced to participating in world
trade only on a barter or cash basis.
2. Delay or curtailment of debt service. Such a measure at best would
buy time. It also would damage the debtor country's reputation,
however; and thus would increase the likelihood of more difficult
negotiations for future loans.
3.
Proposal to reschedule debt. This process normally extends the term
for repayment of principal of an outstanding loan, but imposes a strict
requirement that interest payments be kept current, often at higher
rates than under the previous loan agreement. Although considerably
less than ideal, rescheduling appears to be the preferred alternative of
the international banking system, as it prevents questionable loans from
deteriorating into "non-performing" or delinquent loans.
4.
Request for new loans. Borrowers unable to meet current debt service
and reluctant to reschedule can seek new loans to avoid default. When
granted, such loans often represent a case of "throwing good money
after bad", but are rationalized by banks as a means of allowing debtor
nations to keep interest payments current, and thus avoid the write-off
of outstanding loans that are unlikely ever to be repaid.
Regardless of which option a delinquent debtor chooses to pursue over the short
term, the root cause of the problem often remains, namely, the inability to
generate sufficient trade surpluses to cover foreign exchange needs. It is the
intractability of this problem that poses the major dilemma not only for Western
commercial bankers but also for their governments.
As a matter of self interest, banks will go to great lengths to avoid precipitating
defaults which could undermine their own capital and those of affiliates, and
potentially touch off a wave of bankruptcies. The same concern for self-preser-
vation, however, will cause major banks with heavy current exposure to LDC
loans to scrutinize future credit risks more carefully, to back away from
questionable new loans, and to impose conditions designed to force borrowers to
make economic policy adjustments necessary to restore their financial solvency
over the long term.
Creditor nations such as the United States recognize full well, however, that
imposing austerity programs on already poor LDCs will further slow their internal
growth, inevitably will increase the hardships borne by their populations, and
thus may magnify the risk of social unrest and political upheaval. Belt-tightening
by the developing nations may appear to be a sound solution to their excessive
debt in principle; but in practice, few have any notches left on their belts!
Thus, governments of creditor nations must assume a role - perhaps that of
lender of last resort - in the LDC loans of their banks, since to a large extent,
the international banking system has become an instrument of political policy in
addition to its function as financing intermediary. While major Western powers
understandably seek to protect themselves against the unprecedented strains
which threaten the stability of the international financial structure, they must
also beware of the potential for a disastrous self-fulfilling prophecy in the event
of precipitate action by one or another lender that upsets the currently fragile
balance between excessive credit to LDCs and excessive repression of their
economies.
In this regard, it is important to make a distinction between the developing
nations of Latin America, Asia and Africa, and the Eastern bloc nations such as
Poland. While political expediency dictates that the United States and our
Western allies must maintain credit policies toward the so-called "free" Third
World nations that will not drive them to social revolution and possible drift into
the Soviet orbit, we should not be so constrained in dealing with debt problems
of Eastern bloc countries. The effective default on Poland's debt was an
opportunity to hold the Soviet Union accountable for the financial needs of its
satellite states, and for the West to flex its economic muscle in response to the
Soviet's military muscle. The Soviets clearly could not have tolerated a Polish
default, since it would effectively have cut off credit to all Eastern bloc nations.
Regrettably, in the staredown that followed the imposition of martial law in Poland
and the de facto bankruptcy of the country, the West blinked first. What should
have been a foreign policy decision was subordinated to economic face-saving,
primarily under pressure from European bankers, and particularly from West
Germany, which alone had some $6 billion in Polish debt outstanding in addition to
substantial other Eastern bloc exposure. Although the fiction of solvency has
been restored by rescheduling, the quality of Polish debt has not improved, nor
is it likely to.
In forging solutions to the debt problems of other developing nations, it is clear
that the role of the International Monetary Fund must be expanded, not only in
negotiating terms and economic policy conditions for rescheduled and new loans,
but also in participating with commercial banks in extending funds to troubled
countries. The IMF's prompt action in dealing with the financial crises in both
Mexico and Argentina several months ago did much to restore confidence in the
severely shaken international banking community. Fortunately, the United States
and other important contributors to the IMF recently agreed to increase its
available funds by some $30 billion to enhance its ability to defuse potentially
dangerous problems, and to avoid international defaults and bankruptcies.
