On October 11, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon, unknown person(s), George P. Shultz, Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Manolo Sanchez met in the President's office in the Old Executive Office Building at an unknown time between 4:35 pm and 5:50 pm. The Old Executive Office Building taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 287-021 of the White House Tapes.
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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
I don't know if that changes or not.
I'm not sure.
I'm not going to take that.
I'm sure if you get that considered too old, there was one other change.
I'm not sure.
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Okay, sit down, sit down.
Well, we have a suggestion here that comes out of the discussion of various alternatives, which I don't think about it as the alternative unless you want to get all the other things.
Coffee?
Coffee.
This is your best judgment.
I think so.
It is my best judgment, but if John agrees on this, if Jim Hudson agrees on it, I think one option is to just let the situation stand as it is, and just say, if you have questions, refer to the press conference, and that's our best effort to answer them.
I think what that would produce
statement from the Executive Council saying, we will cooperate under the following conditions, and these conditions are met.
And we would, I suppose, say, well, in our manner, in our manner, and so forth.
The advantage of having a statement beforehand, that meaning to see, and that we would talk to members, or the advantage of members of the Productivity Committee, would be that he would, so to speak, be operating on our summary of how the situation
And so I thought it would be a nice event to go see him tonight before the meeting.
And here is our summary of the way things are.
You can take a look at it.
It might be useful, Chris, for your email.
I think he wants it.
Well, what the hell is an object to a map?
A view?
That's paragraph five.
Paragraph five is a key, although the word specific standard is important in the distinction between some specific criteria and views.
Or what the overall picture is, which goes back to this other action,
Where you want to say, in other words, to where you say at the beginning, to assure that the actions and decisions are such a pattern that is to achieve a goal.
So they have to somehow manage to be reconciled to a future plan at some point in time.
Otherwise, they aren't getting there.
But we know that the pay commission will have a possible job at the beginning
particularly because they'll have to pay for it, because they'll have the big increase in steering in the face of cobalt and so forth, and they have to let those go through.
They'll have to let something like what they're negotiating go through, and that will cause a tremendous fuel price, plus the deferred increase.
So the initial... Let me ask this.
Is it our belief, is it our belief that they have to let those go through?
Yes, I think it's a valuable kind of thing.
I believe so.
I think that we have a language that gives the right to try to do something about it.
But I think the initial task has to be probably to uphold the contract that I have to be able
There's a great deal of it.
You just go around knocking out contracts.
You can't do that.
Of course, you're going to have a hell of a few who cry from some of the business people and so forth.
One thing you're going to have to do is get everybody in a comfortable, really comfortable amount.
How about, do they all understand that?
Just saying wrong and so forth, understand?
We went over it.
We have a long description of that, and none of us want to have the deferred increases approved.
But when put to the test, well, what is your alternative?
What are you going to do about the strike?
Or do you want to take a chance on a big railroad strike, a big steel strike, a big railroad strike, all at once, in terms of what that would do to the expansion?
So what does Arthur say about that?
He's the one who says, do something about it, but why?
Well, he finds out...
No, he's trying to throw a few over his head.
I don't think he likes it, but I think... Or she doesn't like it.
They have nothing to do about it.
That's the problem with this whole thing.
The big thing, I think, today is not to have this happen in such a way that you wind up short-circuiting the expansion of the 900-mile-an-hour flight.
Give me, in other words, the stripes with the short-circuits.
Well, we know what happens on the DM strike in that third and fourth quarter, and it's not going to stay like that.
And that expansion is starting to, and it's not going to come down.
I'm not saying those things would happen, but they would.
Now, a key thing here is that the pay board still
has a responsibility to the cost of living.
Now, I think Meany, one of the things he's been negotiating for... Has a responsibility to the cost of living.
Yes.
Directly.
Not to you, but directly.
One of the things Meany would bargain for is to say, I don't want to have anything to do with those people's economy and stuff.
I just deal with the president.
