Conversation 066-002

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

regressiv, regressiv, regressiv, or non-stimulating tax and the income tax, but I don't know.

But if you, because if you thought about the deal, of course, the great states have sales taxes, they have sales taxes, well, you can't even pay a loan.

There's a specific tax on a particular product.

Right.

There's a product out among all the others that makes it basic.

But you had a council study this morning.

No, I just heard this morning about the problem.

You can just do it, John, and the rest is different.

The tax fee, I'd just like to know, is one of our options, because cars affects a hell of a lot more than mission does.

That's Ohio, considerably, and it affects California.

People who make steel, people who make all kinds of electronics.

Okay.

This is the present 71 situation.

Here is neutral 72 at a 5.5 national rate.

Now let's take a look at the more... Before you do, you notice that even with the improvement in national rate, you have an aggravation in local rate.

in some areas, in some key states.

Texas, for instance.

And this just exemplifies the fact that even though you get a national picture, you've got to focus down on the local picture in each case to know really what the issue is.

Well, yeah, on the other hand, it also shows another opportunity.

It shows, interestingly enough, that Pennsylvania...

New Jersey, look down across there, including New York, which of course is over the background, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and New Jersey.

That's a pretty good block through there.

Correct.

The South is pretty good, generally much better than average.

Why in the hell is it Louisiana?

What's the reason for that, John?

I don't know.

I'm not serious.

Louisiana's aerospace, of course, is big there.

Yeah.

Despite the 4.5, that's pretty good.

And also, Texas is not basically a pessimistic state.

It's more of an optimistic state.

They'll figure out how we can do it.

California, though, is frankly very close.

The most optimistic forecast is California at 6.5 or 7.0.

That's 5.5.

It would be interesting to see what they say right now in the situation, because I think you can make out a pretty reasonable argument.

Potential unemployment is somewhere near 5.5% right at this moment.

I'm just reading this 5.6%.

That's about it.

I understand you're wrong.

Now, let me suggest one thing again that's not reflected on here, Mr. President.

If you take Texas and Mexico or Arizona and California, a high percentage of the unemployed, I'm sure, in those areas are Mexicans.

And then I'm going to call you if you have zero unemployment.

I think only 20% of the population of Texas, I believe, has a disability.

And a lot of California is black.

The main thing there, though, is to get some hope.

What I'm getting at is just taking California as an example.

California may just come down to the proposition of...

doing some things that give the people out there a feeling that, well, at least they're going to make it.

Matter of fact, John, from my reports, I understand that people in the state of Washington, from my brother who lives out there, says a lot of these guys are aerospace workers driving cabs and taking everybody to Washington off each other for whatever they do.

They're still living there, and they're still a little upbeat.

Are they, or anything?

Well, I think that was true a while back.

I talked to Dan about it yesterday.

And he does.

It's turning bad right now.

And we've got some problems there that he's coming in Monday.

We're going to see if we can help them.

It's turning bad because they lost the SFC.

Well, they're just beginning to lose hope.

A lot of people are running out of unemployment compensation.

And it's tough.

What can we do?

Well, there are a few things we can do.

Emergency employment?

Yes, that will help.

That will help, although we didn't go too heavy in there.

But he wants some highway plans and stuff, and we'll take a look at it and see if we can do it.

But it may be, it may be just him, John.

It just may be his priority to get behind.

That's right.

I was thinking about a fairly low priority on public service employment stuff, but on the formula they came out pretty good.

How about extending the unemployment compensation program?

Well, I don't know.

I think they've had their extension.

They optioned their extension.

No, I think that's true, but I mean for that component.

This may be one aspect that is high on employment barriers.

Okay, go ahead.

Okay, let's take a look at the 4.5% national rate.

This is a more optimistic forecast, as you heard this morning, as to what national, as to getting down to the 4.5% national rate.

You still see, even with the 4.5% national rate, you still have California at 5.5% and New Jersey at 5.1%.

Your other two states are in very good shape over the 4.5% rate.

Is that correct?

Even in California, though, the implication of that would be, between now and the election, California goes from 6.9 to 5.5.

Boy, that's going to be crazy.

Hey, hey, you've got to make it.

It's the right, certainly the right direction.

You talk about Washington State, 9-4.

So 9-4.

At an optimistic level.

That's good.

So why come in town?

No matter what, that's the rest of the country.

Why can't, they've got to move on with theirs.

That's right.

And they won't move.

The livings are too nice.

Let me come back again and go back to your other chart.

Why is it Oregon?

It's 4.8 here, and it's higher on the other chart.

Somebody, you've got the charts next to it or something.

No, on the 5.5, I'm looking at Oregon.

What's this chart?

6.4.

Okay.

We got a 4.8.

But the...

Why does the state go up when your national average goes down?

As people move on Washington D.A., the emergency service people know something about a big industry in a state with a large population like Idaho.

You see, take New Jersey.

New Jersey is another one that I watched.

In New Jersey you've got 5.5 which shows that it's in the yellow.

On this one, right?

And what is it on the next one?

It's 5.3 here, 5.1, 5.1 here.

It doesn't drop.

What's the problem in New Jersey?

They're Newark?

Yeah, Newark, Elizabeth.

Newark, Jersey City.

It's a hell of a lot of unemployment.

It's black.

It's not very black, sadly.

And that's the problem in New York.

Yeah.

And what happens in New York?

It's 4.5.

It drops to 4.1.

It's unbelievable.

4.4?

No, 4.4.

I think this does.

George, when you said at 4.0 that the present number is 5.6, which I understand it was, well, let's assume it's 5.8.

It would seem to me that we are looking at our projections in this economy, and unless we're absolutely crazy, we're not looking at 5.5 in the middle of 72, are we?

We're sure going to do a little better than that, or we better all just take off.

In other words, you...

Let's suppose the present number, instead of being 5.6, is 5.8

5.5 projection would indicate that we're going to make no progress, basically, on the employment front between now and a year from now.

You don't agree with that?

I don't agree with that.

But some think that.

Some think that.

Okay.

And they think, in the context of an expanding economy, but an economy not expanding fast enough, cutting is an unused capacity.

I get it.

In fact, the labor force is going to have this as a point of call.

He's making two actions.

I know that to make Kenway, you have to get a good, you know, you gotta get going sharp.

That's where the guessing will come in.

Now, tell me this, do us a little bit by November of this year, we would have a pretty good fix on, let's see, this is now July, right?

November the 15th, we have a pretty good fix on what we think is going to happen.

I'm taking it to the point of no return as far as stealing something from the government.

I think you could have a pretty good reading, but I would say it's a little or a lot of hard work.

You'll have another quarter of data.

Another third quarter of data.

What do you think, John?

A third quarter?

You've thought that before, haven't you, that we could waste it after the third quarter, right?

It's not a young sentence.

Thank you.

I don't know that you may do some things now and then redo them next year, but I don't know anything you can do now, but at least a module that will hold and be viewed in a favorable light in November of 72, that's the problem.

Going back to the discussion this morning, if you took all of the things that you...

I think that would have an impact on...

Yes, yes.

Just wait just a second on this.

We're talking about taxes tomorrow.

Right.

As a matter of fact, taxes... You know, he's going to talk about it when we're done with me.

Sure.

What I was going to say is this.

That assumes, George, that if you say you can do certain things, that we do these things, that assumes that you still want to plan a hell of a big deficit.

I'm thinking in other terms.

I was not just thinking of a full employment budget.

I was thinking in terms of a budget balanced by conventional terms.

If that's the case, you could do all those things.

You've still got to group the company taxes in.

That would be true, I think.

On the other hand, you have a problem with the implications of that for the economy.

In other words, that could be depressing for the economy.

According to the risk of the left-hand target.

So in other words, what we are talking about, and I know this is going to get, what I think we are talking about here is a very substantial cut in spending.

We transferred the money to taxes, but still coming up with an unbalanced budget in conventional terms for 73.

Correct.

Unfortunately, because we have to, you know, these have to go low, and as a result of that, we're sort of electrifying and stimulating, and the economy really...

I think the tax cut in the administration was the greatest thing they ever did.

We should have done it.

Right?

Yes, that is, I think, the best thing they ever did.

That's right.

It's hard to imagine what confidence means, but if confidence suddenly surges, what a tremendous amount of confidence.

The next problem area we're just going to touch on very briefly was taxes, just to put it in contact with the rest of the Indians.

Here, problems for employment deficits are quite possible for 73 and for future years for that matter.

One other tax problem which we're going to hear, I guess, a fair amount about next year, is the fact that persons earning between $5,000 and $10,000 a year have tax increases in tax, depending on exactly what economic assumptions you make.

The red persons making less than $5,000 a year and more than $10,000 a year have had a decrease in their taxes since 1969.

The problem I mentioned is that we've got three that deal with simulation and two that do not incur environmental engagement when taxing sulfur emissions.

For some of the three that we deal with, both of these will be discussed tomorrow at the RID tax credit meeting.

Accelerating personal income tax reduction.

We already scheduled an investment tax credit.

We're going to wrap it up.

I'd like to just move on to the next slide, which deals with the problem of inflation.

Here, the forecast that suggests inflation will continue to abate, but will remain, at historically very high levels.

Significant reductions are being increasingly difficult to achieve, apparently.

The present initiatives, construction industry stabilization, inflation alerts, fiscal policy guidelines, which you've announced, and that information on productivity.

For 1973, there were a number of proposals which you'll undoubtedly hear more about.

None of them particularly attracted fiscal policies a little bit too slow.

Monetary policies, they have limited control, as well as it's having a negative effect on job creation.

A question of antitrust on administered prices, possibly, import expansion, political difficulties, as with later legislation, go along.

At least theoretically, manpower training could increase the supply and productivity of manpower, but there the established laborers and particular industries usually object.

And finally, we can rely on Democrats to continue to push the labor price forward.

I'd like to get on to the next topic.

All right.

I've got this portion in the government.

This wage board bill that we've talked about off and on is going to be voted on, I understand, in the House on Wednesdays.

The bill contains extra steps that would have the effect of raising the wage rates of the blue collar government employees in two steps by 8% altogether.

That is on top of their comparability rates over the past year, which have averaged something on the order of 9%.

That's basically the bill you vetoed last year.

We've been giving very negative reactions to it as it's been going through the committee.

But the leadership is looking for as strong a signal as they can get.

Anybody object?

I think it's a good, positive thing in the sense of

The next area we take a look at is crime.

Here the basic problem is overall crime rates will continue to rise next year, although at an increasing rate.

Part of the explanation for this is shown in this chart.

These are 1969 arrests by age of part 1 offenses including murder, rape, robbery and burglary.

These are age groups 0-14, 15-19 and above.

You will see that more than half all the arrests for these crimes came persons under 21 years of age.

Under 20 years of age, as a matter of fact, part of the reason we can expect primary rates to continue to rise is the fact that we will still, for another couple of years, be just feeling the effects of the post-World War II baby boom.

We've got a number of initiatives that have already been enacted by the Congress on the problem of crime, a very good, solid legislative record there.

For 1973, there will be a few other proposals, some of which will involve legislation, reform of the federal criminal code on sentencing, things such as this.

Also, there's some discussion of perhaps limited gun control legislation.

These would be for Saturday night specials, which are the most usual type of weapon found in... Armed robbers, handgunners, huh?

Yes.

Street pancakes.

Is that about you, John?

Or, you know, I don't want to get into the business of letting people...

You know, the others, but the handgun thing doesn't bother them.

I even think that the gun lobby could make themselves a hell of a lot of support.

They ought to come out and support that.

If somebody talks NRA, they might even post.

I tell you, you know those people, don't you?

Very well, Bobby.

Well, let's find out if there's somebody that does know them very well.

I know I've talked to them very well, but you don't know them.

Somebody should talk to the NIR.

They're very, I don't know these people, but they're a very powerful law, and they even affect a church like Schweiger, and so it's easier for them.

He's wrong and everything else, as far as some people are concerned.

But the point is, you could get to that, and the NRA should come out for that.

And they don't do so before.

At least in some states, the NRA's had come out in favor of the consulsions.

They want to keep the rifles and shotguns.

They ought to come out against the NRA.

You don't shoot birds with handguns.

I don't think so.

One of the other pieces of legislative proposals that have come forward from Justice Department 2 is a possible Metropolitan Criminal Justice Centers program that would supply flexible funds to a number of cities, which would allow them to create the same kind of program that you had created here in the District of Columbia.

Some would argue that this might be able to make an appreciable difference in the crime rates

In these cities, you've got nothing in there on prisons.

We can't because it's too expensive, is that right?

Well, if John ever asked you, I'd just say the customer.

Two things.

First of all, we don't know what to do.

And we're trying to find out.

And we have some work going on on that.

Secondly, the things that we do know we need to do right now with Buster Buzzard, that is the obvious,

It's a matter of finding a way to take the balance.