Independent of any herculean measures by Western powers to restore order to
LDC debt, and perhaps far more important, are changes occurring in world
economic conditions that augur well for a gradual improvement in the situation.
The pronounced softness in oil prices has reduced financial pressures on LDCs,
as has the sharp decline in interest rates. As the industrialized world recovers
from the present recession, demand for the primary commodities exported by
LDCs should increase, and their prices should firm. Greater internal disciplines
adopted by many developing nations either at their own initiative or at the urging
of IMF also should begin to bear fruit.
The world credit situation obviously remains deeply troubled. It would be
misleading to minimize its seriousness, but equally misguided to suggest that
disaster is unavoidable. The problem is extremely complex. All players have a
great deal at stake, and all accordingly are highly motivated to maintain stability.
The alternative is the threat of deepening world recession at best, and the risk
of financial panic at worst. Although the possibility of worldwide financial panic
clearly exists, the intimidating consequences of such a development are themselves
a source of some comfort, as they should serve as powerful deterrents against
intemperate actions by any government, whether debtor or creditor.
Lillian H. Blucher, C.F.A.
Capital Management Division
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 11, 1983
Dear Art:
I appreciate your sending Long Soar
the Eagle. I found it extremely in-
teresting and thank you for your thought-
fulness.
With best wishes.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
Mr. Arthur B. Laffer
608 Silver Spur Road
Suite 229
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
Arthur B. Laffer
January 31, 1983
Mr. Michael Deaver
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mike:
I've gotten a lot of response, both plus and
minus on this piece. I thought you might find it
of interest.
Hope to see you soon.
Best wishes,
and
Arthur B. Laffer
Charles B. Thornton Professor
of Business Economics
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ABL:sj
nclosure
Long Soar the Eagle
Thunks
Ref. #125U
A.B. Laffer Associates
Political Economy
LONG SOAR THE EAGLE
by Arthur B. Laffer
The characteristic vision of America is one of strength, power and indepen-
dence so aptly represented by an enormous bald eagle confidently navigating
the atmospheric currents amongst rugged mountains. America, however, is
not what it once was. Over the past several decades, the precipitous decline
in the economic and social well-being has found few parallels in the historic
annals, save for those instances wrought by pestilence or war. The trail of
despair and despondency has attracted numerous economic crackpots self-
draped in academic garb proposing one preposterous solution after another.
Each solution envisages more government involvement.
In industry after industry-education, highway repair and maintenance, the
postal service, the Social Security system, etc.-pervasive effects of govern-
mental incursions have so weakened the system's ability to respond to incen-
tives that performance levels have deteriorated to their current abysmal
levels. The past 15 years have amply demonstrated the inability of demand-
side economics to cure our nation's ills. The answer is not to increase the size
of government and the power of its representatives but to restore the
decision-making responsibility to the people.
The electorate is far more capable of making tough decisions than is any
group of mere mortal politicians. When given the option of making meaning-
ful decisions, the electorate does it well. Initiatives and propositions in
California and elsewhere have elicited strong voter responses and have led to
mature and well-reasoned decisions. The principal benefit of direct referen-
dums, however, is taking power away from a relatively poorly performing
representative system. People feel, and rightfully so, that their actions have
no effect on the path of the nation. With the extension of the referendum or
proposition mechanism to the federal level, the political deterioration
quickly would be reversed. At the will of the electorate, direct democracy
would supplant a faltering, overburdened system of representative democracy.
If, however, more direct representation does not evolve, I fear that an elitist,
non-democratic form of government will emerge. The choice is ours.
December 22, 1982
608 Silver Spur Road, Suite 229, Rolling Hills Estates, Ca. 90274 (213) 541-5311
A.B. Laffer Associates
LONG SOAR THE EAGLE
LONG SOAR THE EAGLE
An accomplished vizier would be hard-pressed to conjure up an image of America so
enfeebled as to be pitiable. The characteristic vision is one of strength, power and inde-
pendence so aptly represented by an enormous bald eagle confidently navigating the
atmospheric currents amongst rugged mountains. And yet, in mere moments that same
eagle, condemned to earth by a broken wing resulting from the hapless act of a demented
hunter, can tap deep feelings of pity.
America's Decline
America is not what it once was. Over the past several decades, the precipitous decline in
the economic and social well-being has found few parallels in the historic annals, save for
those instances wrought by pestilence or war. However measured, the indicators are strik-
ingly uniform in their depiction of descent.