And Mark...
I think, as a matter of concept here, the pay committee and the pay board and the price commission have to have a relationship with each other.
And it just doesn't make sense to say that one reports to the president and the other reports to the corporate living council who have got that.
Do you want to compromise it by saying that there was a...
I would just leave it.
I think that we can stand on this.
I think the...
The idea of taking the cost of living council out of the picture has a very bad public impact.
We don't have editorials today of people who have the feeling that the cost of living council is established to serve credibility in this field of being serious.
And they want that.
And from your standpoint, as a matter of discussion,
Let the machinery operate over there, and you don't have anything to do with it directly at all, other than whatever your advisors may be consulting with you.
But if this is your baby, it's because the living cancer is making you worry about it.
And if things don't go right, you can criticize it.
Yeah, I think it's time.
I understand that.
Now let's look down the road a bit.
I don't think Meany probably will buy this, but he bought the other arrangement and got blown up with some inconsistencies in our own briefing.
It was our fault, and the press took it and they ran with it, but nevertheless it was our fault, hearing that we were not completely consistent in the way the Church described it.
And I think the thing that Herb's done is managed to let the press put into his mouth the idea, the word, that the cost of living council can be cut, but the pay for it doesn't.
That is a particular way of putting the thing together.
But you didn't say that.
I didn't.
I'm sure I scored you.
And I had to go back and do it because some of it should have been written.
Sure.
Well, on the other hand, Labor's attitude wasn't sufficiently friendly that they didn't say, oh, baloney.
They took that opportunity to understand the product.
So I mean, there's that danger almost.
I think, wasn't there a question as to whether the bill would involve specific actions or criteria and procedures?
I mean, we've heard it was something about criteria and procedures.
Well, the general approach
as opposed to cases, whether a case would be appealed.
In fact, we're saying cases are not appealable.
Paragraph 5, we're saying nothing's appealable.
They're not even criteria.
We won't even specifically tell them that a criteria or standard is wrong.
Well, no, but we say per case decision is pretty precise, and that the same criteria is fine, too.
By the paper, they were not approved by the workers' decision.
Oh.
So this is broad.
And this gives them meaning.
I mean, the only danger in this that I see is the danger that the press will say we've taken it away with us.
The other thing is that I would...
In favor of leaving it the way it is, which is exactly this way.
This is the way John Levin did press on.
Connolly.
This is Connolly's position.
This is his position, and I read him this specifically.
What you would mean by that is supposedly the same thing.
But I believe that the COLC would have anything to do with it.
Oh, yeah.
The COLC has the whole picture to look at.
And to that matter, the whole thrust of what the pay board does individually, as well as what the Price Commission does individually, and how they relate to each other.
And it has the whole portion.
Yeah.
And all of that too.
and to all the public support for the whole thing and all that sort of thing.
John said that he has a way of saying something that I'm telling you today.
goes around this way.
Somebody said he speaks Texas English and goes over very well and gives a feeling of great precision, candor, and then you read the word, boy.
He's been all the way around it.
He's done it, I know, I know.
It's a great, great talent.
I suppose George's key then is that we want to be able to hold the dance up.
If, uh,
I think that it would be quite possible for it all to blow up tomorrow, if there is any, particularly if we made any kind of a provocative statement at all.
I think it will be...
If we might do tomorrow, incidentally, simply to say, well, the matter is not being discussed in a confident way.
If they are still in meetings, I'm not going to...
If it's a meetings group, they won't be true at 12 o'clock.
It's hard to say.
I think it's likely that they won't be true and we'll have issues, whatever it is.
If they aren't true, I'm not going to stick my nose in it.
Well, I wonder... Or you argue with me a little bit about...
I wouldn't argue with you a little bit about the...
It cannot change.
There are reasons that I can't give you, but it's part of our program.
The problem is that if you'll be gone at a time when there is this other news story breaking and you don't know quite how it breaks, no way will you change.