Let me say that looking to the future, whenever we do get into a position, I hope that I will be there sometime when this country is important.

We've got to remove it from the present situation.

It's an absolute bottomless case, but it's a heartless case.

It really is.

And the federal can move on some of these things.

There's so many new techniques.

It's not worth it to act politically, but it's something that ought to be done sometime.

Put it down for, say, three or four years.

We'll have something for you well before that.

In terms of what to do, but as far as being able to report it, if you want to do a state-based thing, it breaks it.

This on-the-hand-gun thing, give that to a client who needs a special assignment.

He knows all those people.

And that's where it ought to come from.

You should talk to him.

Say, look here, there's a guy behind this.

You're going to get ruled.

And then we ought to want to have a lot more tools to see the conquerors' strong sentiment for doing far more of the gun thing.

We want to control all sorts of guns.

One of the real problems seems to be this whole crime deal.

This is a speed trial.

I don't know why I suggested at the time that I didn't have the council vote and picked it up, but why couldn't we create 100, 500 judges, rolling judges, find no geographical areas, be dispatched by...

under the guidance of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

500 in the federal system?

Yeah, all over the United States.

Maybe don't leave it at 100.

But you're sending me to areas where you have overcrowded dockets, and you do it for five years.

Five years?

Wait a second.

Does this deal with the problem of speedy travel?

Well, it's both.

Because federal judges come in and help, and the local judges say it's not necessary, but...

But your federal documents are getting in terrible shape.

Burgers speak to this point all the time.

And that may be if they start to establish that practice.

Now, one thing we found in New York, which is very interesting, is an on-the-drug thing.

Did they set up that strike service?

They had a docket of 40,000 narcotics cases in New York.

We didn't have any money to set up a special narcotics court.

They handled just that docket because these cases were all backed up and everybody was talking misdemeanor, please.

And so then now, in the metropolitan areas, they have special narcotics courts and special judges sitting on that docket to handle those cases.

That's right.

The difficulty to see, you know, with the beating thing, particularly in cases like my colleagues and the rest, your local police will say, why should I arrest this guy?

Because they're going to let him off.

The reason they let him off is because it's too crowded.

And that, of course, then creates an enormous problem of law enforcement.

In fact, the young guy from Philadelphia told us the same thing.

He set up some scene where his probationary sentence is where they don't put anything on your record or anything.

It's a great idea.

The murderers made this speech, and everybody has talked about it, but what really is being done, and incidentally, why not 500 judges?

For five years.

I like to point something.

And let them be depressed.

They're attacking the United States.

That's the old circuit.

That's right.

We did bring in a couple of guys from other parts of the United States to try to clean up the District of Columbia stock a couple of years ago.

The experience there was that I believe

Almost 90% of the cases were appealed, and almost all of the appeals were overturned.

Because of the unique court of appeals that we have here.

And they saw us came in, and they ran a follow-up pass along them, that crowd, and it was just kind of a disaster.

They originally can't set up some special appeals courts for five years.

For that matter.

For that, the difficulty to see, you know, with the feeding thing, that they don't,

Particularly in places like my college and the rest.

Your local policeman will say, why should I arrest this guy?

Because they're going to let him off.

The reason they let him off is because it's too crowded.

And that, of course, then creates an enormous problem of law enforcement.

In fact, the young guy from Philadelphia told us the same thing.

He set up some scene where his probationary sentence is where they don't put anything on your record or anything.

They just go and suspend the free indictment, free indictment probation, right?

It's a great idea.

Some realities have very good matters.

Why don't we get him on trial in a criminal case in about 15 days?

The murderers made this speech, and everybody has talked about it, but what really is being done?

And incidentally, why not 500 judges?

For five years.

I'd like to point some.

And let them be depressed.

They're attacking the United States.

It's the old circuit.

That's right.

We did bring in a couple of guys from one of the parks in the United States to try to clean up the District of Columbia a couple of years ago.

The experience there was that I believe

Almost 90% of the cases were appealed.

And almost all of the appeals were overturned.

Because of the unique court of appeals that we have here.

And they saw us came in and they ran a follow-up ass law on them, that crowd, and it was just a kind of disaster.

They originally can't set up some special appeals courts for five years.

Well, I do think a curse of justice couldn't be more right.

It's such

This chart right here suggests this other point on juvenile delinquency, perhaps focusing on that as something we might want to concentrate on coming here.

As a first step there, coordinating all the juvenile delinquency programs within the Justice Department in LEAA is something we touched on very briefly last year, and the Justice Department has been moving forward to do that.

I believe they're not far from actually trying to bring this to work, and they keep having to do it yesterday.

Get us the hell out of BGW, for that has been a, that has been a bureaucratic, a real war.

Does it have to be done by law, or is it going to be done by executive order?

The rare extension plan, that plan down there, get it, they get all out of BGW.

Those damn people are not for law enforcement.

Now get it over there.

Now let's do that one, John.

That's one thing we'll get done today.

That's ridiculous for having a juvenile over there in BGW.

Those are just softheads.

They'll never handle it.

If that justice can, can't they?

Are they capable of it?

They've got a pretty good mind.

Because part of some of the things before was the question of capability the Justice Department had, but with the recent changes in the Justice Department.

Now they can move some of the ATW, the good people that are in ATW can be moved over to do justice for that purpose.

But to leave it under AGW, frankly, their attitude is like this.

AGW doesn't look upon problems, they say society is important.

At the same time, seeing how corrections, juvenile corrections might be one...

Finally, we can expect some good results to occur in various cities across the country in the coming year, and especially good results in the District of Columbia.

We expect that to continue, and we should concentrate on getting credit for getting results.

That's relatively inexpensive.

You know, the great tragedy is that church, which stopped at the end.

From zero to fourteen.

Two hundred and forty-one thousand.

Just raise your heart.

Zero to fourteen.

Well, serious crimes.

That's not Pennywise.

No, that's rape, murder, robbery.

It's just unbelievable.

How could it be at fourteen?

They're eight years old, they're on drugs.

Eight years old?

Yes, sir.

I bet that 50% of that, zero to 19, those two blocks are in one way or another connected.

Historically, there's a tremendous number of...

I'm talking about even not 0 to 19, 0 to 14, 241,000.

That's murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and other stuff.

They don't drive cars at 14, do they?

Yes, sir.

Now, there's the one place, there's the one place where I've let some of the soft heads at AGW come over to justice to me, because you can't just treat those people like criminals.

I understand that.

You have a situation here in the district where the absentee rate in the elementary school

is largely accounted for by the fact that the kids are in court, or in juvenile law.

There are 20 addictions in age 12 in California.

Are there?

Yes, sir.

Go ahead.

One last map I'd like to show you on the subject of crime.

This shows our key states, and shows the fact that in the central cities, the 15 largest FMSAs in the United States in 1969 accounted for one third of the crimes.

You'll notice how heavily these are concentrated in our key space.

Thus, crime is potentially a very potent political issue in our key space.

Is that Houston and Texas?

Yes.

Los Angeles, San Francisco, that's all predicted.

St. Louis, of course.

This is the third of the crime that represents only 12% of the population.

Is there any way the federal government can...

and help out on the simple matter of increasing the number of police.

We're paying salaries, we're giving them money to hire...

And as a result of that, a great many more policemen have trained them.

And also, we've got to give old Hoover credit.

That school of his is a good one.

Now, it's taking some headway, too, because if I'm not mistaken, you said it won't go crimes up, and I'm sure it is, but if I remember correctly, crime in Houston is down this last year, and a hundred cities here over the year before, and I saw a bill in charge of it.

In the 61 cities of over 100,000, crime was down in the last quarter.

The rate of increase is down.

We have potentially developing here, we have potentially developing, we have to have one plus issues, and this is the so-called social issue.

This is an area where we said we were going to do something about it when we started.

We've appointed the first non-permissive judges, except for that son of a bitch Gershman in New York.

And then we've come on, we've also done some, we've also done some, we've also done some, we've also done some,

We have a school on the FBI.

We're going after the drug problem.

And in the one city...

Murder is doing a great job.

In the one city where you have had complete control, we regret a turn around.

What do you think, John?

Is this a good run?

It's a good one.

Yes, I have no question about it.

The next problem I'd like to take up is drugs.

We do that fairly briefly.

Problems.

315,000 estimated addicts in the United States.

There is terrible use by servicemen in Vietnam.

Dr. Gaffey and Bud Krogate made a detailed report on that last week.

The present initiatives, I think, amount to an extraordinarily strong program, which, in fact, is well on its way.

Proposals for 73...

Risk concentrate on supporting the program we've already got and beefing it up.

Also pushing on the international front in the hard line of those nations which are soft on trafficking in drugs and drugs.

Finally, two other items.

It's an effort to develop a strong handling base to prove that the program that you put into effect has been effective in continuing the drug program, hopefully before election time.

Curious things feeding the polls.

And he gave them 13 different things to choose from.

And drugs comes out number one.

44% of the people.

Right, Bob?

42%.

47% of all the Americans.

47%.

47% of the people.

They say, the question is, what do you think is the major... Why is one or more of the things on this list you feel is the major cause of the problems in this country today?

And the top number one is use of drugs.

47%.

Which really surprises me.

Because now it's 40%.

What's the date of the poll?

What is the period?

Oh, he said the reason.

When did he print it?

July.

So he took it the last couple months.

Yeah, well, it's before the church.

Nevertheless, Vietnam was cooling down in 1940, and that'll be out.

But the drug thing is...

The two problems are Vietnam and drugs.

Vietnam and drugs.

The drug thing is...

It comes after racial tensions and the golden rule.

That thing is very hard for me to understand.

I just don't, and I think for all of us, I suppose all of us do.

I've just been always growing up in an environment where I never saw it.

I mean, I just don't know.

Well, it's important for us to be clear, Mr. President, that you and the White House, what can happen, can happen to their child.

Sure.

And that's happened a lot of their children.

Don't be over-serious.

It is a matter of fear of the unknown, and that it's a mistake of, that they're aware of drugs, so they say that's what's causing the problem, because they don't really care.

Rather than taking drugs, they talk about it, as being a thing of blame, and blame drugs, in that sense of natural reaction.

But it's a curious thing.

There's a very direct relationship between

narkotics and crime in the minds of people who are afraid for their own safety in walking the streets of their cities.

They talk in terms of hotheads, in terms of...

I don't know what your poll shows, but you show that 33% of the crime, major crimes, are committed by 12% of the country.

What about the rest of the country?

Do they think crime is an issue?

Not much.

What do people think of Laramie?

Are they worried about crime too?

Our survey showed 19% rated that as, after getting on the farm, one of the most important problems facing the country.

Yeah, but you see again, it seems to me that, well, all your major states must be really concerned seeing it.

Like, maybe the crime is a hell of an issue in New York City, and maybe not so much upstate.

But all that in hand, sometimes you'll find people where they don't have the crime.

They see it on TV, and they worry about it there, too.

I mean, obviously, y'all still want some more.

We have major credit gaps, because the poll that said how the administration still ranks our accomplishments in crime and drugs at the bottom, at the very bottom, is down to around 15%.

Every night, regardless of where they are, are crimes, wrecks, thefts, some kind of horror.

...something that depresses you.

That takes a tremendous effort, because right here in the District of Columbia, where we've got a good situation on crime rates, still, individual crime can make front pages of paper and scare everybody.

That is to hear, old man.

Well, that, of course, has always been the case.

The difficulty today is that it's hyped by television, and the deliberate attempt of the media...

I mean, to frankly make people feel goddamn depressed about the country.

I mean, George was said imprecisely yesterday, but he was absolutely correct.

And he said to the legislative leaders on Tuesday, I guess it was, that he said, talking about the unemployment rate, that the commentators simply find it very difficult to give this administration

or to indicate that there's any good news for this administration's concern.

It's a crime.

That's what you put it much better.

On this issue, though, let me say, the way you're going to do it, we've got to keep talking about it.

We've got to keep hitting it.

That means talking about the problem.

Al Roosevelt never did anything about unemployment, but he talked about it so much that everybody thought he was the guy who created jobs.

Now, by God, we've got to talk about this crime, and this is one place where it's legitimate, too.

Because all of our Democratic opponents, everyone is a commissary bastard.

He may be good in other areas, but everyone, I mean, Humphrey won't do anything about crime.

That was a major difference in 1968.

Musk, he is, for you know, let them all off.

Teddy Kennedy, of course, is smart in the hot heads.

Needless to say, McGovern and the rest, the only one that's wrong in the issue is Jackson.

We have an underscored personal identification of President Wade

We've been doing it, I don't know.

Mitchell was not identified on the issue.

We checked that out.

Hoover is.

Hoover is identified.

And I've done a lot on it, but I don't know how much I can...

It doesn't seem to get through.

I was on television on the drug thing two weeks ago, and...