The decline in the real value of equities since 1966 parallels an erratic but relentless deteriora-
tion in the state of the U.S. economy. The housing industry, if not at an all-time low, has sunk
to depths matched only by the steel, farm equipment and auto industries. On a less transitory
plane, the educational skills of our student population have drifted south over the past two
decades with a slight uptick this year. The most recent SAT scores by graduating high school
students have the dubious distinction of being the second worst on record-last year's figures
were the worst. Our highways, bridges, railroad crossings, dams and other infrastructure are
reputed to be in atrocious disrepair. It would seem that rapid advances in computer technology
were needed if for no other reason than to count the number of potholes in New York City's
streets. All things considered, 1982 had a great deal to be modest about.
The trail of despair and despondency has attracted numerous economic crackpots self-
draped in academic garb proposing one preposterous solution after another. Each solution
envisages more government involvement in the sickest sectors of the economy. Because
education has fallen so far so fast, the government, they argue, should step in with a huge
reeducation effort. Not mentioned is the simple issue of how government should do this.
Over the past decades, government has become more and more involved in education just
as the performance of students has fallen. Perhaps the association is not spurious. If
government retreated somewhat from the education arena, perhaps the relationship
would continue to hold and SAT scores would rebound.
Likewise, there is no group more involved than government in maintaining, repairing and
constructing our nation's highways, bridges and railroad trestles. As of late, government
has delivered something less than a sterling performance. Even in sectors of the economy
seemingly dominated by private firms, there is more the illusion of private action than
there is the reality. With regulations, restrictions and taxation expanding the way they
have over the last 16 years, what used to be primarily private companies have now
become so constrained that their actions are more analogous to the U.S. Postal Service
than to private entrepreneurs.
In industry after industry, the pervasive effects of governmental incursions have so weakened
the system's ability to respond to incentives that performance levels have deteriorated to their
current abysmal levels. Surely, the solution to the advanced state of depredation of our
nation's capacity to deliver is not more of just those policies that brought us down. Those
-1-
A.B. Laffer Associates
LONG SOAR THE EAGLE
who advocate, in their desperation, more government to solve the problems of our society
are demonstrably wrong using the test of history. The solution rests in less-not
more-government.
And yet, the knowledge of past failures has done little to alter the path taken by the
nation. It would seem upon cursory inspection that the very system of goverance is so
cumbersome as to preclude meaningful change. Closer scrutiny does nothing to modify
cursory inspection.
The Failure of Demand-Side Economics
The past 15 years have amply demonstrated the inability of demand-side economics to
cure our nation's ills. Ever since Lyndon Johnson pushed his 10 percent income tax sur-
charge on the American taxpayer, the path taken by the U.S. economy has been downhill.
In almost classic proportions, Richard Nixon instituted demand-side remedies to the
nation's combined problems of slow growth and high inflation. Government spending and
federal deficits were both increased to stimulate domestic demand for domestic products.
Money growth was accelerated to provide the liquid wherewithal to lubricate the more
rapid pace of commerce. And the dollar was debased time and again to render American
goods more competitive vis-a-vis their foreign counterparts.
These stimulative policies, in and of themselves, were believed to carry sufficient force to
right the production side of the economy. But they were thought to be inflationary as
well. As such, wage and price controls were imposed on a nation that traditionally relied
on private market contracts. The intentions were explicit. Unemployment and production
deficiencies were to be rectified by monetary, fiscal and exchange rate policies while refla-
tion was to be avoided by incomes policies. A more nearly textbook-perfect example of
demand-side economics would have been hard to come by.
The results came as a terrible shock to a nation imbued in the incantations and dogma of
leading academic institutions. Output growth from 1969 to 1975 was at or about a 2.5 per-
cent annual rate. Unemployment went from a respectable 3.5 percent level to one in the
range of 8 percent at the same time the federal deficit rotated from surplus to horrendous
deficit. In spite of the depressed economic conditions and an extreme application of harsh
wage and price controls, inflation accelerated.
No lesson was learned, however; Presidents Ford and Carter followed much the same course.
Throughout, the leaders of both political parties have been creative at finding sources of
the nation's problems other than their own limitations. President Carter even went so far
as to blame the American people for the nation's then inflationary ills. People, he noted,
had consumed beyond their means. Americans were not sufficiently self-restrained. By
way of example, he stated that Americans were importing more energy each and every
day. They also were frenetically bidding up the prices of everything from speculative
sojourns into gold, silver and houses right down to necessities such as rent and food.
