Conversation 079-001

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Now to the president.

We'd like to pick this up at .

I think we'll cover the second part first .

First let me emphasize that the freeze continues.

We're still in the period of the briefings going along, being administered, and so far as anyone can tell, it is very effective.

All we have to say is that it is working out and providing the reading space necessary to get the new program into effect, and it is a good operation.

development of the post-freeze program, which the President announced last week has been going forward, and the particular problem has been

to show design that it has in it the potential for effectiveness or real bite into the inflationary or for the price index in the situation in late 1972 and at the same time

construct the and its relationship to other parts of the machinery in a way that will bring organized labor on board and induce them to accept responsibility for helping to make wage settlements compatible with the goal insofar as prices are concerned.

So that problem we have been struggling at for a long weekend has sort of hinged on the relationship between the cost of living council and the pay board.

Much of there is some, I think, some little confusion within the possibility council on this, but on the whole I think it was the rhubarb that has blown up as a result of

and promote this understanding on the part of the press to give us a little conflict to play around with and they can see us in that.

But as of now, we have a post-freeze theory that I think we can confidently feel will come into play with the cooperation of organized links and we will definitely be able to get this off the ground.

I'm going to say that's no mean achievement, particularly the most recent and most close parallel in an effort to get something like this going is the Canadian experience.

They worked very hard for over a year.

They never got labor to go anywhere near it.

And the whole thing collapsed in its own way and just didn't achieve anything at all.

On Monday, following the lack of any statement from the labor movement about what their position would be, we constructed a summary statement of the respective roles of the Trust and Living Council, the Pay Board, and the Pricing Commission.

All of the statements, as we saw it, in as precise and short a form as we could, essentially drawing on Secretary Connolly's press statement, press conference on price.

And that was going over with

various people, Secretary Connolly was, went over it, and then we went over it with the President, and he okayed it as a statement.

This statement was then given in the morning to George Meade, Frank Kastem, and the team person, Larry Woodcock, of the autoworkers that's there, who independently, so to speak, in the labor field.

And more or less at the same time, members of the Productivity Commission were talked to about it as many as we could reach on the phone.

That would be industry people, agriculture people, and so on.

Public members, given this information, had it been released to the press.

It was a public document, not a private document to organize labor.

They discussed this in their executive county meeting this morning.

After that meeting, they issued a statement, the AFL-CIO did, saying that they would try to make the President's mechanism to control the cost of living work, I'm quoting, and they will serve on the pay board.

Now, they put that into a little bit of provocative framework by saying that they had received assurances that the pay board will be completely autonomous and the Trust and Living Council will not have veto power over its decision, either as to standards or case.

Well, there are all sorts of ways you can read these documents, but this document does, which anybody who's interested in having a copy, I have plenty here, instructs the role for the cost of living council as the overall review mechanism for the programs, and sets forth what that does, and sets forth what the state board does, and what the price commission does,

We do expect both the pay board and the price commission to establish criteria and proceed to

The cost of living council will stand back, look at the overall program, see what its results are.

If the price commission and the pay board are not working in a compatible bank, I can move in and do something about that.

If they are compatible but not compatible with a goal of getting to the 3% level by the end of 72, we'll have to do something about that.

but the cost of living council will not be in sort of judging individual criteria of those cases or whatnot.

That is a great part of the labor.

So they issued their statement.

I might say they added on to their statement a little bit of a people up.

their opposition to the president's tax program.

At any rate, the president then issued a statement, actually, personally, the mayor's statement in the press room, welcoming the participation of organized labor, but then also

reaffirming his concern that the economy expand and that the Senate act promptly on the tax proposals since these will create at least half of those jobs.

So at this point I think our posture is labor has said okay and we have said okay.

They're coming on board and now we can construct these

the price commission and the pay board and put them to work.

So we do have an operable setup that is going to have a strong people of the labor representation.

Apparently, Will Binney, George Means, I.W.

Engel, the president of the steel workers, Red Smith, the president of the machinist unit, Frank Fitzsimmons, the president of the teamsters, and Leonard Woodcock, the president of the oil workers.

So labor is feeling its first team in this sense.

There are no construction representatives on that.