But you're not identified vis-a-vis an identifiable character, or an identifiable incident, or something that stays in the minds of people.

Some bad guy had the lucky Luciano that you were trying to deport, because he was the head of the mafia, or if you'll take on Carlo Gambino, and say we ought to deport him, because he's the head of the mafia, the head of the...

the drug business in the country.

Or you could come to, you could come to identify them.

Or you could be along your, in your foreign aid name, where you suggest you just cut off aid to a country that continues to cooperate with us.

Absolutely.

Just cut it off.

Something quite dramatic.

That's right.

In other words, we did accomplish something very nicely through getting the Turks to cooperate.

That was fine, but nobody knows it.

Nobody gives a god damn.

It got a one-minute blip on both networks, two networks, and was ignored by the other one.

Rats came into town here and tried to blow up the city.

I supported the police.

That was identification.

That's a good guy against bad guys.

The other was when Hector Hoover was everybody was running after his scalp.

The pole showed he was going down.

I defended him.

That's identification.

What we've got to do is to find identification.

Always against a group of people that are, I mean, got money, always, that are bad in this field.

Well, this guy, who is this guy?

It's not Cleaver.

This guy went to Algeria.

Cleaver?

No, it's not Cleaver.

It's Larry.

Larry.

I'm trying to take it back.

He's already escaped.

I've got to go into prison.

But anyway, one way to identify this, I think, is to apply it to the currency, because to support that hero in heaven now is about $200 a day, and that involves a tremendous amount of money.

I can get it for you for $50.

All right, well, I have a great thought.

That kind of tying the two together could be very...

The difficulty is, the difficulty however,

If we could find an area where justices are moved or something, where they're going to move us and everything, maybe we just got to make the announcement.

I got to make the announcement.

Do you see what I mean?

I got to take them all.

Take them right to the White House.

What do you think?

And...

Secretary was mentioning that the mafia figures, that wasn't anything that mattered very much to the general public because they didn't understand it a while ago.

But because of The Godfather, and because of the movie coming up, and the attention it's going to get, the mafia might be a hell of a good thing from a public viewpoint now to move on.

Because that book was very widely read, very widely publicized, and the movie is going to be infinitely more so.

What happens to the tie?

Yeah, what happens to both of them?

You do it with a crime suit, but you tie it.

Well, you lose some of them, but...

Well, you got Columbo.

That whole Columbo thing, it took exactly right out of the market.

And you're about to have probably more in New York as a result of it.

You may just have some pretty dramatic stuff.

We've got to do some things here and this and that.

We'll watch for them.

It's right in my office.

Well, you moved the chart back one.

I had a remark to make on the last chart.

I made some comments.

No, no, no.

But the church is ridiculous.

That's right.

One back, one on the head right.

Go ahead.

Okay.

The couple meetings back, you mentioned the media is creating an issue, and the veterans here were proposing the possibility of creating an issue.

Would you?

Yes.

Okay.

Here, basically what happens now with the Veterans Administration is that more or less all veterans are treated alike.

One possibility that you might like to consider when creating a political issue is to say, all right, we have wound down the war in Vietnam.

Essentially, that's over.

We have brought our veterans home.

Let's give them first class service.

In other words, different UK services for Vietnam veterans is distinguished from World War II veterans.

that the Veterans Administration is essentially geared to servicing World War II veterans, and not Vietnam-era veterans.

Also, the programs for Vietnam-era veterans are not the candidates, as are the programs for World War II veterans, and for that matter, for Korean War veterans.

So, this is an army meeting of poverty, very similar to this, on some cases.

The reason this is the case is the Legion, the BMW, of course, are one or two guys.

Right.

That's the...

One of the factors to take into consideration is that the VA is essentially controlled by Congressman Xi and the established veterans organizations, which are controlled by the World War II veterans as opposed to the Vietnam veterans.

So, differentiating between Vietnam and other veterans,

And more or less giving them gold-plated service might be one way to emphasize that the war in Vietnam is essentially gone.

That we brought them home and took first-class care of them.

And they do have some real problems that we can...

They do have unemployment rates.

Many of them do complain about problems of cultural shock.

The distaste that some Americans had for the war makes it difficult for veterans to come back and get jobs.

This is related to the serious stories in the media about heroin use in Vietnam.

You mentioned the fact that the GI Bill for World War II veterans was more generous than that for Vietnam veterans.

And also apparently there are some improvements in medical care services that could be more effectively key to the Vietnam Europe veterans as opposed to all veterans.

Because the veterans administration hospitals, I think only 50% of patients in the VA hospitals are in with service-connected disabilities.

And of those, even a smaller percent are actually from Vietnam.

It's a very small percentage of people occupying the hospital bed are Vietnam veterans with personal disabilities.

So present initiatives, essentially ongoing programs, there is a job for veteran programs which may begin to have some effect now, the outreach program, drug program.

For 73, I'd like a commitment to meet the Vietnam veterans' specific needs.

Perhaps go for a more generous and comprehensive Vietnam-era GI Bill of Rights, more along the lines of World War II programs.

Perhaps restructure the Veterans Administration to better serve Vietnam's veterans.

Expand the outreach program to do a more effective job of getting to the disadvantaged veterans, especially living in urban areas.

And a separable issue, which I think you'll get into in the next few days, is the question of recomputation of retired military pay.

That doesn't really have to do with the Vietnam veterans issue.

This map demonstrates where veterans live.

These are veterans administration figures, which we double-checked again yesterday to make sure they're accurate.

I didn't believe it.

These are non-veterans.

Now, these are all veterans.

All veterans are the percentage of total voting population in November 1972.

The national average per state is about 20%.

We've calibrated this at 21% and over in red, so you see California, Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey being the key states with above average concentrations of veterans.

Veterans of all ages.

We just double that, don't you think?

Now they are all married.

Yes.

And this gets back to this point of talking about people voting on a cruise festival.

If there is no veterans issue, they won't vote as veterans.

If there is a veterans issue, they may vote as veterans.

This relates to Vietnam veterans as a percentage of total voting population.

Here, the national average is 3 to 3.

California has above average.

Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, all of these key states in here, as well as New Jersey.

It is surprising that the southern states do not have a national average of 3 to 3.

Isn't that amazing?

It sure is.

It's because the southern states are all standing in the service.

It's amazing.

Well, everybody's got to be kind of a veteran at some time, I don't know how many stages they're in.

Well, maybe it's time they're a veteran.

Some are late, yeah.

I'm tired.

You may have a point there, there are, there's stuff that tends to be more willing to, you know, to skip over.

Because it's a make-up.

The only explanation I can find is that in those areas you have a high Mexican and Negro population, Mexican only because of Texas and Florida also has an influx of Puerto Ricans and so forth, and they're not acceptable because of literacy and health and physical literacy.

Indeed.

You probably have one hell of a lot of people in New York and Texas.

That would also affect California though.

Okay, go ahead.

These maps simply demonstrate where this might be potentially.

You've got a bill of rights for getting on here, I bet you can.

It's like sending each one of these stalls a plastic card, an identification card, that says if you go via a facility and show this card, you're entitled to a different kind of processing, a different kind of treatment.

You're a special guy.

Because I am yours truly, Richard Nexon.

Not bad.

That's not bad.

Well, this is a possibility of something we can figure out how much it will cost.

Depends on how you develop it.

I'll go ahead.

I made the card.

The next issue we will touch on fairly briefly is the question of environment and pollution.

Here the basic problem that is emerging in 1972 is striking a balance between environmental and economic concerns.

Some surveys and search work suggest that people really don't understand this issue.

There was a survey done in Durham, North Carolina earlier this spring, and people were asked if the environment was a problem.

And they all said, yeah, environment pollution is a terrible problem.

It's a very high problem.

And they said it's a national problem.

How about pollution as a local problem?

The local problem in my backyard is not a problem.

The fact is that Durham does have above the national average in air pollution.

So what I'm saying is that people don't see the immediacy of the trade-off between jobs and the environment at this time.

However, one of the action-enforcing events we had up there earlier was state air pollution laws, which must be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency in January.

And that agency must comment on them by April.

It will certainly begin to highlight, at least at a national level, the question of trade-off between the jobs and the environment.

At the present time, we've already talked about your initiative in the environment area, and you certainly have a clear lead over every other person with respect to leadership in the environmental area.

Proposals for 73 essentially just continue that leadership.

We have already begun a series of studies on the economic impact of pollution on marginal industries, also on farming and agriculture and other areas that we've already started investigating.

Some other areas that might look into are concerns about water pollution, fertilizer, underground disposal, toxic waste, effluencies.

Finally, air pollution, the major challenge of next year is going to be the enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

This map shows you...

the key states and some of the environmental problems which we can expect to come up during 1972.

You see the problems here in California, Santa Barbara oil, Los Angeles smog.

A lot of the visibility of these issues depended on the use of the ship channel.

Of course there have been suits launched in recent weeks about the use of the ship channel problem.

Ocean dumping, oil spills in the Gulf.

The crossbar of our canal is subject to suits, counter suits.

People in Florida want to buy apartments in there.

We've got to find a new place for the Everglades Jet Force.

Again, temperature conditions will depend on the visit.

We'll assess the disability of this issue.

Let's hear if there will continue to be a problem.

We've got some mine diamonds in the Great Lakes.

There's a reactor burial coming up.

Four Corners Power Plant you're familiar with, the nuclear tests on the Aleutians, the Elastic Pipeline, and the other environmental issues which are going to be on page 72.

Just do it.

Your tests will be done.

Any time?

No 72 shots?

No, it's November of this year.

There's no follow-up shot.

No, it's just the aftershocks.

This year, it'll be there for next year.

Yeah.

We better be right.

Yeah, we can move on to the next subject, which is the agriculture.

Here, we really start with a psychological problem.

Farmers feel like they've been forgotten.

That farm income has been increasing over 1970, but it has not reached the 1969 high.

In fact, they've just re-estimated it.

The 69 income, which they put out further, the 70 income, they put it down further.

But it should be increasing next year.

We have some major uncertainties, however, in 1972.

One of these is the corn blight question.

If we have a lot of corn blight, we have a big problem, and if farmers have planted a bumper crop, corn will lose.

If we have no corn blight, we'll have a problem next year when they harvest and sell all this corn, and we'll have pressures to raise metal support for corn.

So probably the best, from our point of view, would be a little bit of corn blight.

If you want a little bit of blight.

A lot of blight, like you say.

This map on wheat is also made to do with respect to drought.

In general, farm prices next year look pretty good.

There are a few commodities that are in question.

One of them is oranges.

You can see California and Florida are big there.

The other sheet is land, so wool is a little bit of a problem.

You'll have difficulty.

That is in the real trouble.

We'll have some problems doing something about it.

Oranges, we can buy oranges and orange juice in the present law.

I'm going to put on the next map a couple of other prices which may be in trouble.

It'll be rice harvest.

We're already talking about increasing rice acreage.

And potatoes.

There are relatively few potatoes in California.

And most of all, four of these, with the exception of potatoes, hit both California and Texas.

A lot of hogs were in protection.

You never know with the hogs.

All commodities I think are fairly chancy, but in general hogs appear all the time.

Right now the prediction is that hogs look pretty good, but John Whitaker is pretty much on top of that right now.

Some of it has an effect that it will be affected by.

From the standpoint of our key Midwest states, it's corn hog.

All the rest was nice.

The wheat states, we have generally so much pork that we can take the heat.

The corn-heart ratio has gone hella high.

They're getting packed on Indiana, Illinois, Ohio.

The corn blight is really the big question, and hopefully in another few weeks we'll know what the corn blight situation will be.

Apparently it's spread by weather.

If it's humid the next few weeks in the corn space, the blight will spread, and we'll have a good estimate of problems.

We'll know that soon.

The Agriculture Department has been asked to develop contingency plans in both directions.

The present issues in agriculture, we've got a consensus farm bill, farm exports have been expanding, surpluses are just about gone, rural development funds have been about doubled.

As you know, we are making efforts to improve the communications program, getting a farm spokesman, both on the White House staff and on the Citizens Committee.

And it may be that the one composing and tuning up of the Agriculture Act of 1970 will need a little bit more experience with the Act before we'll know what needs to be done.

Also, as a public relations, I may wish to appoint an agricultural ambassador to push food exports around the world.

The export program has been going reasonably well.

I want to highlight that.

It might be one way to do it.

A farm labor bill, attractive in some areas, is politically a very troublesome problem.

We would suggest dealing with it only at the initiative level.

and we should be taken by conservative foreign state congress.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mayor.

The foreign crisis, that point has two sides to it.

On the other side, I'll say that there's crisis that's beyond the impact of getting the crisis up out of the city center.

I wonder if that at least does some of these things.

Absolutely.

The next area we'll look at would be...

Her, one of the problems that you're quite familiar with, dealing with, is accountability.

The fact that higher costs don't mean better education.