People were the problem and austerity was the supposed answer.
On November 4, 1980, the people disagreed with Carter. They elected a President who based
his campaign on the idea that the answer to the nation's ills could be found in the American
people's inherent industriousness and desire for a higher standard of living. What was
-2-
A.B. Laffer Associates
LONG SOAR THE EAGLE
required was removing the roadblocks of oppressively high tax rates, uncertainty over the
value of the dollar and government intrusions into every sector of American life through
regulation.
The Problem
In spite of the President's efforts and some early successes, however, the Reagan Admin-
istration through 1982 has followed much the same course as had its predecessors. And
once again, we hear leaders of both parties blaming the American public for much of
today's problems. Retreat is demanded on virtually every issue that the public supported
in the 1980 elections. Taxes must be raised, not lowered. Government incursions into the
private sector must be increased to fight unemployment, and improving the nation's
defense must be deferred. Throughout, there is a presumption that the electorate has
failed to recognize the reality of a difficult decision based on a series of unpleasant choices.
At one point, Congress was being pushed into a "lame duck" session in hopes that it
would deal with the arcane malfunctions of our Social Security system. The idea of opting
for a lame duck session of Congress as opposed to a pre-election session is literally to
remove the issue from a highly politicized atmosphere. The electorate's feelings, so the
logic proceeds, would entice our representatives to do what is politically expedient and not
what is in the public weal.
In this instance, and for whatever reason, the electorate is seen standing as a direct hindrance
to good public policy. Political pressures, some say, make for bad policies. In reality, the elec-
torate is far more capable of making tough decisions than is any group of mortal politicians.
Other contra-representative democratic evidence has been appearing all across the nation.
Year in and year out, the monies expended to be elected to public office have grown out of
control. There seems to be no limit to the amount people are willing to spend.
In one California state legislature race, each of the major party's candidates spent more
than $1 million to obtain a job that pays less than $25,000 annually. Quite clearly, the
race between Tom Hayden and Bill Hawkins was an ostentatious exception. Nonetheless,
the frenetic goemetric growth in funding required to lose, let alone win, national office is
mind-boggling. Never before has so much been put out to get so little.
The necessity of raising massive war chests is sufficient reason to question the objectivity
of any politician, once elected. Whether his or her actions are seen as repayment for or in
anticipation of political contributions, it is beyond the scope of the imagination for these
"public servants" to avoid the appearance and reality of influence peddling.
Ironically, huge sums of money are raised to finance expensive media advertising campaigns
to profess one candidate's independence from influence peddling or to point fingers at others.
Clearly, the underpinnings of representative democracy are showing signs of major strain if
not outright failure.
Teems of Assistants
One look at a Congressman's or Senator's office dispels any harbored illusions that the
elected official is the person representing us. Teems of staff aides, assistants and supposed
-3-
A.B. Laffer Associates
LONG SOAR THE EAGLE
experts can be seen milling around. At the first hint of inadequacy, the politician proceeds to
relate how many people work for him in his district offices and in the committees to which he
is assigned.
The system is weighted down by its own encumbrances and the natural limitations of a single
human being. In 1978, the tax bill passed by the House and Senate and signed by the Presi-
dent was 1,500 pages long. And that was just the final tax bill and does not include all
versions that failed to pass. Imagine the other fields from which masses of legislation are
heaped upon our trusted public officials. A politician's span of expertise must literally be
encyclopedic-which it isn't. What with all the social and political functions politicians have to
attend and the routine visits from constituents, politicians barely have enough time to skim a
newspaper. The true decision makers are to be found in the milling throngs replete in the
politician's office. How they make decisions is anyone's guess, but it is highly unlikely that
devotion to the electorate is their driving force.
Our system of government is functioning less and less well as time goes on. The prospects
for a reversal of these trends are remote at best. It would seem that as more and more falls
under the purview of government, the present political system will be less and less sensitive
to the general wishes of the electorate.
It is hardly likely that politicians and their retainers will voluntarily relinquish the power
to dominate issues even if their own capabilities become widely recognized as inadequate.