We've simply said that Secretary Connolly has made our position clear.
No, I think what I'll try to do is to duck around it.
You know, we'll get the last minute proof when I walk in.
When will you start at 12?
11.55.
I mean, no, no, no, at 11.30, and I finish at 11.55.
I'm fine.
All set.
Now, they don't, the press doesn't tell us.
Nobody knows if this is true or not.
something coming up that wants to be very closely held.
But my point is that there's good reason not to comment upon it.
And I'm no certain that this is very going to be in there.
And then he knocks it down.
I don't say something.
I tend to say, well, let's not prejudge their meaning for the rest of the time.
They need to kind of talk.
They need to have that understanding.
And they take their time.
Well, would they like to adjourn and listen to this front line?
Oh, it's not.
It's a snap one.
They won't know that.
Right.
I think that's the way we don't handle it.
I need to get into the, on the specific questions, George, like, uh, well, will the Carlos Levy Council have to be so powerful and excessive pay raise and such and grant them to the board?
Andrew, no.
And I, I'm not going to get into that.
I just think very clearly what Secretary Connery commented on all that nicely, by what he said, and that's what he said on those questions.
Will that, what will the policy be for a large wage increase as one of the cost of strikes and so forth and so on?
I don't think we should anticipate all that.
I don't want to get into that.
We'll, when we get into it, we're going to kick the little patinas out of it, and we have to.
But I think at this point, we're in a delicate stage, and if we want to, frankly, my theory is to give me and his people enough rope to get rid of the rope at this point.
I don't think he wants rope.
I think he's going to sell it.
It's kind of a public opinion.
Well, we busted out a little coal today, don't we?
I don't know if that's going to make it.
I also think that if we can structure it so that he has, in effect, asked for the responsibility and gotten it on the table in any way to do something about these large hit increases.
About what?
About these large weight increases.
Oh, not the deferred ones.
That's his problem.
He has got to solve that problem.
Yeah, the deferred ones.
George, I think we've got to realize that you're absolutely correct.
Paul Wright wrote, you know, he said, it's only the guys representing the leaders, the people who aren't too sophisticated, people like Arthur who aren't really looking for a solution, who are looking for something to obey him, who are saying, well, roll it back.
I mean, you remember the people who said, roll it back.
Well, God damn it, you can't roll it back.
How?
With what?
What power?
They've got to be very good at it.
You know, take on the strikes and everything.
It's popular.
Certainly.
We got it from public support.
Maybe we should go that way.
I'm starting to roll with the back of my hand.
That's a big roll with the backs.
10 Minutes is basically an anti-labor campaign.
Correct.
I don't think we're positioned to do it like we need to.
maybe that's where we're going to end up.
If they misbehave and keep alienating us.
That's my point.
That's my point.
My point, Don, is that in Georgia's spirit, I think Georgia's part of it, I think they've got to go on to the bird race.
Because I don't think we can break the contract.
That's all in the past.
I mean, they've made those deals and so forth.
Now, it seems to me that that's on the bird race.
Now, it seems to me with regard to the future, they now are on the spot.
And I think if I'm at 10, 12, 15 percent increases, then we build a case.
And maybe we go back to another group.
I think the life of 50, 50 is not really that much.
And they'll be kind of pulling down the crowd a little bit.
The public members of the floor will be a little crazy.
And some states, again, they'll vote with that.
against labor.
And that's what really gets the sticky labor to the wrong guy.
And then I was just told that the, that we were going down the road, then we have to ask ourselves, should we want to have an all-public board, or should we want to, sort of, incite and jawbone and stuff like that, if this man will ever change.
But I think that, that's something to be aware of.
You know that the cards are stacked in our favor, both from the economic standpoint and from the standpoint of the nature of the negotiations.
The fewer and higher the less difficult situations are coming up next year and so on.
The other approach, if there is one, which seems to me, is as you go along, you see that danger coming.
You could, through the Coastal Living Council, reduce coverage.
on a fairly accelerated way yourself.