The reason is that in the executive order, and this is at everybody's wish in the construction industry, it's explicitly stated that the construction industry stabilization convention, which had been set up earlier and was working more or less satisfactorily, would continue to operate and wouldn't be

and do so under the standards of the pay board, but would not be put out of business by the pay board.

I don't see anybody who wants that.

So I think where we stand now, that is that the freeze is in, it is working, it continues for another 32 days, I guess.

We now have the ability to put the machinery in place as the President has proposed.

and a chance to have a genuinely cooperative effort from all sides to make this thing work.

And I think that is a reasonable achievement, and I think the President put it well in his presser of saying that in accepting this role, the labor people

You accept responsibility.

for helping to achieve these goals as far as I'm concerned.

And that, of course, has to be changing about the rest of the city.

But eventually, it must happen to the level of your settlements.

They're going to have a very tough job to do because there's some very big settlements right there in the way with the coal and docks and so on.

But they have accepted this, and now we go on from here.

I, of course, complete support and something with the goal that this has been established.

But I think that there is one thing that we have to keep in mind as we go into 1972 and that's employment.

And right now, I, in my department, we're letting out 295,000 military personnel between now and July 1.

We'll be letting out 150,000

contractor employees, these are employees working for defense contractors, plus around 90,000 civil service employees.

So when you add up the total number of jobs, we will be adding to the 2.2 million jobs that we've already cut back well over another 400,000 between now and June 30th.

Now, I do feel that that has to be looked at because

We have created this problem somewhat, as far as employment problems, but it has had an impact from the Department of Defense.

And it's going to have this further impact within the next six to eight months.

That's another .

That points out how important you say it is to have a strong expansion, why it's important to be in front of taxes, and also why it seems to us

Well, to do everything we could to work with labor to get them on board in this.

And to see it from what many of the editorialists would advise and favor.

that you just sort of have a government group here and you have a real tough policy and you tell everybody that their contracts are no good unless they meet these standards and so on.

And we felt that if that hadn't been done, probably we would have had an awful lot of strikes.

And if we had went up with the situation in the middle of November or early December, with the auto industry on strike, the railroad industry on strike, the trucking industry on strike, we wouldn't have any economic expansion for very long.

So I think that's what it impacts on people.

But of course, the important thing about politically, this goal of controlling inflation is buying something you have to.

But politically, jobs are the important thing.

Everything we can do as far as the tax bill and these other things are much greater significance.

As far as politics are concerned, 1972, there's a lot of things.

if the next administration is started throughout the world and in the United States.

And if the next administration is around and will carry out these goals and these projects in the next 30 years, it doesn't mean very much.

So I just feel that the goal should be not only control of inflation, but also jobs.

I don't think we all feel like this very much.

I think it's been very well viewed from a sort of political standpoint.

One result of having labor, which is very heavily democratic, involved in the fight against inflation means that, to a degree, whatever happens there, that's a shared responsibility.

That only focuses attention more strongly on the job attention of the economic industry, but I think it does

That would give us a little bit freer man of the jobs.

We also had a situation where inflation was slowing down the production of jobs and threatening to do it more as a result of rising interest rates and the whole inflationary psychology.

So you had to deal with it in order to keep the jobs dropping off further than the domestic sector.

I think we have to look at it in terms of the whole package, and that's how we forget here the whole package.

It all couldn't be more right, and so that will be in my opinion.

Speaking politically, I've seen, and this could change, I've seen a great number of elections affected by, quite a number of states have been affected in this country by inflation.

Republicans always talk about it, and this could be a different year, but nevertheless,

There's this George's point out there, such a direct relation between inflation and jobs, because you take your big companies, people who have got to invest in the future, and they figure inflation is inevitable.

Most of the interest rates are too high, then your housing gets down, and then you're

new investment, new plans, and the rest.

So we're trying to get the inflation fixed, and we have to do all, we have to attack the inflation problem as we are here.

We have to attack the jobs, and that's the reason now I added to the statement that the original was gonna make in response to Meany's direct contradiction of his proposition.

He just said, we're against the tax proposal, and I called Meany and phoned him and said, I appreciate what you said, but I want you to know that I'm gonna fight for that tax proposal.

He just laughed.

I said, we've got to have it because that's going to create at least 500,000 jobs.

Those tax proposals, we've got to keep the heat right into the center and all of that.