Given the power dynamic inherent in political seats ranging from the local courthouse to
Washington, D.C., the more likely response will be for incapable politicians to obfuscate
issues, policies and general procedures. And above all, every politician's repertoire must
include the ability to accept and mediate opposing opinions of issues-a la compromise.
The concept of compromise brings to mind two antagonists, irrationally stubborn, amicably
settling the issue through mutual concessions. No reasonable person, surely, could ever argue
against such a notion. Unfortunately, in today's political arena, compromise occurs without
the advice and consent of those most affected by the compromise-the electorate. Politicians
conspire amongst themselves, each vying for power under the guise of compromise. Through
such modus operandi, the "will of the majority" is legislated. In this context, compromise
is more properly likened to conspiracy amongst politicians against those whom they are
commissioned to serve.
Innumerable cases of conspiracies to compromise can be chronicled. One such example is
the progressive income tax which directly discriminates against achievement-oriented
poor and middle class workers. Another was Reagan's pursuit of the $99 billion tax
increase package last summer. The electorate, through its selection of Reagan, over-
whelmingly ratified tax cuts. The illegitimate delays in their implementation and the
further betrayal by passage of tax increases have resulted in, if not caused, 1982's abysmal
performance and record unemployment. Any further weakening will only add to the
overall state of national despair.
This nation, founded upon a noble heritage of self-determination, is crumbling beneath
the weight of firmly ensconced politicians and administrators. Laws have become an
obfuscated mass of legal mumbo jumbo with an aura and mystique of complexity beyond
the comprehension of ordinary people. The necessity of experts to interpret that which is
-4-
A.B. Laffer Associates
LONG SOAR THE EAGLE
incomprehensible is the source of much power. If something is not done, the process will
deteriorate to an elitist form of government almost totally removed from the electorate.
Even now there are calls for a single six-year term for Presidents so they can do what
"should" be done without being too political. The correct answer, however, does not lie in
this direction.
The Answer
The answer more correctly would be to reintroduce direct democratic procedures. The
electorate, when given the option of making meaningful decisions, does it well. Initiatives
and propositions in California and elsewhere elicit strong voter responses and lead to
mature and well-reasoned decisions. The principal benefit of direct referendums, how-
ever, is taking power away from a relatively poorly performing representative system.
Proposition 13, passed in June 1978, showed just how far removed Sacramento was from the
electorate. Only recently, the landslide removal of the state's inheritance tax reconfirms how
far out of touch the political process remains from the desires of the electorate.
Compassion and wisdom also were reflected in the state's recent vote to commit $85 million
to the purchase and preservation of land in the Lake Tahoe area. This act effectively compen-
sates Lake Tahoe landowners for the loss in the value of their properties due to much needed
additional environmental restrictions. Whatever its flaws, the existence of direct referendums
has made California a far better state. Extending this process to the federal level would have
even more profound benefits.
Disenchantment with the political process has never been greater. Politicians, laws and the
overall impact of government on the lives of private citizens are viewed with a jaundiced eye.
People feel, and rightfully so, that their actions have no effect on the path of the nation.
With the extension of the referendum or proposition options to the federal level, the
political deterioration would be quickly reversed. At any time, the electorate could seize
power by putting an issue to a vote of the people. Direct democracy then would supplant a
faltering, overburdened system of representative democracy.
If, however, more direct representation does not evolve, I fear that an elitist non-democratic
form of government will emerge. Not as a result of some cataclysmic encounter between rich
and poor or black and white but rather, the elitist regime will emerge in response to our
current failures. If there is one lesson history repeats, it is the lesson that inefficient systems
ultimately falter under their own weight and, in their stead, new regimes emerge. The choice
is ours. Do we, as we enter the era of pity, wish to heal the eagle's wing or mercifully put it
out of its misery?
-5-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 11, 1983
Dear Tom:
Thanks for your letter. It was certainly
my pleasure to meet with you. It was a
nice break from a gruelling day.
Thanks for your invitation to attend a
hockey game. We'd love to if our schedule
will allow it. I'll be in touch when we
have something a little more definite.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
Mr. Thomas A. Micheletti
Southern California Edison Company
Suite 303
1111 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Southern California Edison Company
SCE
SUITE 303
1111 NINETEENTH STREET, N.W.
THOMAS A. MICHELETTI
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
VICE PRESIDENT- WASHINGTON REGION
TELEPHONE
(202) 298-7050
February 8, 1983
Dear Mr. Deaver:
Just a short note to thank you so much
for taking time from your busy schedule to
see us last week.