You do it.
And like Aitken's proposal of the Vietnam War, just declare we've won.
And rather than have the blow-up down the road, he didn't want it.
Well, if he got lucky, for example, if he got lucky and the NAM CPI goes down to, say, 3.5, 3.3, let's see what I can do.
You've got a nice little leeway to the tree there.
It sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
See that?
In fact, four is bad.
That's where it is now.
And we know damn well, I mean, unless we're all crazy, that the next two months will be considerably less than four.
They should be.
Oh, you know they will be, sure.
Now, when they have these deferred pay increases, I don't know what the hell prices are going to be there, but I'm not too sure that the price people...
might get up.
Well, we know, for example, some people have fixed them.
You know, you see in a small little bit of a department, a small little bit where it is small, and I agree with some guy who was out and cut the price of his coffee.
It's a good big sense to buy something from a court that's a good thing.
Well, we also know that the steel industry has a schedule of wages and prices.
Right.
Which one of the companies put in.
And they found other companies were dragging their feet.
And it was discovered that Bentley hadn't had a service on the side of this county anymore.
They weren't telling anybody about it.
So the whole price thing collapsed.
And that's the nature of the sanctions that are operating naturally here.
So we can't forget.
In other words, the demand and supply situation is such that they realize that they can't make that price increase stick right then.
I have a feeling, Don, that I think your problem is you sort of winged the left-wing sweat, don't you?
I guess I'm agreeing with this.
You'd like to have him go over it?
My feeling is that...
I think that we're in a position where we can not cave in completely.
I think George does, too.
I don't think we have to cave in completely.
Well, I agree.
And I think they're in a position where they've got to come along.
Why don't you do this to give Jim Hodgson some of the bargaining things and say, you know, George, I could come here and I think you should know how people think.
George Shultz and, you know, and I prepared this.
We just made it, and we're going to make some changes.
We're going to make a common degree.
We're going to make it the way it's going to be.
That's how we're going to make it.
Now, that's just a point, something that might be a way to put him on some other spot here.
In other words, they want you to go that far now.
You see, what I'm getting at, we all know this goddamn meaning.
It's always said you're talking to the president and nobody else.
Now, I understand that.
He's been used for that for years.
But, uh, here we are.
Uh, you could say this is where we all are just going to be adjacent, which is a misunderstanding.
We'd rather come aboard now.
But we'd rather have Jim kind of negotiate.
No, I think, I don't think... Maybe we don't need that.
I'd rather not have Jim be in the position of a negotiator.
I'd rather they are saying, look, in all those, uh, comments about what his men and so on, we've tried to summarize
what has been our position, and here it is.
And this is not a document.
You know, I can't see how the hell he could back off.
I don't either.
I can't conceive of him.
Yeah, he can.
Of course he can.
The good thing about this also is point number four, which retains for the council the capability of reducing coverage.
Yeah.
Which I think is a...
Potentially.
Well, altering the number of units involved in the rents, or just reducing down the number of things that the board and the commission can even deal with.
Because I think we're going to want to do that.
I can say that I'm totally for it.
Yeah.
I know that everybody says we've got to have it across the board, and everybody's got your orchestration.
But as far as what you concentrate on, I really believe
It's ridiculous for, you know, talking parents of, well, we're going to police 300,000 or 400,000 Christians in the city.
I like that this is a good statement.
George, you know, the thing that Meany's been saying is that who is Hudson's people, who is Schultz's people, and all of that.
But if we have a real K.R.N.
by that, we're going to be clear.
Sure.
Why don't we just do this for you?
Why don't we do that?
I don't think the committee should be given a copy of that.
All right, fine.
What did I say?
I'll just say to Jim.
Well, Jim will have it.
He'll say he's familiar with it.
You've got a photograph of that.
Thank you.
How does that sound to you?
That doesn't make you a negotiator.
This is the administration's policy.
And I can prove I can demonstrate.