We've got to have the oil exercise tax repealed.

We've got to have the investment tax credit.

We've got to have the...

that people would probably get without a question, too much action from the consumer side, and that will help too.

So we're going on that.

It's a big time.

On a broader aspect, you've got to remember the international end here.

We're working toward a resolution or something, I don't know what that's called, about the ability of Americans

All of this is related to a two.

I think whenever we talk about it, we say, obviously, everybody wants us to give them education.

That's why we require substantial children to improve the wage price rates and to move down a continuing program to provide education.

Everybody, however, also has to put it in.

wants to have an economy and business plan, so we have jobs.

So we've got to work on that.

And in terms of the job fund, we have to realize that our international policy has a considerable effect on that.

Let me say just one thing with regard to the labor side.

I don't think anybody should have any allegiance in here that are trying to get labor to cooperate having to do with politics.

Politically, politically, we can make this work by fighting labor if we damn well do it, because politically they are where labor stands.

Politically, having them as opponents at this point,

from everything that we've been able to see would be helpful.

Because, I mean, he's overplayed his time.

That's why he's come back.

Difficulties.

And I'm aware of that.

I'm aware of the fact that come the next election, as far as these labor leaders are concerned, they're all going to be off the car, and us off of the hidden car.

The problem we've got is a very good case.

George has pointed out that

And this is just candidates, I understand, George.

None of these so-called less-than-all-out control programs have worked without cooperation.

In other words, unless you have the cooperation labor, they won't work.

You can draw them all over the place and do that.

But you either have to go to wage and price controls

forced across the board.

In other words, totally controlled economy, which we do not want to do.

Or, if you're going to try this sort of mid-section, there is, there is, we have to do the middle, we have to do the middle.

We've got to do that.

Then you've got to have, as an indispensable element, some cooperation from labor.

Now what will that cooperation be?

Not totally.

But the part is, as taking construction trade, that hasn't been nearly as accomplished as much as we'd like.

But let's put it this way, let's suppose it's how 11 or 12 percent, that's a lot better than 20 percent.

Then you get down to 80, maybe that's better.

What we're really looking at here

They now assume part of the responsibility for dampening down the wage price push.

Now, they may not do it adequately, and there may come a time when some of these so-called public members may resign, and then it'll blow, as it did in the Korean War.

And that may come, however, in the spring, after the economy is moved along.

The question is, do you blow it now, or do you blow it then?

Question, what are your options?

Let's suppose labor does not go now.

I need patience.

Suppose that, he said, well, I had an actually well-intentioned business man who said, my God, don't you realize that 60% of the people who are for the president is against me?

I'm aware of that.

I know that better than they do.

The point is,

We can't get along with them, but we can't get along with them in this respect.

We're going to improve with our eyes open.

We don't want to blow it now.

As the economy is moving up in the last quarter, as we're getting more optimistic psychology in the last quarter, then at the end of the 90-day decrease, to have labor say, we aren't going to play.

That's what we do.

That's where our business guys fall out.

I say our business guys, they think, but they haven't thought it through.

They say, well, just have a public board.

We have them in the next room there.

Have a public board in there.

We'll roll back.

We'll roll back, for example, we said, those exorbitant increases in office.

Roll it back.

Sure, they ought to be rolled back.

They all ought to be rolled back.

What are you doing next, Charlie?

and this economy would be still, that's the real problem.

Now get it to your point, we would have this recovery, or the upturn, I prefer to call it .

So what we had to face, and that's the value, people around us were in council too, we thought this was great money before we got this statement, before we developed the position.

All the people across the country have no illusions about doing this because, look, we've got to do this or the leaders are going to get mad at us.

There's no questions.

We're not trying to buy this.

We're not trying to get their votes.

We're not trying to keep the candidates.

What we're trying to do is for Hawaii to have

some support from a group who have a certain amount of power that we cannot control in any other way.

We can control it.

Possibly.

but it would require a lot more than what the president had in the way of legislation.

Is that a fair statement?

That's a problem.

So let me, let us say this.

I think that our topical constitution is that we welcome labor's willingness to assume some responsibility.

and then give them all the responsibility they can.

Now, that group that's going, I just hope that you can get this guy, that's a murderous group.

All right, put them on, and it's gonna be a .