There's also a maldistribution of educational support across the country, both among states and within states, as this map shows.

The data here are expenditures for education for $1,000 in personal income.

In other words, an index of a state's effort.

Here we see that the southern states, as a matter of fact, make a very substantial effort in terms of expenditures to educate children, whereas a number of other states, including California and other key states, make a much smaller effort.

Is that safe center for education at all levels?

I think this is just elementary and secondary.

That's almost unbelievable.

Well, of course it's in California.

That's why I asked the question, because if it leaves out higher education, then it's believable.

If you put higher education in, that would be right.

Is this safe at all local institutions?

Definitely, Senators, if you're talking about the state, of course the local expenditures are often about the two of them, you know, the state.

Well, that's the other side of the problem.

Sure.

That there's not only a mal-attribution among the states, but within the states, because if you look at it as good as it might exist or not, it's awfully hard to think that that is the case, even though California's a wealthy state, due to the fact that California's got...

education, the cradle of the grave, and no other state is going to enhance it.

We've got all those goddamn junior colleges, and the state colleges, and the universities, and there are more people in California colleges than there are working.

One aspect here that ties to what we're going to be talking about is taxation tomorrow.

Real estate taxes equate to education on the local level.

We're talking here about state participation

I think it's helpful to think about this really in two aspects.

And we'll tie it all together tomorrow when we talk to you about a proposal for lifting all costs of education to the state level.

And doing away with these local real estate taxes.

There must be some problem with the studies, because Mississippi is not contributing that much.

Mississippi, generally, is a poor state.

It's a poor state.

You could acquit a developer.

This doesn't really measure the... We're getting an acquittal here.

Go ahead.

In any case, what this leads to is a proposal 473 that we consider the possibility of incurring a greater state assumption of education costs, as John mentioned.

That means property taxes.

That's about it.

Reason?

Yes, sir.

That's our early old experiment that the NEA is mad at us on.

The OEO extension will probably have an amendment prohibiting us from doing the voucher extension.

Right.

I want to move on to a different problem.

One thing that we can expect to see highlighted next year is the financial plight of non-public elementary and secondary schools as well as higher education.

This math deals exclusively with elementary and secondary education.

It is the colors represent percentage of the school children attending non-public schools.

Thus you can see that as a percentage of school children in the states, non-public school problem is really northeast and these particular states in the midwest.

Now, there are also numbers on each of these states.

These numbers, for example, in California, 299.7, are the Catholic school enrollment in thousands.

In other words, there are 300,000 school children in Catholic schools in California, but that represents less than 10% of the total elementary and secondary school population in the state of California.

That's the problem here.

There's a concentration in this part of the country.

How many are in New York?

In New York, 667,000.

3996.

392. 392.

This, mixed with the recent Supreme Court decision, suggests that we study very carefully the question of tax credits of some kind for non-public preschools through high school.

Of course, the problem here is that that will mean a $1.4 billion revenue loss.

One of the other problems that...

is recurring and difficult, gives middle-income parents paying college costs.

With college costs going up towards $5,000 a year in many cases, middle-income parents feel quite squeezed.

To revamp our student loans assistance proposal that we have on the hill right now, and move the limit from $10,000 to $15,000 a year income to the family, would cost a quarter of a million dollars.

To move it up to $20,000 a year, which would cover all the income, would cost $800 million.

So these are very expensive proposals, although very politically attractive.

In one poll, you might be interested in, with respect to aid to education, people were asked the question, do you favor increasing, decreasing, or holding the same federal spending on the following subjects?

And they raised the subject of aid to education, federal aid to education.

Republicans, 59% of the Republicans felt that federal aid to education should be increased.

74% of Democrats felt this, I'm sure.

It's a very popular way, as I say, with regard to your last two there.

Despite the fact that the MDF broke the law, I know this is a question of where we're going to find the money, and that sort of thing.

Also, we have to bear in mind that the Congress is never going to pass it.

But if you want some damn good demography...

That's what the issue is.

Believe me, there are just one hell of a lot of people of our potential constituency that would be enormously affected, particularly by number three.

The tax credit situation is high.

And it's the only thing that will save those schools.

Let me put it in terms of kids.

There are five million kids that are in those schools at the press of time.

They're going to go bust.

They're probably lousy schools.

There's another possibility, and that is to, in effect, overcome the straightforward decision by recommending a constitutional amendment.

The limited nature that they're authorized to use with local public funds for non-public schools under certain conditions is very nice.

That's what we're speaking about.

Let's do that too.

I think that would give you a continuum of issues, which could be identified as even stronger than the appropriation of the money.

The only thing is that we'll...

The suspect constitutionally under that is three hours a week.

Well, let's do both.

Well, let's consider both.

Let's see the constitutional one, and also while you're at it, the one on busing, if I can ask you to.

The polls...

You have a very mixed picture on federal aid and non-public schools, but some education in the 1970 election, for example in Pennsylvania, that endorsement of state aid and non-public schools hurt very seriously some candidates.

and did not greatly help others.

It's still quite controversial.

It's very controversial.

The question is, to what extent is it going to hurt us where we afford to be hurt?

New York, Illinois, California, New Jersey.

It is a potent issue.

I think there's much greater acceptance of the fact that non-public schools take a lot of the burden off the public schools, even for people who don't consider each other.

That's the way we justify it.

You've also told me, you've got a different ballgame than I was trying to.

You've got Texas for instance.

You've got a major, you know, concentration of COVID-19.

Yeah.

And you've got a different environment in which you could recommend a good program.

Hmm.

I agree.

It's just wild.

Because the court has ordered a federal court and the school board has adopted one.

And the Chinese are practically in revolt because they do not want to have their children bused.

They're a big element of the system.

It's just wild.

I'm trying to get on board again.

I think they're very limited.

Just one last thing.

Yeah, but you considered that it's what you're finding.

It's hours that you're not searching for.

We work out the question you mentioned.

I think it can be done.

Or it can't.

It's a constitutional amendment.

Well, sure, it's a constitutional amendment.

Why don't you just repeal something?

Repeal the 14th Amendment.

No, we have to do it very specifically.

The first one away.

That's what the non-public movement can be directed at.

At least narrow.

But how about buses?

Well, you take that to it.

I would certainly want to do a little work on it before I... You said you repealed the 14th Amendment.

I mean, I've shot some slaves.

I feel so strongly about this issue.

Well, you can find the ways to write the amendment.

I can't break anything at all, but I'll certainly get your legalese to work.

I've got a slightly reactionary lawyer on staff here that would be glad to help you with that.

I met John.

Anybody that's got any ideas on that?

So this San Francisco thing in all senses is a major headline every single day, and you don't read it much about the rest of the country, because it's in a different context, but there's terrible, even strong public opinion against this court decision.

My message is one last fact about Arogyle School.

The facts about the financial situation for Arogyle Schools are not all clear.

Hopefully, your commission on school finance will be able to clear it up.

Apparently, a number of parishes are closing Catholic schools because they're not...

They're not economic.

They're not good school units here.

A lot of them that are losing money and are in trouble are those in ghetto areas, in urban areas.

Some of the other parish schools, parochial schools, are doing quite well, and they're really not in need, but they're working really well.

I mean, they have clientele that will support them, and dioceses will support them.

In the ghetto areas, they've got a hard sidearm for the teachers and stuff like that.

The next topic we take up is aging, aging of older people as a constituency.

First of all, the basic feeling I have here is that the administration is not doing enough.

Watch this.

I want to go through this carefully.

This is why, John, we've got it coming up.

We've got another one of the commissions that somebody talked to me about.

Never again.

Why the commission?

Why us?

No more.

Never again.

The old people basically think that liberalizations and increases in social security are nothing that we've done for them.

They deserve it anyway.

They put their money in, they're finally getting their money out.

And so, when we've done that, we haven't done anything.

Also, people in society doesn't care that they're left out of the cold.

Of course, their economic problems with serious illness and inflation are serious.

There is job discrimination against senior citizens.

Housing for the elderly is scarce.

Some people estimate there's a shortage of 3 million housing units for elderly persons.

Under the present initiatives, we placed a White House conference on aging.

There were some debates whether to place that as a problem or an initiative.

We finally wound up with it here.

These other items, as a special assistant on aging, going ahead with Social Security increases and liberalization, the demonstration and nutrition projects, these prove our concern for the aged.

Indigent agents are also taken care of under HR1.

For 1973, you'll see a number of very expensive proposals presented to you.

One of which is covering out-of-hospital prescription drugs under Medicare.

Some estimates are first-year costs around $2 billion.

You could figure out some cheaper ways to do it, but that seems to be the most realistic estimate.

There's also the problem of enforcing federal nursing home standards.

This is something that we probably need to get resolved within the next few weeks to show a follow-up to the Chicago speech on nursing homes.

Secretary Richardson has a paper in.

I think there's still a fair amount of work to be done on that.

There are some unanswered questions that they are answering right now.

We vote.

The problem apparently is that we manage many of the 4,000 or so standard nursing homes receiving federal funds.

And what do you do with people in the nursing homes?

4,000.

In that...

Nobody, I think, is absolutely sure what it is, but it's very hard to know.

And investing, this is another issue that is currently under study.

Well, if one of those, instead of just $4,000, had to be a number, mine were some real son-of-a-bitch who was exploiting, I could be against him.

That's what we're up to.

I met with Elliot on that this week.

We're going to form a small trade force.

and try and do it on a regional basis, and not go to two or three in each region.

Yes, and do it at a very high rate.

Particularly if we can find some that are associated with the mafia, which we think we have got.

And the mafia has gone into the nursing home.

It's a big way.

It's associated with some other group.

Maybe we might get a few Italian folks.

Well, I don't think people will identify this with Italians.

It really has such...

I suspect this will be more of a kind of an organized crime thing in a personal and non-racial way.

Okay.

Proposals from the White House Conference and elsewhere are going to come up on housing for the elderly, transportation, jobs programs for the elderly.

Part of the problem here, most of the proposals are great society type proposals all over again.

We've moved to an income strategy, they'll come back in with a proposal, well let's have a grant to cities to provide hot lunches for old people in their homes.

We're essentially getting the federal government back in the business of doing that.

We're funding some such projects at this time.

There's a proposal to move it to a national basis.

All the proposals for federal aid to construct and maintain community centers for senior citizens, this will be coming down the track, potentially very expensive.

One of the other important pieces of legislation expiring next year will be the Older Americans Act.

It is a basic authorization for almost everything the federal government does for older people.

This coming right on the heels of the White House conference will open the gates to all kinds of changes.

The programs covered under this are foster grandparents, the aging administration itself, and all R&D programs for the aging.

Hopefully, again, we'll be able to find a number of good things happening as a result of these initiatives, and we should concentrate on getting credit for the results from these things.

This map simply shows the projected voting trends of student citizens by state in 1972.

What you have here are persons 65 years old and over as a percentage of the voting population.

By state, the national average is about 15%.

Those states in red have 17% or more.

You can see Florida and our midwestern key states here.

Illinois.

Illinois, 20%.

It's interesting that you have old people here.

The average age of an American farmer is something over 50 years.

Kids have moved on.

Right.

This is really a good demonstration of the problem that you've addressed in the national growth policy right here.

The fact that we have this 5% of older persons in these states.

Problems with senior citizens are essentially local in nature.

Does CBD venture maximum impact in certain areas?

It's something that we ought to go to the Midwest and see to hypo our PR in the Midwest, rather than to just spread it all over.

So, we go on then to the final critical issue area, which is the area of health.

Here, the rising costs continue to be stated on the old ones.

This is John, who got some pressure for cancer.

This is one of the few groups on the political side

Where there is fertile ground, whether we, if you're talking just in sheer politics, in the Department of Humanity, there is none, as I've said before, if you do what's right, there's none among the minorities.

Just forget them.

If you do what's damn good, if you do what's among them, then you're not going to get any Mexicans, you're not going to get any Negroes, you're not going to get any more.

If you don't preach, I would give them everything.

As far as the old is concerned, we're really talking about COVID.

What is the last of the people who would really lean down and support us in terms of our square and image and sort of for the country and believe in God and family.

They're against dope and all the rest.

Politiker.

Politically, what we probably need to sell with respect to H.R.

1 is the cost savings, because if one thing's clear, it's that Americans don't want to pay more for welfare, and it proves the value of cost savings.

On the other hand, Americans would want to pay more for the old folks, I think.

If they're thinking about welfare in terms of subsidizing more illiterate men and illiterate children, they aren't for it.

If they're thinking about welfare in terms of subsidizing people sitting on their panties, they are not for it.

But if they're thinking about welfare in terms of mom and pop that are going to be living in rather than living out, or the poor old folks around, I think they might be for it.

That's not H.R.

1.

We put a floor.

H.R.

1 doesn't have a floor under the income of all local folks.

Yes, it does.

You agree with that or not?

Yes.

Okay.