That's as far as we can go.
All right.
We thought we would then issue this, but we would call some of our management people on the Board of Rehabilitation Commission.
You're not going to issue that at all, are you?
Well, maybe my feeling is that if this document is left to me, it will be housed around in the Executive Council, and it will end up getting out.
I always want to have to issue it.
I just want to have to give the document to me, and leave it locally.
You'll ask for a copy?
Is there any way you can remind the head of the jury to say that some of the statements are published statements
by administration officials on this, or something.
So it doesn't look like we're changing, but this is just a succinct collection of acquisitions already articulated.
Well, I think that looks like a good list of acquisitions.
In World War II, labor almost wrecked the world labor force.
They did.
Wow.
And in the Korean War, they did.
They walked off the border because they were conserved for a while, and that was when there was a war on.
And then they had a president.
It was there.
It was there.
Right.
Now we have no war, and a president, they would like to defeat.
Right.
But we know they're going to try and get the news of this thing
On the other hand, I think there also is a clear desire to see inflation.
You often, on their part, see expansion in addition to on their part.
And that's partly for reasons that they do not see people employed, partly because they know that when the labor market is very tough, they have it all their way.
I know, I know, I know.
Judge Paul was very careful when he was discussing people with streets, man streets, mills,
playing in our way, must be playing in the other office.
I heard it too.
Yeah, let's do that.
We're going to fight.
Let's have that.
We're going to have a rally and cry.
We're going to rally people.
Have it right out there.
He asked him to head up the Illinois committee re-election.
The president said, you know, he's really for you.
And he said, the only thing that you might not want is that I've got some very strong views on labor, which I may have to express from time to time.
Which I really feel, George, I'm a great politician.
And I think, too, that in the field, the whole field plays a role.
And I think that this is a situation where an approach that we made, well, we just made right on.
I mean, I know the people who might be certain about this, but I'm not concerned about the politics going on.
I just feel that if you blow this at this point, it's a struggle.
If you blow this at this point, there's going to be a real letdown among people who can't hold it.
The other side of that point is, if the odds are
Two to one, they're going to walk out sometime between now and November.
What would you rather have them walk out?
I don't know what the odds are.
George would know.
I'd rather have them walk out at a time when the economy has finally moved up some, when the inflation has finally moved down some, rather than now, when we could have a whole depressing effect, I think.
That's my point.
And if they walk out later, also, God, we're in a position to kick them harder later.
And it's war.
When we declare war, we just take them right on.
We're not going to have a selfish labor baron.
This is one time when they just walk out and come in there.
Our big loss would be if we tried to get this going we couldn't do it.
Perhaps sometime next spring or late winter there will come a point of tension with the public members and so on.
that they wind up walking out against the position that most people think is pretty reasonable on the part of public members, not you, not Congress, not me, but the public members of our community administration, then I think their posture is very different.
This is where you grow.
Sure.
Which is why I think it's important we have the ability to reduce coverage.
You start losing the voluntary public support growth
We get to hurt people.
We've been very fortunate to have others all over the past period of time.
But it really broke after that.
We all from that point in time stayed in this about as long as I can stand.
Despite what many people thought that we should have kept it on for a safe time.
Well, on the other hand, we have a very interesting
You may have an interesting phenomenon here.
You can do your test on it.
Being here, one of those unusual times, without a war, war is not enough.
People are so patriotic.
You know, sometimes people want to be patriotic about something.
And when they want to be patriotic about this, certainly much of the reaction has
I'd like to help.
And maybe that's what helps us.
You realize we've really never had
I mean, in our time, not since the Depression.
The only time you had inflation, you had a hell of a kick up in the third year of the World War II, when the Koreans were in control and all of a sudden, 70% of the vaccines were made.
And I would say that this inflation is no exception.
Sure did.
Sure did.
And relative miles.
Right.
A lot of people think I should do it, but I always hesitate because I don't have the time to do all the important things.