I will give your office a call in a week
or so to see when and if you and your children
are interested in seeing a professional hockey
game.
For your convenience, I am enclosing a
schedule for the Capitals' games. It appears
as though the month of March may be our best
bet, with March 2 being a prime date given the
presence of Wayne Gretzky. I will look forward
to hearing from you on this.
Again, many thanks, and I hope to see you
soon.
Sincerely,
Tom
The Honorable Michael K. Deaver
Deputy Chief of Staff and
Assistant to the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 11, 1983
Dear Bill:
Thanks for your input about Woody Mefford.
He has been interviewed by all the proper
parties, and is still being considered
along with several other top contenders.
I appreciate your recommendation.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
The Honorable Bill Gradison
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
BCC Pensonnell
BILL GRADISON
2311 RAYBURN House OFFICE BUTLDING
SND DISTRICT. OHIO
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
TELEPHONE: (202) 225-3164
MARGARET TOTTEN
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
Congress of the United States
FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING
550 MAIN STREET
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202
House of Representatives
TELEPHONE: (513) 684-2456
190 EAST MAIN STREET
Washington, D.C. 20515
BATAVIA, OHIO 45103
TELEPHONE: (513) 732-1786
February 7, 1983
Mr. Michael K. Deaver
Deputy Chief of Staff and
Assistant to the President
Thank
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mike:
I am writing to recommend most highly THOMAS FLEETWOOD
("Woody") MEFFORD to the position of Deputy Chief of Protocol.
As you know, Woody has all of the qualities necessary
for this demanding position. His experience as a part-time
advance man for the President has shown that he is very well
organized and can put together complex social, political and
media events smoothly. His pleasant personality is a great
asset in what can be trying situations.
Woody is a well respected attorney from my district.
He has generously shared his time to be a ward chairman
during several of my Congressional campaigns. I admire his
thoroughness and efficiency and I greatly appreciate his
willingness to help out when I call him.
Based on Woody Mefford's background as an attorney and
loyal Republican and his experience as an advance man for
the President, I am pleased to lend my strongest support to
his position as Deputy Chief of Protocol.
Sincerely,
Bur
Bill Gradison
Representative in Congress
Second District of Ohio
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 11, 1983
Dear Brown:
Your kind complimentary letter was a bright
spot in my day. I hope everyone had as much
fun listening as I did playing.
The evening of the Second Inaugural Anniversary
was one of the nicest we have had since we've
been here.
Thanks again for your thoughtfulness.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
Mr. E. Brown Pinkston
Vice President
Government Relations
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation
1000 Wilson Blvd., Suite 2701
Arlington, VA 22209
CHA
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation
1000 Wilson Blvd., Suite 2701
Arlington, Va 22209
Telephone: (703) 276-9500
E. Brown Pinkston
Vice President
Government Relations
February 4, 1983
Thank
The Honorable Michael K. Deaver
Assistant to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear Mike:
Please sign me up as a Charter Member of the Mike
Deaver Fan Club! When the word gets around about
your sterling performance on February 1st, the
Third Inaugural Anniversary will have to be booked
in Kennedy Center.
It was a delightful occasion, with the warm
atmosphere, good food, and friendly greetings -
topped by the dynamic duo, Mike Deaver/Bob Michel.
All of our dinner companions seemed to enjoy them-
selves just as much as Selina and I did.
Thanks again for making the Boss' Second
Anniversary a memorable occasion for many of us.
Sincerely,
Brown
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 11, 1983
Dear Mr. Sher:
Thanks for sending along Yankovich's news-
clipping from the San Francisco Examiner
and your Terranomics paper.
I have taken the liberty of forwarding a
copy of this information to Craig Fuller,
Cabinet Secretary, for his information.
Thanks for your thoughtfulness.
Sincerely,
mine
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
Assistant to the President
Deputy Chief of Staff
Mr. Merritt Sher
50 California Street
Suite 1235
San Francisco, CA 94111
aug + cgto Craig Fullu
From the desk of:
L
JOHN LOFTON
Date: 2.13.83
Dear Mike:
May I interview
you on-the- - record,
please?
Best regards,
Joln
636-3158
no thanks.
wike
2.22
The Washington Times
3600 New York Ave. N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: 202-636-3000