Have we given up on old folks in any way of moving further in the direction of letting them earn more money without losing their social security?

No, we do have localization, that kind of localization.

I don't think, this is my question, I don't think that's a hell of a whole theory.

Yeah, I'm confused about Chicago.

Of course, that was the only group that might be somebody.

I would think it would be.

Those people are the perpetual old folks.

No, no, but the group we have in Chicago were the Association of Retired People, rather than them on Dock Street.

His former head of CIO, an old folks people, Carmichael, who of course basically just were more of a handout.

These people were the retired teachers and all the rest.

I don't think it's the Senate in particular.

I mean, maybe they're all too old, babysitter, whatever you want to do.

But the other thing is, what does it do to the employment picture?

Well, I think the other side of that is that a lot of labor groups have been moved to social security because it takes the older folks out of the labor force.

Right.

It's another problem.

I don't know, my own sentiments are very much in terms of, you know, the dignity and all the rest.

I think we have to continue to say it, but I'm not so sure that it's really in our interest to go in that direction.

I certainly think this, the major problem in the age problem, the major problem, of course, is something useful to do.

A major problem.

But if you really look around, you get them to people over 65 or 70, and who are not, well, who aren't 40, 50,000 or above.

It's just a hellish problem of where they're going to stay, and where they're going to live, and the horrible care they get in these nursing homes.

They are just terrible.

Most of them.

Even the good ones are bad enough, I think.

Because the kids don't want them at home.

And there ain't room, you know, so they go out and go to these homes.

Well, let's just be pressing for those people, and I don't know where they're staying.

It's a terribly, I don't know, I don't know there's any answer.

I do think this, I do think that I'm personally sure I'm going to let them be exploited.

That's for sure.

I'm not sure that the, I'm not even sure that the whole medical thing makes as much sense as anything in this field.

I'm inclined to think that the old folks just go and they've got an ache or a pain or a lumbago or whatever it is, and they go really because they just want to talk to somebody.

And so the damn doctors charging them to give them a pill rather than keep them on longer than they live longer than they should.

It's pretty brutal.

That's just what the case is.

They're being exploited a lot in the countries because the money is there.

So it's a problem.

We talk about all the others.

The problem is eventually soluble.

I mean, for 500 years they'll come along.

And the next problem will come along as they move on and so forth and so on.

If you look at the problem, the aging,

It's just going to get worse, because people are going to retire at earlier and earlier times.

And so they retire, and there are no sense.

What the hell are they going to do?

They live longer.

And so they go to Florida, and their citizens die.

Politically, this is just the old folks, because all the old folks have young folks that are worried about them.

We're all blacks, and we have whites that are worried about them, and we're all Mexicans.

In terms of ground that we plot, first, we want to hold those we've got.

Second, it is an area where...

I got sure we can, I must say, when the White House conference comes.

Any way they can get that conference to be postponed or something.

It's the best part of Colorado.

It's so good.

No facewear?

No way.

It's required by law, Mr. President.

It is.

And it has to take place, I think, by law this December.

We'll just do the best we can.

I think we may turn it into some opportunity.

Sure, there'll be a lot of demands and all that kind of stuff, but it will be high visibility for you with a very restricted group.

It's a target, a rifle shop group.

And we'll just try to figure out what is it that's important to you.

If I have 10 of them, just things to say, do, sort of... Sure.

You know, just tell them how you realize all these problems they've got.

I know, I know, but then they'll say how much you're going to raise for Social Security.

What you're going to do about Medicaid.

You may have the income to not escalate it by then.

Well, in what?

They haven't said to me yet.

Well, I'm not supposed to live in Social Security.

for social security.

Well, char 1 is down to 2, so we should get that to the Senate.

One of the issues of an age char is pension investing.

What is pension investing?

Well, a problem that worries a lot of workers related to the job issue, really, is that if their plan closes,

Or they change jobs.

They change jobs, but I think it worries them more if their time goes to the international area.

I see.

They're left without any pension.

All right.

Now, we've fussed around with this.

I think there's a way to get out of this.

I'm not going to put you guys to work on that.

That gives that chance, but that...

has the direction of saying sluts to make an individual's contribution to a pension plan have the same tax status as a collective decision to create by collective bargaining a pension right

I think one of the reasons why we have this problem is that the tax system is so biased in favor of a collective decision.

Therefore, if that's the way the decisions are, there are tributary plans that are very scarce.

And the emphasis has been on getting the benefit levels up and avoiding the high cost of vestiges.

And I think that has left, at least in my judgment, a rather serious problem in the pension area, that in one way or another we need to...

Can I ask you another question?

I raised this before, during the campaign, that I said it cost too much money, and I understand you have an enormous opposition, big business as well as labor, but is there any way that dependent investing would allow an individual...

would allow for more mobility in the workforce.

The idea that if an individual loses from one company to another, he loses his attention, as I understand it, for the rest of the time.

Maybe he does it, maybe I'm wrong, but I understand that.

I think it was a matter of being the guy that brought this subject up his own in Greenspan, and thought strongly we should do something about it.

We all decided, or somebody decided, it wasn't too much.

Is it a matter, is it possible, is it just customary?

Well, it's a matter of bringing it on to the plate.

Not investing pensions in it.

are clearly an inhibiting force for people moving.

After a while, they can't afford to move.

You've got protection.

Investors don't have to protect themselves very fast.

They don't lose so much from a company standpoint.

Of course, vesting makes the pension plan more costly.

We have a dispensational study, a variety of ways of describing vesting.

that have different cost dimensions to them, and then there's this individual thing that would do it a different way.

And there, of course, individuals make contributions that's automatically immediate and full invested, so they are mobile by virtue of that.

But economists generally...

I worry about this as labor mobility.

Of course, companies historically started pension plans prior to humanization.

We had a strong pension movement among companies.

And the reason they did it was to keep their workforce.

So they went out to do something that would make people stay with them.

Is that a good idea?

Or would it be better?

Wouldn't it be better if people could move around now?

Well, I think it would, and you also get, I think, some of the fiercest feelings about adjustment to international trade type things, or technological things, because the

Loss of a job is so catastrophic, it isn't simply getting retrained to get another job.

That's not enough.

You've lost a huge equity.

Because you've lost your job, you just can't recover it.

And that's why I think this investing issue does have some wallop in it.

I think you're working hard.

You're only going to have a task force, but...

Now, of course, would you think in terms of just not this, of a plant that closes?

Well, I guess this would apply to anybody, but in other words, a fellow working at General Motors and decided he wanted to go to California and said, you know, work for some swimsuit outfit could do it.

It was good.

Well, I think it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

You have real categories on the part of people who are sure.

Now, politically, you have some cross-currents here, because you may find some corporation executives who tend to be our friends, who would like cross-indications for that.

That was it.

It was the cost for the company.

Of course, whether they like it or not, we do have this general problem of an increasing array of regulations of various sorts that increase the cost of...

American Bank.

I talked about the tax thing.

This is just talking in terms of why was this tax change to equalize individual and collective decisions, but not impose any cost on employers that would have some tax impact as far as the federal government is concerned, and I don't think very much that it has the attraction of being in keeping with the sort of philosophy of being a choice that the advocated by the people.

How soon can you get the amendment ready to look at in the private school?

We can draft a few days ago and send it around to the Justice Board.

I want to have it all talked about and then meet down in the press in advance.

So I want it done with a job.

You and Kaepernick, you've got to pick the best man lawyer you can find in this thing.

Get the thing done, checked out, so we know that it's absolutely sound and so forth.

That I'll make the decision as to whether I do it.

And if I make the decision that I'm going to do it, then bang!

And the hell with justice and the rest of it, just continue.

I'll get a draft to go over with John early next week.

Good.

This is the only way to handle it, John.

Otherwise, we'll beat you to death before it ever gets out.

And also, some senator or congressman, at least.

Yeah.

The last critical area that we'll discuss is the area of health.

Here we continue the problem of rising costs, maladistribution of health care.

It's a subject that if you're well familiar with, it shows really the startling concentration of non-federal physicians in the northeastern states.

California, Colorado, and you can see those are around 199 for 100,000 population, and down in some of our key states, Texas is just about half of that, Indiana is only 94 for 100,000 population.

You know, the amazing thing there, of course, is the physicians.

Tusker and the states where they want to live, and where as well as high.

But I don't think Florida, no, they won't give the license.

Texas should have more, because people want to know where the hell are the positions in Texas.

It's a curious thing.

I wonder, is that in California?

It's not a big surprise.

They don't send that many doctors out there.

What if I go to my private practice?

Oh, does that include chiropractors?

And Oscar Paz are just M.D.s.

M.D.s.

is doctors brought the opportunity to, you know, chiropractors.

I think one of the things, you know, when I moved in, boy, in California, we got many chiropractors.

We got a lot of good to do.

I think the answer to most of those midway receipts is the fact that you have such a wide space

No, I think you're right.

California basically has relatively little rural population.

In fact, they're all suburbs, aren't they?

Everything is suburbs.

So in Texas, you've got a lot of small towns.

Little towns.

That's right.

The basic legal problems he had the coming year, he was maintaining the leadership position of our establishment in the health area with your conference that we have established.

I didn't know that.

Well, very good.

Well, Ray, you did a very excellent job with a very great sound program.

Your legislation, I think, is generally favored by the key congressmen, the wrongs and the, let me say, the sales.

I call it, it's a great deal of credit for yourself and the people you work with and the domestic council staff.

You know, we could have just fallen into a horrible trap, you know, like everybody else.

You know, everybody was pushing so strong to go in other directions, but if you think how much it could have cost, what it does, this is a good one.

I think Mills, as of now, is generally favorably inclined to your approach.

He is in favor of the president's approach right now.

He's trying to figure a way to outdo you, because he would hate to see you get any credit for the thing.

But his position is favorable to what we've advanced, and he's having a hard time coming up with anything that would be better or even more favorable.

John, why don't you work on a deal with Mills?

He gives credit when we give credit.

Seriously, let me tell you something about Mills.

I've got a point that John is the only one in the room who understands.

I'm not concerned about his getting credit.

I'm not concerned about his getting credit on textiles, or shoes, or this, or anything like that.

Having him built up, having him get credit in any area, is fine.

What we're really talking about is, if you're talking about Huskies, or you're talking about Kennedys, or you're talking about even Cubans, here in the lower low order of magnitude, then you're talking about somebody where if they get credit, it's going to be a hell of a lot.

Now, I don't mean for that that anybody is possibly nominated, but anybody who stands right by and knows and wrote the bills, is not the complete nominee of the Democratic Party for president.

He might be the vice president.

Or he may even be a speaker, which is more likely.

And that's probably what he'll have no chance.

But what you're thinking about is that what you do is to simply build up a man.

In my opinion.

We've got to build up a fall here.

It will be a real fall.

There's a fall that is tender in the minds of a lot of conservatives.

Isn't that just true, Jackson?

I mean, Mike, you can't write me a memorandum every day, but it's like, it's a hell of a thing, and Jackson's got all this, and Post is really got all this support, and that's great.

But I'm happy.

I'm not going to be nominated.

It's a good advance.

But furthermore, there's one intermediate step between where you stay and where you would come into the judge's decision.

And that is, if they get it out of the middle, the muskets and McGoverns will start taking them on within the democratic structure, within the democratic ranks.

So they'll just keep going among themselves.

I don't know if they ever get to keep it.

I think there's a tendency for us, I know that Pete, for example, was Pete Peterson.

It's very understandable.

Hell, we did the whole sheet thing, and Dave Kennedy did a terrific job on that thing, didn't he?

In that sheet negotiation abroad, they tell me, under Mike Whitus, that on this thing, this thing, they said, so that we're arguing whether we should get the credit or Mills gets the credit.

And he gets the credit on that.

Not much.

I don't think it makes all that much difference.

Whitus was done.

It was just getting rid of a negative group.

But so much for help.

Let's see what we can do.

I could just talk about that one more time, because that's a continuing problem.

There's another side of it that I think worries Pete, and as I remember you were concerned about this, and also the textile industry.

That is the tendency of the mills, to conduct foreign policy in a way, to make sure these people start to negotiate.

It's a structural thing there to be concerned about, and I think people start to get that.

Well, the mills thing is a proposition that I'd like for you to take the time, and I suggest this from now on.

John, would you take the...

I'd like for you to discuss the strategy with regard to bills, credit and so forth, with jobs, costs.

We'll go make a deal with it.

We'll get the credit.

We'll make a deal with it.

We'll get the credit.

That's my point.

But I think basically this is a high political decision.

And it's one that I shouldn't get into.

I don't want to be in a miserable game of saying, well, it's Wilbur Mills, or I don't care.

You know the game.

You know how to play this game.

Now, I don't, it does not bother me.

I just want you to know that I'm not as bothered about Mills getting some credit for drugs.

He is a chairman of Ways and Means.