I'm a vegetarian, whatever, and the more I eat, the more difficult it is for me.
So, I don't have to shift your conscience around.
Actually, you'll have more stroke with it.
What else do you hesitate?
Well, you're a caterer.
I said that I'm closer to you now.
That's the point I meant, but not in terms of options.
No, sir.
My inclination is to think that the best person to do is George, in terms of the relationships with him.
But in this case, I think it's getting important to send the secretary away.
I think it's overkill.
I'd send Jim along myself, but just because I think we're giving them an awful lot, and it's a reasonable amount, and it's fair, and there ought to be enough.
And Hodgson's in a position to say this is the view of the administration.
It's been clear to the people that it isn't like that.
I mean, he can't doubt his word, it seems to me.
I can word his words, you know.
It may be overkill, I don't know.
Standing on any protocol or anything, I've got to make it and get it done.
That's the only reason I'm standing.
I'm trying to get it done.
It would be sure, I think, it would be sure.
Overkill or something, I think the thing we'll do is to take a short time.
So that we've gone an extra mile.
Maybe it's the best proof that George has been in this program.
I don't think George has been in this program.
And I've listened to the governor and the secretary of labor.
And I've listened to the governor and the secretary of labor.
And I've listened to the governor and the secretary of labor.
And I've listened to the governor and the secretary of labor.
And I've listened to the governor and the secretary of labor.
Well, I think it would be better in a particular situation, in the sense that the public may have a bigger deal if he was constantly firing.
like most people do, especially like old people.
Young people don't respond to that.
Well, young people do, too.
And I think that, as I say, everybody does, especially young people.
I think we'd better not.
We've got to play for the Marbles.
We'd better go, too.
I think what you should do is to say that you can say how long you should make this paper.
I'm really trying to look down the road.
Yeah I know.
I could have conceded to as the only one who wants to.
You can sit down and ask for another paper on any word in.
Forever, you know, there's always that potential.
If you understand that, that's it.
And this will also be taken to fit by Larry Silverman.
you know, Woodcock and that, as far as I can recall, you know, as of yesterday, Jim Hudson talked to Woodcock, and Woodcock spoke up, and basically said, you know, that's not what you're talking about.
That's not what you're going to get here, so I think there's many of those, you know, you know, relationships, and you might get that stuff.
I don't care what you do with the rest of the economy.
Just give me my good people and leave me alone.
I'll tell you, I'm not, uh, I can't judge the tactics, George.
But, uh, you, you and Jim sort of chat, feed it out, and, uh, you have to go butter up the old man, go do it.
The majors are getting the, you know, what you're, have to do.
Now, I agree with Don.
We're, we're buying off now.
Later on, it'll blow.
It may blow, but when it blows,
You may be in the 50s.
You see, Don, if the economy is on the move up, as it could well be, and the inflation may be at least held down, let's suppose we get below 4%.
That's going to be a happy, good number.
We will do that and plight it down around 5%.
That's a good number.
can't afford the commission are not too stringent there's some deregulation between now and so deregulate especially you can't stay ahead of the game let people think that we're doing everything we can and do as little as possible about believing i i know this is a that's sure you'll see the thing is but the thing is that uh
On the other hand, let's just not ever let the American people in particular, the great, the weak people in our business community,
get used to this damn crunch and we can't do that we can't do that with this country we'll go to hell we cannot uh we cannot let the procedure that people can get very very
comfortable with, shall we say, a controlled economy.
Most people want it.
They don't want to make decisions.
They don't want to be big.
They don't want to, you know, when I say most people, I hope that's wrong.
But an awful lot of people do now.
And there are still a lot of good independents over there.
And your job really is great finesse.
It just appears to be going a hell of a lot.
But we've got to get this done.
You feel that the impression should be that my feeling is I ought to get the price board, the pay board and the price commission out in front doing a hell of a job.
And the cost of living account is just a little separate from that.
What do you visualize on the cost of living accounts when you do that?