It's tough, and of course the labor people, they will all caucus.

They will go into these meetings with any point of view, and they'll hit it from this angle, hit it from that angle, and they'll blow to the truth.

They'll have an auditor game plan, too, and the business people will have to... That's right.

You can talk about it at this caucus, too.

I think Murray did a very fine job.

This is one time, though.

This is one time it makes me feel hard.

Let's have the G.E.

psychology.

G.E.

man and man.

There's a little...

And then some guys that are, you know, just, because, I don't say this, but because these two forces are going to meet, you've got to be sure that the names of them are equal, and I have public members that are absolutely trustworthy and strong members, but I want to say this, that I didn't insure all the members of the Constitutional Council of the Prime Minister, the Congress of the Prime Minister.

This is all just a big question.

and they're having the same thing or something easier.

There are no good choices.

Mr. President, I wasn't expressing any disappointment.

No, you weren't.

I was merely making the point that when you talk about the goal of this program and all the materials that we ended up, I believe we should bring in some emphasis on the impact on jobs as part of the goal.

Because actually, in all of the discussions thus far, in the positions and papers thus far,

on inflation and on the political side.

Inflation isn't going to win a hell of a lot of votes for you, but it does have society impacts on future travel.

I think those things should be decided on that subject, because that's what people are interested in.

Well, we go.

I'd like to go now to the where we are with regard to the announcement tonight today and what is significant is the alliance of the people of the administration.

The announcement of a meeting of the spoken leaders in the Latin American community did not involve the summit in the blue.

There have been discussions over the past two years on and off the courage levels and possibilities of the summit meeting.

We have all met.

They have agreed that one should not occur until we have made progress in other areas.

enough to indicate that a summit meeting would be useful and might serve a purpose in furthering negotiation.

To bring it to a head, Romero was here.

I mean, we discussed it a year ago when he was here.

And at that point, he did not come to jail.

When he was here this time, he brought the department to the patient.

Now, the meaning, we have to realize what has happened.

In terms of negotiation after this project, it's not an insignificant record with regard to some of these things, like what to do with links and middle lines and stuff and so forth.

But any one of them, as they occurred in the previous administration, and hailed as the second coming, we just don't have that kind of favorable press.

For example, Steve S. Creed,

He passed completely on the liberation thing after all.

We were there.

We got into the biological war there then, which was a good one-day story in Washington, particularly for God.

Thanks.

Great part for you, man.

You started the Negro Defense.

The growing out of the SALT talks, the accidental war agreement through hotline.

And then, of course, most importantly, and I would say this was the crucial reason why both of us completed the distance in time.

We had made significant progress and sufficient logistical work for some of the buildings.

When we think of the number of crises, we've got to look at the fact that we're in a great, great situation.

It's a very, very great situation.

The Russians consider it a great situation.

It isn't completely wrapped up yet, but it will be, we believe.

Now, in the light of that, the Russians are over, and we have three to ten hundred years

Now, what will be the success of that?

Well, it will depend upon the situation at that time.

For example, a question can be raised, are you going to accept the situation in regard to the Vietnam?

Well, it depends on what the situation is at that time.

What about the matters of the black committees?

That's a known situation at that time.

And the same could be said with regard to higher security.

As you know, we are moving toward, we're concentrating on reaching agreement on

In our interest, I mean, a limitation of all kinds of expensive weapons.

At this time, we will continue to concentrate on that.

And whatever stage the negotiations may be in at that time will determine what we discuss at that time.

In other areas, which are interested, of enormous interest in the use of sodium, and to a certain extent to us, and more to them, is the whole area of trade that we're going to have a discussion.

I only mention these things because, since the meeting is going to occur in May of next year,

both sides realize that what would be on the agenda will be determined by what the developments are between now and then.

What is significant is that the leaders at the highest level

This will be a very, as will be the case with China, because it's very limited only to the foreign policy area.

Now, a couple of other points should be made.

which I covered in the meeting with the press and congressional years, but which you may miss and have to apologize for.

Do you have a whole question?

What does this have to do with

that we're seeing a new relationship possibly moving toward a more normal relationship with China-Mainland China.

At the same time, we're seeing to continue negotiations in various areas with the Soviet Union.

Neither done at the expense of the other.