He stands important for us.

And maybe, we can, maybe, maybe we've got to have him on a couple of times.

I don't know.

What do you think?

For example, when we come to a tax bill next year,

It may be crucial for us to have mills.

I don't see much advantage in our fighting will for mills.

In the foreign policy field, you make a good point.

You can't let him get in on that.

But in this whole business, on revenue sharing and some of these other things, the most important thing that we've got, we may need mills if we come up, if we do come up with the tax thing.

We may, it may be one way or the other, we may want them to help us, and we really want to get it through.

But if we don't, then we may want to have to fight, and fight to kill us, because we, it may be that we'll have to do it, and do it.

But I think the Mills strategy, I don't just automatically react every time Mills has something and say, well, gee, we've got to fight Mills on this thing.

I don't mean that you sit down.

You don't never trust it.

Obviously, because Mills is not going to play it in our way, and we really want credit.

We're really needed for ourselves and so forth.

We've got to take it.

But I think there's something to be said in each play to see whether or not Mills is taking the position of...

It's all that matters for us.

Well, basically, say what, put a bit of words what you're saying.

At some point, he's going to be repulsed.

His ambition is going to be denied.

We don't necessarily want to be the blame, to get the blame for it.

We don't want him to think that, well, if they hadn't done so and so, they'd have, you know, I could bend them on him.

We want the muslims and the McGoverns and the liberals of the Democratic Party to deny him the nomination.

Let them do it rather than us.

And that's got to come.

And when he then gets frustrated and angry at the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, then he can't do his enthusiastic work.

No, in the summer, in the fall of next year, before your election, you may get a hell of a lot of help on a lot of your programs at the beginning of fiscal 73.

So the game is a little different from having it with the others.

It's an ideal thing for that kind of strategy, because not only can we work with him, and I think come out ahead without losing anything, but we can juxtaposition him versus the liberals on the other side.

You really have a thing for him.

As I told you, let's share the credit with him.

As I told you, he said, or if he wants to see you, he wants to see me.

Correct.

We'll talk to him.

But I can't remember on how.

Remember that.

We're not trying to make it, maybe if it comes up when he comes in, we'll throw that in there.

But remember, we're not trying to say, gee, we thought everything was good, and so Bill's down there, and he went and had to do it, and we competed against him.

No, I understand that, Mr. President, but we're playing that game.

But don't trust them.

He doesn't trust any politicians.

They're all out in present country.

They're all out in Beijing.

Sure, sure.

Well, they understand it.

He understands it.

He looks to their strengths a lot more, too.

He just treats them real nice and so forth.

He plays his human player.

He said, sure he could, he's got every right to run.

He's got every right, he's a tech, he's a, he's got more ability than this little thing of a tree in that house there holding that head.

This is a description of the health strategy.

Proposals for 73 continue the average of support.

The best program we've already got out there, block unacceptable health insurance programs.

This is how you might be noticing this map, which shows the acceptance of private health insurance, and this is for percent of persons under 65 with private health insurance, January 1969.

National average is probably 89% of people have some kind of private health insurance.

Eighty-nine percent.

Eighty-nine.

Some are practically not.

Some are not very good programs.

It may not be good, but that many do what it was.

That's another two percent.

One of the things we should point out is something that's going to be coming up as a political problem this year.

This year, the Kansas lobby, the Hart lobby, and the Kennedy lobby got together and agreed that this was the year for Canada.

I think it's all three of them.

And they agreed that next year the three of them would work to get HART the same kind of preferential organizational status and budget status that HART got this year.

That's what we talked about.

They'll try to get HART engaged next year, if you understand.

Dr. DeBakey in the Assembly of Texas is the leader of HART.

Well, of course, the heart thing, it's really called the chest disease or something.

They all, the heart, lung, too, of course, the chest part.

I think this is just the heart.

Well, that makes them think of something else.

It's heart, and that means all the things that are connected with it.

The veins, the arteries, you know.

The heart goes far beyond.

I talked to the cardiologist at their convention, and I was amazed to find that that is the major disease.

It is, you know, more than anything else, heart is far ahead of cancer.

Cancer in 17 parts is about 51%.

That's right, it's over 51%.

And because so many are related to it, and I think you will find, I think you will find heart disease.

In the people's minds, the cancer thing is the one that they fear.

I don't think there's many people around.

Well, the reason for that, and I think you do all agree, is that people just think you've got a heart attack because you've got a bad heart, and you're eventually getting old or something like that, and you're destined to get it.

Cancer is some dreadful thing that strikes.

And it strikes children and everybody.

Well, still I'll stop.

Have you heard about him?

No, sir, I haven't.

He played nuts last week.

I think they took him out to the National Institute of Health.

He's going to die of leukemia in a year.

You don't think?

Yes, I guess.

It's not supposed to be known.

Oh, I'm sorry.

It's not supposed to be known, but that's what he's there for.

But he's got to keep, whether he dies in a year, maybe two years, maybe three years, maybe six months.

Unless, as he said, I talked to him on the phone today, he said, I sure hope you get busy on that cancer research.

We're making pretty good progress.

The cream is one thing.

They are able to do something.

They do quite a bit.

They've got all sorts of things, and they do stop it, delay it, and so forth and so on.

People live quite a few years.

Primarily through chemotherapy, chemistry drugs, that kind of thing.

The drugs are, and of course that is the last chance we get to turn it over the blood.

These research advances are really why we have this last line concentrating on getting credit for good results.

We do expect some research to break through this economy in the next few months, and we have an advantage of them to play a part in our career for the city.

The last chart on issues is a summary chart, where that, here we have, excuse me just one second, let me give you an idea on that.

I want some of your trips.

Mr. President, to again identify at least in areas where this is important, Houston happens to be one of them.

The Anderson Cancer Clinic in Coomber, it's one of the best in the world.

I could make you a long speech, I know that, but Dr. Lee Clark, he's one of the guys who have been overstepping.

put on this campaign for the cancer thing this year.

But sometimes, when you're anywhere close, whether it's the Kellogg, whether it's the MD Anderson, or whatever it is, when you're in those areas, stop and go in and say, we developed this program, and I don't want to see one of these cancer clinics, institutes, just pay to visit the MD Anderson.

I guarantee you, it'll be the biggest news, you won't have to make a speech, it won't have to cost you a dollar, it won't have to promise anything, and you'll get more news out of it, you'll get more notification in Houston, Texas,

Great.

That is a good idea.

And you can do that if you go around the country.

Because I don't have to make a speech.

This chart summarizes where we think these issues would be most significant in 1972.

For example, in the area of jobs, we find that most of our key states may have a jobs problem in 1972, with the possible exceptions of Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Taxes is pretty much a national issue everybody is concerned about.

In crime, states that don't have big SNSAs, high crime rates, we've left out of this chart.

On drugs, apparently this is pretty much a national emotional issue.

We don't have data which would say objectively there are X thousand addicts in this state and Y thousand in the next state.

This simply shows the location of veterans.

In agriculture, whether we expect price or other problems in the farm states next year.

Environment, this is where we would forecast right now, environmental hotspots in the year to come.

See if we drop out Missouri, Wisconsin.

Thank you for education, for aging across the board.

For health, we might leave out California, they seem to be in better shape generally on health issues in other states.

And then, we've also done an analysis of the issues in each one of the 50 states, and made some effort to try to forecast what would be other key issues in these states.

The aerospace industry will be a major issue in California, not only unemployment, but the future direction, and kind of a touching bod in the aerospace industry.

Mexican-American problems will be featured in California as well as in Texas.

For us, there are several hundred thousand Chicagos in Chicago as well, so we're touching on a lot.

Open housing and desegregation is tight.

Let me suggest sometimes for everybody to keep an eye out for the negatives.

A lot of people are getting tired of seeing so many blacks on television shows.

and commercials and so forth.

But sometimes you don't say that.

You just tend to say that the public media has done an excellent job in providing economic opportunities in terms of their funds for the blacks.

I would hope now that they would turn their attention to providing equal opportunities for other minority groups such as Indians and Mexican-Americans.

Should one out of four now have to be in every line of black?

Well, there's got to be, there's got to be, there's got to be, let me see, let me see, let me see, you said that you have four in a can, you've got one black, you've got one Mexican, one Indian, one white person.

That's fine.

You're right.

Without being critical at all, you compliment them, you say they've done a great job.

I hope now they were Mexican.

Of course they did.

And there are a lot of them.

And they're in critical states for you.

I saw a movie last night where they did that.

It was one of the biggest southern movies of the year.

And of course it was the closing scene.

I heard it was the concept, Richard, wasn't it?

Wow.

That was the closing scene.

That's how they ended the movie.

In the high hell.

What was the closing scene?

Caramel knowledge.

You saw it?

Mm-hmm.

Where did you see that?

In the desert.

Go ahead.

Does that show in the public theater?

No, it doesn't.

I'm very exposed to it.

It's one of the top movies of the year.

Go ahead.

Open housing and desegregation issues we see continue in California, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

Issues with textiles in Missouri, textiles especially also in North Carolina and in Virginia.

Wisconsin has two kind of other issues, perhaps in part as a result of the demagogy of Senator Proxmire, dealing with government waste and consumer issues, apparently a very large issue in Wisconsin.

Yes, that's a great influence.

So in any case, this is the summary presentation of where we see these, what we would identify as the key issues, occurring in the key states in 1972 plus in the national issues.

At this point, John Ehrlichman would like to continue with a brief discussion of some ways we might think about presenting some of these issues.

We've done a singularly bad job of agency penetration in terms of getting a popular understanding of what this administration stands for domestically.

What we've been developing here, Mr. President, is basically an analysis of whether or not issues really are in action.

And our tentative conclusion is that they are not necessarily national, except a few obvious ones, but that they are susceptible to treatment on a regional or local basis.

And you could spin this out, we've only dealt with a minimum number of states here, but you could spin this out for all of the states, or for regions, and you could draw some regional lines instead of state lines, because they're fairly arbitrary.

Within a region that is concerned about an issue,

Somehow or another, we have got to think about presenting your issues position in a simple, dynamic way.

If it is true that a voter retains really only three basic issues, and in peace and international affairs, which is our strong suit, is going to be one of them,

then obviously the residual has got to be put across in a very strong positive way with strong family or local or individual appeal, rather than our broad national watch.

If we try and approach these issues nationally, they're going to get lost.

We're just pushing and fading.

We've fooled around with trying to develop some sort of punchy approach to the key issues that we've defined here.

And this is a very feeble effort, but it is a beginning at trying to summarize this administration's position on these issues,

for use locally over and over and over again until we get penetration.

Short, concise, descriptive,

Emotional statements of position.

And I don't advance these as being the last word at all.

They are the beginning of what should be a highly sophisticated and intensive effort early, and it's starting now, to develop the packaging for local consumption.

This then can be supported by a, obviously a campaign organization, but also by a sort of an operation handling the legislation and the speaking and the PR, very much like in Morganstown for the legislature and the legislature, which has improved that.

We've got a fair penetration, according to the polls, on those four or five issues that we handled in that organized, intensive way.

So, that's it.

You'll notice that we don't have any flagships in this.

We don't have any big main domestic initiative trusts that we're addressing to you.

What we're doing here is identifying issues on which we think you can track responsive notes with relatively low expenditure money, with relatively low effort in terms of your organization, so to speak.

for this campaign year ahead.

And resting partly on existing initiatives or existing accomplishments and moving into selected areas where we can do additional things with legislation and so on.

Cost of living is just not a credible issue for us.

I know this isn't on there.

Well, it referred to the whole problem among these energy companies.

That's right.

I guess it's just not credible that I'm going to be able to tell a lot about it.

Well, I'm sure we can do a lot, too.

Work out the kind of package that was sort of a version of your comments this morning.

That can give a twist to the whole thing.

On that, could I drop something in here on government expenditure that bridges between the conversation this morning and what you'll hear tomorrow?

And it's the point that you made.

Here's a list of various government programs.

For each one, would you tell me whether you think government spending should be kept at the present level, spending should be increased, or spending should be decreased?

Interestingly enough, they want to increase it down to this point.

Housing, Medicare, environment, education, doctors and hospitals, crime and law enforcement, water pollution, air pollution, and cancer.

They want to decrease it for national defense space financing the Vietnam War and foreign aid.

And that's a national poll on a very respectable basis.

Now, it goes to your point of translating that from the abstract.

into the concrete of taxes and out-of-pocket expenditures, and the question compared to what?

Trade loans.

And when we talk tomorrow about taxes, I submit it doesn't do any good to reduce federal expenditures.

At last it's translated into something that is tangible and real and personal for the individual in his own experience.

You get taxes across the country.

Elon has to be one of the two.

You also note there that those who want it, you said only the last three against a couple of others, they don't want to build any more highways, they don't want any more for welfare.

The highway is 3248.

But I was looking at spending should be decreased.