Isn't it really against the issue that nobody's ever done, it's like the farmer, he's never satisfied with anything.
But most, nobody's going to be satisfied with things, even if they're going down.
Everybody thinks not that, it's just too much, the sheet goes too much, and the kids want more and more and more.
Nobody's going to be satisfied with almost one of them.
I mean, well, the child then couldn't do much more than that.
So what I mean is, we've just got to give the appearance fighting back.
Just give a hell of a lot of appearance, a lot of calisthenics, but be damn sure that we don't over-regulate.
Oh, that's the worst thing.
She's just getting up there with that bridge as quick as she can, as quick as she possibly can.
I feel that way, and I've talked to Herb Stein and Arthur Burns and George, and I kind of want to get a feel for how I ought to be postured in anything I do.
And I think that we ought to essentially try to
But the cost of living council recedes just a bit as all of this new stuff goes into effect.
And then I think we ought to play a role in the deregulation of the society.
Because I honestly think that the support for this is going to erode.
I think it's going to erode over a period of time.
It's going to be a year, a day, and a companion act.
And we ought to keep trying to see that it's as equitable as possible, as fair as possible, and that the coverage is reduced as quickly as it can be reduced.
It was kind of what I had in mind.
I had it trying to get a little bit of noise-reducing coverage.
I guess the monster was suffering.
I also think that the reduction itself gives people a feeling of quietness.
True.
You guys down here, if you have a major disaster in some sort of foreign area or some other region,
There is a broad economic program which we're trying to
pushing for expansion of the economy and reduction of self-employment.
There is a long-term goal of an improved cost position for American products in the world, and there is a drive to control inflation.
This wage price business is part of the drive to control inflation, which for Hillary is the other thing.
I think it's worth putting it that way because so many of the Democrats have said, well, this all sounds fine, but what are you doing about unemployment?
They left off totally looking at it.
I said, well, I think it's like a, you know, we said, now, God damn it, pass our wall, pass our tax bills.
So I think setting it back in that context would be important.
And then it seems to me the thing that you hit in your speech and all your other appearances at the point
that this is, to work, this has got to be a cooperative effort.
This has got to have deep strength to it, and also be cooperative, so we're working for cooperation.
I think that's a project that Jordan and I are trying to do, and I'm going to stay on it for many, many years.
And as far as how this and that works together, they've been covered in,
The materials have been put out.
The Secretary of State has presented the press conference on it, and the world has discussed the view that he's standing on what he said in the press conference.
Well, didn't Tom cover all of these?
Oh, Norris had just run for his press conference, and he consulted me, and I said, well, I'm going to try to pick out something.
He said, well, the Secretary was going to clarify what he said, and I'm going to clarify what the Secretary put out.
And part of it won't be out, and part of it will not be final until the pay board and the price commission are appointed to meet and work out some of those things.
This constant desire for total clarity on every aspect is just unrealistic if you've got a process like this.
Set the pay board and the price commission out in front, which I like.
Okay.
We haven't finished up, but we're still struggling to get to any of the boards, which we have a lot of to go on board, but we don't have a chair to wind up in the board.
I think Peter has been doing that process, and he's got a variety of things going on.
He's been doing that job.
I don't say that in credit.
The point is, he was just doing a long and fashionable thing.
I think we did very well.
It's a pretty good program.
something that would reassure the financial community.
Where does it show your
hanging in there for a responsible budget point.
I'll repeat all of this.
If we can't keep our physical housing order, we're not going to get there.
So we've got priority on that, and that's the big message we're going to get from that.
Exactly, I will.
But basically, when we talk about this, we're dealing with effects and not causes.
Over 90 minutes a week, I'll get that in hard.
Well, that point, I think, is what the newspaper people keep ignoring.
They keep focusing on the wage price thing.
And during this point, when he's recommending a response for tomorrow, the first thing is the broad program concerning unemployment, inflation, and jobs.
The international situation is a big thing.
