← 037-028037-030 →

Conversation 037-029

TapeTape 37StartFriday, March 2, 1973 at 9:31 AMEndFriday, March 2, 1973 at 9:38 AMParticipantsNixon, Richard M. (President);  Cole, Kenneth R., Jr.Recording deviceWhite House Telephone
AI Summary

President Nixon and Kenneth R. Cole, Jr. discuss strategies for addressing partisan opposition from state governors regarding special revenue sharing and potential press messaging. They evaluate the likelihood of Congress overriding presidential vetoes on various spending bills, including rural water, sewer grants, and vocational rehabilitation legislation. Nixon acknowledges the political difficulty in blocking popular spending programs while focusing on identifying bills where the administration can successfully sustain a veto, such as the Rural Electrification Administration bill.

Revenue sharingVeto powerCongressional relationsGovernment spendingPartisanship
AudioNARA Description

On March 2, 1973, President Richard M. Nixon and Kenneth R. Cole, Jr. talked on the telephone from 9:31 am to 9:38 am. The White House Telephone taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 037-029 of the White House Tapes.

Nixon Library Finding Aid
Conversation No. 37-29

Date: March 2, 1973
Time: 9:31 am-9:38 am
Location: White House Telephone

The President talked with Kenneth R. Cole, Jr.

[See Conversation No. 414-12]

       Revenue sharing
             -President’s conversation with Patrick J. Buchanan
                     -Press conference question
             -Governors' opposition
                     -Special revenue sharing
                     -Partisanship
                     -Details
             -Prospect for success
                     -Optimism
                     -Timing
                     -Funding to cities and states
                             -Increase
             -Governors' opposition
                     -Partnership
                     -Taxes
                     -Milton J. Shapp
                     -State losses in revenues
                                              - 20 -

                            NIXON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY

                                         (rev. Sept-09)

       Veto of Rural Water and Sewer Bill
              -Mandatory spending
              -Switch in votes
                     -Congressional override
              -Constituency's influence

       Other vetoes
              -Vocational Rehabilitation
                     -Effect on budget
                     -Pocket veto
                     -Senate vote count
              -Veterans legislation
                     -John D. Ehrlichman
              -Rural Electrification Administration [REA]
              -Rural Water and Sewer Bill
Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

Yes, sir.
I was asked by Buchanan if we ought to respond in case we get something with regard to the story on the governors that 30 out of the 50 oppose special revenue sharing.
First, is that an accurate thing?
And second, how do you want to comment it?
Mr. President, that is an accurate statement.
The 31 that oppose... Partisan lines, pretty much.
It's straight partisan lines.
The 31 opposed are the Democrats.
The Democrats said that they opposed it until they got specific details as to how much money would be coming into their state under...
your new plans, and they are really waiting to make a firm statement of where they are until they see those dollar figures, which we are in the process of working up now.
What is your view, then?
Can we say that we still expect to get...
Yes, sir.
I think we have to say that we are optimistic that over the course of the year that we will achieve the special revenue sharing bills that we're going to continue.
Under both special revenue sharing and general revenue sharing, the states and cities actually get more than they have previously, haven't they?
Yes, sir.
That will work out that way.
I think we should say that... How much more could you say?
Any percentage figure or anything like that?
I would have to get a number for you, Mr. President.
Don't get me a number.
Don't do it.
Don't do it.
I think we should say that the governors, as we will continue to be working with the governors, and we believe over the course of the year that the governors will still be supportive of the plans.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Democrats have a problem in that they have got to be partisan in this regard.
They are concerned about money.
What it all boils down to is the money.
Most of them came up to me and said, look, we can't take you on on this.
We're going to have to a little bit because we've got to know what the dollars are.
As soon as you tell us what the dollars are, as long as it doesn't appear that we're going to have to raise our taxes...
probably going to be able to be with you now some of them like shapp oh sure he's totally against this i mean he's totally against it i understand that uh in principle as well as on a political basis he's against it he wants it done from washington he sure does and uh but but the others mostly would be for it if they thought or if they knew for sure that you weren't able to have to raise taxes you weren't able to reassure them enough on the well when they were here apparently you know
We were not able to give them state-by-state breakdowns on the dollars, and that's because the final touches haven't been put on the legislation until the formal review.
I can say that when they do see that, they will see that they will get, frankly, more dollars in the next budget than they had in this budget.
Is that correct?
I would say, Mr. President, that you could say that they will not be, in the aggregate, combining general revenue sharing and special revenue sharing, losing any money.
Was that going to satisfy them?
Not really.
I hate to see you get out on a limb, because some states may lose some money.
Some may lose some.
They're not going to lose as much as they think they're going to lose, but they may be down in the aggregate, per state, maybe $2 million, $3 million.
It depends on the state, and it depends on the formulas.
And unfortunately, we're just not at a stage where we have specific answers yet, but we will be there in probably another week or so.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay.
Let's see if I have anything else here.
What about the votes up there in the House yesterday, the vote in the House?
That was on rural water and sewer grants.
There is a mandatory spending provision in that bill that says that you have to spend that money.
Let me say, does that mean that we'll get overridden on that, where the size of that boat was very substantial?
With a substantial vote, my best guess is that you probably will get overridden.
There may be a chance for these guys to go both ways.
In other words, they can, on the one hand, vote for the bill and send it down here, and on the other, with a lot of hard work, they can vote to beat back inflation.
We weren't able to get...
able to get that many votes marshaled on it.
No, sir.
They just have to do these things for their districts, they feel.
They've got to show that they're going to pump that little bunch into their districts.
Is this an indication of what the...
I understand that.
And the rural thing is harder, but is this an indication of what they will do on the other spending things?
I think on the voc rehab bill and the other spending bills, the votes are going to be very lopsided in favor of the legislation.
Yeah.
Well, the...
That is a bill that is about $800 million over your budget and it is a bill that you pocket vetoed last year.
It provides for increased spending for people who are physically handicapped.
We vetoed it primarily on the grounds that it was way over budget and it would be inflationary
It would raise hopes, false hopes, on the parts of people who expected to be benefited, but there wasn't money to pay for the programs.
Right.
But that'll probably be overridden, too, won't it?
I think so, sir, yes.
But we don't have any vote counts yet on that.
But it passed, I think, the Senate 78 to 2.
And like the veterans things, I've told Ehrlichman, it's just stupid to translate those.
No way, no way you can beat those.
You know, you've got to pick a few that you can win, but you can't beat those.
Well, that's for sure.
I think the best ones to win, and unfortunately, I hope they're going to get down here first, but the Congress is smart.
They are holding back on the REA bill.
They know that.
Because they know that a veto on that will be sustained.
Right.
And so they are trying to give you something that they can beat you on as one of the first bills, and it looks as if...
Water and sewer is a good candidate, and, of course, the vocational rehabilitation bill is a good candidate, too.
All right.
Thank you, sir.
← 037-028037-030 →