And there you want to get over half in those three categories.

Space, Vietnam War, and foreign aid.

That's a permanent vote for decrease.

Welfare is a push.

Welfare is 30-32-30.

But all that means is that the thing is flush.

That's right.

Of course, if you ask the question about do you favor higher taxes to pay for this, it's quite a subject.

All right, now that's my point.

Do you favor higher taxes for purposes of...

Well, I think, have you tested that to cap rate?

It's a very interesting question.

The Survey Research Center did a study somewhat along these lines, and they asked these questions.

Then they went back and said, now, for how many of these would you prefer increased spending, even if you had to accept higher tax income?

Of course, the...

Very good point.

Can we redo that in the next poll?

We could do that.

Generally in this poll, Mr. President, I think that we had, there's one question I think that's in the back of the book, I don't remember exactly, but there were a very few people who were raising taxes for... Oh, yeah, for pollution.

And there, even the people were negative on the...

They wouldn't raise taxes for it.

No, sir.

See, this is pretty well...

The point I'm making here is that it doesn't do any good for a candidate to go out to the people and say, I lowered federal expenditures.

That's correct.

What you've got to do is drop the other shoe and say, I lowered federal expenditures and that meant to you

Ten dollars less every month, or three dollars less every month, out of your tax.

Or more jobs, or lower your cost of living.

And the reason candidates promise is the reverse side of that coin, because they promise to keep keeping things that individuals are able to keep.

And it's easier to translate promises.

You know, I think a promise, for example, it is a promise to promise the man that he's going to get his taxes lowered or his cost of living reduced or at least controlled.

It is not a promise to an individual to say, the government in Washington...

is going to cut into expenditures.

Nobody got another problem.

Nobody got enough for him.

That's right.

So that any significant cut that we've caught in the deal, I completely, must be accompanied by a message to the Congress protection, or for some other tangible evidence of any pocket savings that, well, unless and first, John, the other reason first would be these terrible negatives about the budgetary system.

We don't really protect us.

We do it for cost of living.

Why would we do it?

Because of the damage.

If we just simply continue to spend more than we take in by too much, too great an amount, the cost of living sores.

But I think you never can translate that.

That doesn't approximately reach, doesn't reach one of us volunteers.

So they plan to cost the living, the labor you do.

That's where we'll be at now.

We're after 6 o'clock, and we're not going to give it to you now.

But there is a further presentation on research and development and technology, which we can pick up at some future time.

The whole problem is, and we'll get at this at a later time, the whole problem is focused...

The difficulty is that we've been doing too many things, and doing them extremely well, but when you say credit, we go out and pop off before the television, and this and that, and the other thing, and the speaking, and the real question is focus, and you get focus on very, very few things, and repetition.

Repeat the same thing over and over again.

Our speechwriters are frigging with me.

They think that every time they write a speech, they have to say something different.

If you find a good phrase, use it again.

Say it the same way.

Repeat it the same way.

Same rhythm.

Same thing.

Everything.

We've got speechwriters in the goddamn house that understand that.

Not one.

They always come up, they always try to say something different.

The other dimension that is present is

This regional thing.

Yeah.

That if we're going to talk about the age, we ought to repeat what we're saying about the age.

It's important which car.

It doesn't do it, because we can't rely on the national media.

We can rely on regional media, because you get heavy regional impact when you go out of Washington.

Well, we were probably picked a pretty good place in Illinois.

That's right.

Actually, if you talk about all the folks in here in Florida, everybody knows.

Sure, sure.

We've got to talk about the crime problem.

We've got to talk about where they're scared.

They're scared of them.

We don't know that, Bob.

I think so.

It's extraordinary how little we know.

Well, it's a curious thing.

I would not have said what Bob just said if it hadn't been for Bill Young the other day.

We almost lost him on one of our Vietnam votes.

He said, my God, I've read about all these kids in Vietnam, these kids that half of them have come back as dope addicts.

Where is he from?

North Dakota.

They're spoiling our kids out there.

But the interesting thing is, if you look at North Dakota on the veterans map, then they're very heavy on Vietnam veterans.

Yeah.

That's why they love it.

Bob and I have this tall idea.

Speaking of drugs, get it away from Vietnam.

Try to put it in a different context.

And your equation for national decay...

Is crime equal boredom plus drugs, or are boredom plus drugs equal crime?

That's your equation for an issue for kids.

Get it out of the context, because I think this is basically true.

This is one of the reasons why these kids are all on drugs, because they're all bored.

And they don't have a damn thing to do.

They're not working.

They don't want to work.

They've got too much money.

They're too affluent in this society.

So you play with something like that, and at some point you get to meet someone, and you say that this is the equation for life for a king.

But that takes care of the new drug users.

Absolutely.

Not the ghettos.

The rest of the boys at Dix here are the ones of our constituency.

That's right.

Beverly Hills.

That's right.

The black jobs board up thing is that perhaps, if you want to have a statistic, I ran across the other day, 48% of people between 16 and 24 years of age males in the inner city of Detroit are unemployed.

How about you?

48%.

Three ages apart.

16 and 24.

Well, I hope a lot of them are going to be in school.

16 and 24.

That's very interesting.

They conducted a survey which showed people in the inner city of Detroit, 27% of Detroit was in this place.

Well, I think Detroit, and a pretty good indication of the spirit of Detroit, for whatever it's worth, is their unbelievable support of their athletic teams.

Thank you very much, Jens.

Ha, ha, ha.

How do you bring this country up and jerk it up and give it purpose and give it a goal?

Perhaps all I think in terms of this being a decade of dedication, a decade of this understanding, are some such praise.

Dedication for what?

In connection with trying to make some impact.

We've got to compete worldwide.

At some point you say that there has never been a time in the history of civilized man

when he has accomplished much in architecture, or engineering, or the arts, or religion, or anything else, in a time of fear.

The only time that men have ever accomplished any great purpose, or when there have been great strides in the advance of civilization, has been in a time when people were secure, when people were confident, when they had faith in themselves and their own ability.

Now you're bringing this war to an end.

You're creating an area of peace in the United States and in the world.

Now you can somehow translate that in terms of the job that we have to do at home.

And we have to compete with countries around the world.

We're going to do it only with dedication.

I mean, this is a general thing that's so in keeping with your own problem.

We were moving for something with the word new in it.

In the hopes that at the turn of the year, you could declare the war over, we're entering a new era, and we're taking a new direction, and try and put a new face on things.

For example, one thing that I think we've got to add is this.

First of all, looking again at our local poll, which is extremely interesting, at one it's encouraging, at the other point it shows enormous opportunity because people are concerned to handle the negatives, the two major negatives for drugs and the war.

We also know that another major negative, which basically is a negative, is due to the confidence factor in great part.

That's a mix too when you look at retail sales.

But nevertheless, is there people's fear about the economy, or at least whether the data is going to go up or not, and so forth and so on.

When you really start to balance this all out, the main point is that broker comes up with a conclusion that 65% of the American people think that the country is getting worse rather than better, and 25% or 30% or whatever it is, well, it's two ones, but basically they don't even know the actual picture at all.

I mean, they're not irrelevant, but they don't matter.

Just put it in that ballpark.

But for every person that thinks that the country may be a little better, or at least two, or maybe two and a half, I think it's doing worse.

We're basically bearish about the future.

Now listen to this country.

Here we are.

My God.

If we compare ourselves with any previous period in the nation's history, or any other nation in the world, and so we're richest.

We've got more, we've got more, we've got more food, we've got more...

We've got food stands, we've got more television sets, we've got corner houses, we've got more things we never had before, and more education.

Good God, when I went to college, and John and I went to college, we had to work our butts off in order to even get into Manhattan.

And then the stadium.

Things are all different now.

Nobody has to do anything.

It's all on fire.

But nevertheless, my point is that we do have a situation.

of the national, which is basically this.

There's just a hell of a lot of people in the country who are depressed about the future of the country.

Now, you move one of the depressants with the wolf, so that'll go out of the way.

But then, you work on the other depressant, which is drugs.

And drugs, of course, is very possibly not a depressive, really, it's an excuse.

Everybody says, well, the drug thing is back.

But you come down to the other factor that we have today, that is something quite new.

It wasn't true when Eisenhower was here.

Not even for the whole eight years, but it's new today.

And it's been this way, frankly, ever since the old 62, 63, when the whole Kennedy era began, and it went on through the Great Society period.

And that is the enormous influence of a left-wing, anti-American, anti-desistant media.

Night after night after night.

I read, you see, I don't read the newspapers.

I just check quickly.

I read some of these.

But I know everything that's said on that goddamn television.

Night after night after night. 85%.

Ninety percent of the stuff on television is negative, negative, negative, negative, negative about everything.

Now, how could you expect people?

Now, ninety and seventy, eighty-five percent of the people get their news from television.

So they go to the television.

They hear that.

They go to the schools.

They're teachers.

My teacher used to live with me.

My God, I can remember my high school history.

I can remember my college teacher's religion.

They were inspirational, wonderful people that looked at me.

God damn it, they thought well about the future of the country and the rest of us in the middle of the depression.

There are 18 million unemployed in this damn country.

But not today.

The future will run down the country.

The country's gone to hell.

The system has rocked.

This country doesn't deserve to be the leader of the world.

We should accept second place.

And the rest of you, and so forth, and your society is no good, your government is no good, everybody is broken, etc.

And they pollute the water, and so forth, and so on, and so on.

Yak, yak, yak, yak.

Ministers are supposed to live.

What do you get?

They don't live anymore.

A few do, a few do.

But generally speaking, as far as the ministers are concerned, he comes across all religions.

Among the worst are my equators.

I am one, so I can speak about them, the equators.

Primarily because they're hung up in the war, but also because a number of joined them in order to avoid military service.

Ambassadors now are out running down the country about everything.

The system is rotten and so forth.

We don't have socialism or communism or something else.

So, who are the leaders?

I come back to my name of destination.

Media.

Including television, radio, newspapers.

Constantly hammering down, down, down, down, down.

Running down the country.

Running down the system.

Depressing the people about the future.

Who are the leaders?

The teachers.

High school teachers.

Elementary school teachers.

College teachers.

Down, down, down, down.

Depressing.

Talk to your kids after they've been to college.

Jilly went to Smith.

Triple went to French.

Two of the best.

elite schools, rich kids for the most part.

And I don't know how they survived the goddamn places, I must say.

And then, finally, the churches.

The church has usually been a place where people who were poor, people who were depressed, and so forth, you know, they could go there, and at least they would get a little uplift, a little upbeat, a little encouragement.

Basically, that's the main thrust.

The Catholic churches mainly had professionals

to go there.

That's when the priest would take these quarters.

illiterate Irish and Italians and Poles and all the rest, and by God, they'd walk around like a little sprite in the field.

They still do it to an extent.

That's why you find among your hard-hat Catholic people a little more buoyant feeling about the country, a little more upbeat thinking about the country, than among those in the northern states who are exposed

to the more liberal, Protestant kind of churches, including my own Breaker Church, and the others here.

That's why you find, speaking to churches from what I said yesterday, that only the fundamentalist Protestants, and some of the, in addition to the Catholics, still have a little confidence in the country, and why you find a more important attitude, for example, in Texas, and in Oklahoma, and in places like that, than you find in the great eastern states,

and in parts of California in the present time.

Now, what I believe we're getting at is this, that the need in the national spirit is very deep, but the problem we've got is far more difficult than any other war.

The China thing had an enormous speed, mainly because it was bold, it was exciting, and it opens a new business, and it gives people support, and it has to be continued.

And so the war will end and one negative goes away.

But then the media, if you want to remember, beat down this generation that has been taught by this generation, teachers and so forth.

They're dating, barbing, hitting, running down.

And our problem really is to some way reach the people over the media, over the leaders.

I come back to my fundamental proposition.

The leader of the class

And so our problem is to try to give them some leadership.

So they say, why doesn't the president do something?

We try.

We try to say some of these things about the country, and everybody says, oh, it's just, as George says...

still have a little confidence in the country, and why you find a more important attitude, for example, in Texas and in Oklahoma and in places like that, than you find in the great eastern states and in parts of California in the present time.

Now, what I believe is getting at is this, that the need in the national spirit is very deep, but the problem we've got is far more difficult than any

The China thing had an enormous appeal, mainly because it was bold, it was exciting, and it opens a new vista, and it gives people support.

And it has to be continued.

And so the war will end, and one negative goes away.

But then the media, if you want to remember, beat down.

This generation has been taught by this generation, teachers and so forth, they're dating people.

Barbie, Kitty, running down.

And our problem really is to some way reach the people over the leaders.

I come back to my fundamental proposition.

The leader class in America today, it is they that have failed, not the people.

And they have god damn nearly destroyed the people in this country.

And so our problem is to try to give them some leadership.

So they say, why doesn't the president do something?

We try.