This is very important to take that line because

They were heard with both the Chinese and the Russians.

And neither of them thought it would be a good idea to go out in the morning and see if it would be handy or not.

As a matter of fact, the fact that we're having Russians and the Chinese is a good indication of that.

The other point is, what effect does this have on our, about our elephants, is what we're saying.

Naturally, and you can't even question that it doesn't involve our elephants.

Like, it's about foster doctrines and things of that sort.

We'll be discussing that in detail.

I would say that most of our allies have all blocked such a meeting.

What is the situation with regard to

What a great influence on China.

So where do we go?

On our own fence, perhaps.

And here, I would emphasize very strongly, the facts are heavy-hitting with the Chinese and the Russians.

This is, of course, in itself, a hopeful sign.

But it is, but both sides, both vis-a-vis the Chinese and vis-a-vis the Russians, we can recognize, as they recognize, that our differences are very deep and very broad.

And it's very possible that many of them will reconcile.

And we're going to continue to have different views about the future of the world, who is to play this role or that role, of course.

All that we have agreed to do in both instances is to discuss those differences and to try to find, in a Chinese case, perhaps a process that is common enough to negotiate with images that otherwise may be drawn down to some sort of confrontation.

And the same is true with the Russians, where we already have, of course, a long history of process negotiations.

Brian simply says this.

for some to conclude, and you will see some of us all take comments, right?

This is a whole, the whole world is changing.

The United States is almost like on one side of the picture, and the other side of the page.

None of these things are true.

We're going into these negotiations as they are.

aware that we have differences, aware that we have to, on the other hand, that we should talk about and discuss it, rather than we trust and engage in conflict about it.

I'd like to summarize this.

This is part of my point up.

This one may affect regarding the Soviet Union.

As all that we know, maybe the Soviet Union is not in terms of its military strength insofar as strategic references often as well as they were to the United States in terms of numbers.

And they're still noted.

That is why it's very important, as we emphasize in congressional history, that the United States must be changing.

its own military program, unless and until we have an agreement with our arms competition.

And the agreement must be one on both the offensive and the defensive side, which does not freeze us, and by the same token, all that into a position of superiority.

Certainly not us.

That is why the...

That's why we can take this opportunity to have this kind of discussions.

They are really important.

They could be hopeful.

They can change, certainly, the relationships in the world.

But on the other hand, they, of course, are no reason for it.

They do not mean that the Soviet has changed, and I know it's important.

It's yours.

toward us.

They haven't changed, and neither have we.

But there's one big fact overhanging it all with regard to them, with regard to the Chinese, and particularly with regard to them.

Both of us being superpowers know that if there is a conflict, there will be no winners, only losers.

Both of us also know as superpowers in the present time, we know

as they now have reached us in their own power, that neither of us is going to allow the other to gain an advantage.

Now, I say that, I hope, with conviction with regard to the United States.

We know very well they are.

We know very well they are trying to gain one at the moment.

But the United States, I am convinced that if

these negotiations on strategy to bring it down, yet the Soviet continues on its very, very intensely developed offensive lines.

And the United States has no other course but to either build up offensive or defensive or both.

And so this is where the two great powers have a very divergent interest, have a common interest,

and perhaps limiting an arms race, and a common interest, of course, in negotiating areas where they rub together.

Berlin, where it's trouble.

The Medes, where it's almost trouble with our peripheral.

The Caribbean, peripheral.

South East Asia, peripheral.

But anyway, one of them, of course, is to bring us into conflict.

And we look therefore to this period of time as the one where we will continue to maintain our strength.

We'll continue in all aspects regardless of what we've been negotiating in the past.

panels that we've already set up.

The Chinese visit will come first.

Henry goes to the camp, which will be there for the last part of this month.

He will set up a date.

That date we don't know yet, but it will be before the Soviet one.

One last thing.

I emphasize the capital.

The other point is that we're on a very, very, we're on a high wire, and we're trying to stay there.

We must remember that we are ironically in a position

where each race and the other has more of an enemy than any of the United States.

What does that mean?

That means that the United States, in order to maintain its ability to deal with each, we must do a good handling, we must do a good burying, we must do meticulous care, and we must, as we have in this

not be in the same way one gets the other.

So that's about it.

Bill, do you want to add anything to that?