We try to say some decent things about the country, and everybody says, oh, it's just, as George says, it's a crime for this administration to have anything go right.

Well, sometimes you want to go right.

You're going to go right to foreign policy.

Trust me, you're lucky if you get something right in the economic policy.

But, generally speaking, we want to remember that, and I don't say this as

I know there are good people and bad people in all areas and so forth, but I do know this, that we face at the present time a concerted, deliberate attempt in the great editorial rooms of all the networks,

Most of the major newspapers, in the classrooms of the universities, and that speaks down to your elementary and others views and so forth.

And in the great schools of religion around this country, except for the few that I've mentioned, and a group of people that have given up on the country, that hate the country really though they never admit it, and that they're doing their damn level best to create the very conditions that you're talking about here.

That's the problem that you've got.

I've overstated it deliberately, but it's very real.

65% of the people of this country at this time would not feel naive about the future unless they were hearing it and reading it day after day and night after night.

So why don't you say this sometimes?

May I respect this?

Yes, and I think any mayor sets the tone of this city.

I think any governor sets the tone of this city to be aware of it.

And I don't think anybody in this country can set the moral tone of this nation

I think it may not be possible.

Well, it may not be possible.

But it doesn't have to be related to this kind of type of speech.

It doesn't have to be related to Warren Vietnam or any of those.

It ought not to be.

We should have the courage of confidence.

Confidence in what we've done.

Confidence in what we can do.

We have got great things, and we've got great things to do.

Well, for example, on your television on tomorrow, on Sunday night,

I was going to say, you're absolutely right, John, about getting the trust.

You've got to focus.

But I can tell you, I think we have not made enough of a matter.

That in 40 years, this country has not had more employment without war.

By God, we are going to have peace and prosperity in the Eisenhower period.

I remember 1965 was the only year when I think we got just a little below 5% of employment, about 4.5%.

But forget that.

The point is that what we're really talking about is a period of time, not a year, but a period of time in which, and what we're doing is talking about something new, something really new in the last four years, where this country now, where we see a war coming to an end, where we see a new era, new relations, which can be peaceful with other nations in the world.

It will be a great challenge for us in Canada.

In other words, to keep the peace.

But the greater challenge is, what do we do with the peace?

What do we do with it?

The point is that here we have an opportunity for a young generation to go out living peacetime, with jobs, and so forth, without one.

What are they going to do?

Are they going to be bored?

Are they going to go to pot?

Are they going to go to drugs and the rest?

Or, by God, are they going to create something?

The only thing is, people tend to create more and more than they do in peace.

That just happened to be true.

Now what we have to, they've got to have great challenges.

What we have to have, you remember the book many years ago, we've got to find the moral alternative to war.

My point is, the point is that in the present time, there is going to be a great vacuum to fill.

It's not only in terms of the vacuum, of filling it with...

technological new masses and all that sort of thing so that people can have jobs and material things.

But it's also to get people to realize that now we're moving into a new era.

And you're goddamn lucky to be around.

You're lucky to be living in this nation at this time in this world.

A world of peace.

A world of communication.

and a world and a nation in which jobs are not at the cost of men dying, in any case.

And I put it as bluntly as that.

Jobs are not at the cost of somebody dying, and not because of the pleasant somebody shit out there in Vietnam, or Korea, or in Europe, or in Japan, or whatever the case might be.

Now that's a hell of a thing.

And that's a big difference, and I think people like that, people like that.

That also makes the peace issue at the same time.

It also makes the issue that part of the reason for our high unemployment is the fact that we have, while now in the war, they've cut down on the taxes.

I think that was it.

But then you go beyond that.

Why don't you go beyond that point?

Because that's the peace issue, I think.

They have a much more difficult thing.

What the hell is this country going to be?

What's it going to do in peacetime?

Sure, we've got to compete.

We've got to decide what we're going to make.

How do we compete?

How are we productive enough to compete with a resurgent Japan?

Germany, with possibly the whole Western Europe getting together in a powerful economic unit.

How are we going to compete as we open up to China?

Because the Chinese, one way or another, even with their lousy system, are going to be a hell of a force in the world.

Let all the Russians, who of course are already a force, that they allow us assistance.

And the point is?

Sure we can.

But the Americans have got to get rid of the spirit they used to have.

But it was too long ago.

We didn't have to go back, I must say, after World War II.

There was a period at least when we felt we could do a few things.

And we didn't.

And we saved the world at that time.

With the Marshall Plan, the Turkish Law, all the rest.

All the thinking about those things.

They were great enterprises.

And they were worth doing.

But now at this time, at this time, here we are where we end.

America now faces not the challenge of war, but a much more difficult, a much more, a much greater challenge.

It's the challenge of peace.

It's a challenging job without war.

And also the challenge of a goal and a purpose without war.

And what are we going to build?

And by golly, it's going to take quite a bit, but it's going to take...

It must say it's...

I think we can make...

I can speak about that.

I can yank it on you, but I don't know about that.

I don't know if that was really the thrust of that talking about Kansas City or anything.

But the point is, you've got to remember, John, that it's almost impossible to get the goddamn media to carry this.

Because they don't believe this.

You go out in that press room, and those bastards, they're just not just because they're against us.

I understand that.

That's politics.

I read them.

I do the same thing.

And I read twice and all the time.

But on the other hand, you see, they, in some way, somewhere along the line, it isn't like the old mutt raisers.

They served a very useful purpose in the last part of the 19th century.

And they were a part of the 20th century, because the robber barons were hurried, while they also served a hell of a useful purpose.

We would never come to the country without them going across and getting in the railroads and all the rest.

Who else would have been on the line?

The point is,

At present time, you have a new leader class in America that is not fit to lead.

The businessmen aren't fit to lead.

The educators aren't fit to lead.

The media are not fit to lead.

Are the politicians?

I'm not so sure.

I know the ministers aren't.

Now, having said that, some of the ministers are, some of the media are, some of the rest.

But normally, your leadership does come

Not just from a president or a governor or a mayor.

It comes from a community of people.

People that gotta believe in the dance country.

They gotta believe in the city.

What the hell are we trying to do?

And so they get together and do it.

Now we have this, I mean, you have this...

national obsession of trying to tear the country down, tear the system down.

Everything we do is wrong.

You see, that's the problem.

That's what the national psychology, that's what's going through.

And whether it can be changed, I don't know, but it gets back, it's very relevant to all this subject.

It shows the necessity to find a focus,

The hell with all this Mickey Mouse stuff and all the rest of it.

Do it all.

I mean actually.

Do all the right things.

You want to do it.

But on the other hand, the country more than anything else, more than the program, it needs purpose today.

And the purpose, the purpose has got to come.

Perhaps, maybe it's got to come in.

I think all that's fine and good.

That's the right thing to do.

But on the other hand, I think at the present time, the nation needs a purpose.

And that's why I say I'd be inclined to bite the bullet with regard to scraping away a lot of the progress and so forth, in order to get the people to do it well.

We're not going to do some of these things.

You take your tax savings and maybe make some new additions in that area.

Put the country in a new direction.

Really a strongly new direction.

That's why the veto of EOEO will be a very easy one.

When I do it, that's going to be a hell of a veto.

It's going to be said we're vetoing it because we believe

At first it outlived its usefulness, that's all, and it's going to go on.

If all of these things could relate to a keynote, like, let us take a new direction, coming out of a war experience, we'll put it behind us, we're going to take a new direction for the country now,

And the old programs are growing.

The old solutions haven't worked.

The old expenditures haven't bought us anything.

I think you put your finger on a very good point there.

It allows us also to make pieces.

Exactly.

A very good way to make it is to say, and John, you get a chance to do everything.

doing a little ad-libbing on Sunday or any other time, and you're going on a program on Tuesday.

Well, I think, I mean, you can say, you know, we face in the 70s and 70s, it's quite new here.

It's the challenge of having full employment without war.

It's the challenge of having a new direction.

Now, we've tried a lot of things with the very best of intentions.

We've tried the programs.

Don't take on Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society.

I wouldn't use that term.

But I'd say we've tried a lot of programs and this and that.

And frankly, a lot of them haven't worked.

And now we need some new directions in this country.

And, I don't know, maybe that's what we're talking about.

And a positive, putting it in the most positive possible way, is failing us.

The constituents of those programs are the first to agree with us.

If you talk to them and you say, ah, there have been all these fancy programs, and you get all these small promises,

But you know, as well as we do, that nothing came out at the end of the pipe, and they all died.

That's right.

I think it's very important to bear in mind that we hear a great deal about the youth revolt against the establishment.

Yeah.

Who is the establishment?

It's the...

University professors such as myself.

In other words, it ensures a liberal group that has really come to dominate.

The liberals have left the country down.

I've been saying that without abusing the word, but it's true.

The whole, look, look.

The whole liberal effect of Neil deGrasse Tyson that is praising what I've done in China is praising it for the wrong reasons.

They think that the reason is that they say, well, first that the Chinese communists are good.

That they never were bad.

It was alright that they killed 40,000 Americans in North Korea, in Korea.

And that they were also infueled with the war in Vietnam and all that.

The reason they're different is they say, and now we finally are going to, now that we've broken down this barrier, we're going to have to speak

Everybody's gonna live happily ever after.

Chinese Communists.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

What we have done, simply, is to do two things.

One, we have opened up, as we needed to open up, a dialogue with what will be an enormously potent force.

We've got to live with the bastards or die of it.

That's as simple as that.

And the other thing that we've done...

which is terribly important, which we can't talk about, and we won't speculate about either subject, is we had to do it because of our relations with the Russians, the Japanese, the Indians, and the lower case level, and naturally, because of a little problem we got in Vietnam.

And that's what it's all about.

But nevertheless, here you find these liberals, and they have a foreign policy and the rest.

Who got us into the goddamn war?

Who has always meant it?

Who is it?

The liberal foreign policy people.

They were the ones who wanted to get into the United States until they wanted to get into war in Africa.

Or on one side or the other.

And they just fought like hell to keep us out of getting into war, to fight Pakistan.

We couldn't have ever made this an issue.

They wanted us to fight the Pakistanis because the Pakistanis are going to rub on the East Pakistanis.

not because they're concerned about the refugees, but because they want to destroy Pakistan.

And so, here the liberals are, the very people that made the mess, are trying to sabotage our efforts to get us out of the mess.

And, of course, that's why it's, ironically, a rather manly people.

Because Sporo Henry says he gets better from the Albright sidebads, and all the rest,

My, this is a great, great initiative, and so forth.

A Harvard professor that came down here, leading one of the riots, he said that if this comes off, he's going to have to change his mind, and so forth, and so on.

I'm not changing my mind at all.

I mean, the point is, what has happened is, those who got on the wrong side of this issue, and then we can end it.

In other words, let's start this thing.

They are the people that were involved in the assassination at the end.

They are the people that got involved deeper in this thing as it went along.

And then they tried to get out of it.

And now they see the Chinese thing.

And so it goes.

But we're for the Marshall Plan as long as we were giving away $100 billion there and other parts of the world.

Now, in present time, they see it in terms of the disability context, and it's like, oh, enough about that.

That's another digression.

What I'm simply saying is that they have every right to change their lives, and I hope a lot of them do, and we will gracefully set out to talk in the past.

One thing we have to remember is that when it gets back to my point about the establishment,

The establishment, basically, the establishment in terms of the intellectual elite in this country, in terms of the freedom, in terms of the universities, in terms of the ministers, the religious groups, that establishment is established.

It is wrong.

It's wrong about our foreign policy.

It is wrong about his attitude towards the world.

It's wrong about this country.

It's wrong about crime and permissiveness.

It's wrong about our system.

They believe in some other system.

Although none of them have ever tried it either.

And they've lived pretty well for this long.

And the point is that the reason that I am hated so by them, and I well understand it, is that they can hate for a while.

Not really.

Because they know they're healthy and have a chance.

But the reason that I get under their damn skin, they're afraid I might beat them.

That's all.

That's the only reason.

And also they think that I really should be one of them because I happen to have gone to school.

My God, we'll beat the bastards.

830, huh?

Yes, sir.

That was a fine increase in cases.

It was.

Fascinating, fascinating.

Did you find it, John, some old politicians?

I heard it.

I'm pressing where we go from here for tomorrow.

I've got a tax, plus and minus.

And then we're going to wait for Patrick to catch up on the other leg of this thing.

And now we've got four of us together.

Okay, and we want to do it all in the next three weeks, you know, right?

Before, what is it, the I-15?

Well, we've got to spend time each time we want, so...

We've got this R&D business, so we kind of have to get somewhere along.

If we have time in the morning, we can do that, or we can do it at night.

Well, that was a good job.

Well, that's it.

Perfect.

Very good.

Well, that was perfect.

I think anybody that understands the view of electoral politics should raise their hands.

Well, I say to you guys, you're already attentive enough.

Very good.

That's a good job.