I'd like to just...

I think that it is important that none of us attempt to express views about this in any substantive way, because the president says we are walking very

I work.

And I don't think it's necessary for any of us to add anything to what President said.

I thought the press conference today covered it very well.

But I would like to suggest four ideas for your consideration.

And I think these are things we could talk about.

First, you're all occupied with your own jobs, but I think that this is a fair statement, that no time in the history of our country

as the President of the United States in such a comprehensive and intensive effort for peace, this President.

And just that alone is something that's very significant.

People don't necessarily expect you to succeed, but they want you to try.

No president has ever tried more effectively than this President.

Two, the world is a more peaceful place than it was two and a half years ago.

In other words, once repression is done, they've had years of benefactorship.

People say, well, the release may blow up, these trips may not succeed.

Of course.

But the world is a much more peaceful place than it was.

And I think that we should emphasize that.

Three, everything that repression did, trips to Beijing, trips to Moscow, is consistent with what he said

at the inception of this administration.

It's consistent with the policy that he announced then, that he has reiterated in his State of the World messages this year.

In other words, it's an orderly foreign policy.

And you can go back and look at it.

It's made quite consistent.

Now, it's been a very tricky business to

It was spring, the announcement about the trip to the United World without any advance notice.

Very good note to anticipate how the Soviet Union might react.

They could have reacted with great hostility in the sense that it appeared to have created tension rather than deep tensions.

And I think that the way the President's managed it, the way that everyone has been careful about what we have said,

It's helped a good deal, and the Soviets' response has been quite restrained.

And this announcement from President May today demonstrates the effectiveness of that restraint on our part.

And the fourth thing is I think we should continue to point out at every opportunity that as a result of all the things the President's talked about, the negotiations with the Soviet Union, it's all talks, like Berlin,

We're talking about the possibility of a European conference.

Security, we're talking about mutual balance, force deductions.

We have daily conferences.

We have conferences when necessary with the Soviet Union about India and Pakistan.

In other words, we have a lot of communication that is in the European countries.

And I think that as a result of these things, and particularly the President's proposal to continue it, it's fair to say

And I think we should share this as often as we have the chance to use the world leader for peace.

And I think that will be something that the people in this country will come to appreciate more and more during these next six months.

And I think it's the kind of leadership that you can expect from the President of the United States.

There's no doubt about it that when you talk to representatives of other countries, that's a fact.

Would you like to add anything?

Will you be in Vietnam before the attack?

Mr. President, I plan to be in Vietnam now the 2nd of November, going right into the operation.

This is very good.

Very good.

The reason that I thought that it was, I thought the Council could handle that, is that I look like we're so much involved that the Secretary of Defense is the representative rather than the governor.

I thought that, I mean, this is your extension, of course.

I really thought this activity was not the one that you were looking for.

I'm not just curious.

It buried me.

Well, you shouldn't be looking for that.

I didn't finish it.

And we had planned our visits with two of the general staff, starting in the second, third, fourth.

They're all set up.

Right, and Tom Morris and I will be there during those days, but I will do what I am told to do.

political stuff the other day, and I noted it.

Well, I never met a candidate who succeeded unless you were comfortless.

I think it was my seat.

We hear about, in the record, in the writing, that we hear about this new prosperity.

What was wrong with the old prosperity?

The answer is war.

I want to remember that you have to go back 15 years to have prosperity in this country.

That means I'm applying less than 5% without a warrant.

Well, two, three years.

Johnson here for four years, so if anybody asks what was wrong with the old Prosperity, there's one word, it's a good one, it's lactone.

For example, if a male is suspected, it's a hundred percent clear that he should be released.

It would be, you know, it's very deceptive of the law, isn't it?

No.

I mean, it's too many.

One is too many, but that's deceptive.

If you stop to think, well...

We stopped at Mexican.

We burned around the state.

You know, we were looking at 250 to 300 a week when we were at the station.

That's good enough.

350 a week.

A week.

This was seven.

And I must say that we hadn't had it for three days.

What is this weather?

Lowly, of course.

Well, the other stock age, there's a lot of fighting.

The stock age, to me, are still suffering.

They're in high cash.

Are they doing rather well?

Yes.

The high cash is crucial.

They're going to fight.

They're taking over.

I think that's good.