And the second point
I mean, you've got some long-range goals that are going to be affected by a number of things.
And the third, the drive to control inflation.
The wage price thing is just a part of that.
There are other parts to it that aren't within the jurisdiction of the inflation program.
Now, we can't put that in the context of the Constitution.
Isn't that unfortunate?
Yeah, yeah, that's right.
I don't know why you would put this in that little, there's somebody who's riddled with it now.
And a study of William Price Freezes and other members of the Pro-Wit group shows that they most often fail because they are rated too highly.
I think they can do a whole one.
Yeah, and people there for a field, they can let go of it, let them know, because they've got the problem solved over here.
And that's what they do.
That's a very good point.
Just to get our game plan ready, let's suppose that we need to go home.
Okay, yeah.
Yeah.
We have to give the public a chance.
The instruction is not to get caught in quantitative things that can be schemed about all the time.
It's all about concepts like productivity, corporate earnings, and the relationships, equity, and things of that kind.
So they have a little room to maneuver.
And I can't be, you know, based on their own standards.
What's the general reaction?
George, you are 100% positive about this.
I don't know about others.
And I think that the way he did, he gave Harry a chance.
That part, and also the way the East Coast strike held the case, I don't think there was any reaction that we should have gone on the East Coast at all.
In fact, there have been many statements that have said, well, I was wise, Mark.
Yeah.
Right, right.
because they've anticipated the strike.
And they are shipped every last minute.
They come out and they are convinced that the warehouse is full.
Oh, it's Christmas time.
Their stock is full.
Oh, I see.
Warehouse.
Why is that?
Why not a ship?
Of course.
Well, that was the reason why the employers wouldn't rule off the union offer just to continue their contract.
It's between the sons of two.
The present contract has a guaranteed annual wage type arrangement, where the workers are guaranteed a certain amount of money each week, whether they do it or not.
So the employers saw a situation where they would go six to eight weeks with no special work to give anybody, and yet they had to pay the wage so they couldn't agree to it.
That's one precipitative factor.
Well, our transportation thing has been tough.
Our appointments to the NLRB have been very good.
They're professional and they're making their body of the deal and changing the NLRB rules.
And we'll pretty well control that for it.
I think we have another appointment to make this summer.
What I was thinking to this charge is that maybe, as we get to the election campaign, we make sure that labor breaks this thing, that we then want to come off primarily with a strong labor legislation.
They're going to make an issue, we make an issue, and we fight it.
And just to read on, I think that Ben said, an alternative we've just got to be ready for.
I think it's possible.
We've just got to get it locked out.
We've just got to get it possible and investigate it.
I had this posture of trying to distinguish between being a leader and a worker.
I always had to say, you're in unsafety for a worker.
You're in an uncomfortable position for a worker.
And things like organizing, it would help an organization.
It would raise prices.
So that's what it was.
So I don't know.
There's lots of stuff that's well-known around the world.
To me, I should cancel all my political offenses, which I'm going to press this bill in question.
I'm going to do things for things like the San Francisco fundraising dinner for the Republican Party the night you do the one in Chicago.
They asked me, and I just kind of think I better not do that kind of stuff.
Well, I think that you can, of course, be here.
I think you could do that.
I don't think there's a problem with the fundraising there.
It's sort of a solution to the present.
You could just go out and say, I want to talk to Larry.
And that's all.
Don't say anything about the building on the floor.
just a fear of being positive, no attack on the Democrats, nothing of that sort, and then here's what we're doing, and here's what we're doing for, and your present position.
I think if you did it that way, it would be, all right, I think you would be awful good if something persists around you.
That's my thought.
would be awfully good.
And I don't think there's a problem with it, but make it totally.
In other words, I always thought that when I speak at a hill, I'm not going to make a part of it.
No, I rarely do.
I'm not going to pay attention to them.
You know, the muskies and all that, and all the breeze, and all the other things.
I'm just going to talk about peace, and all the other things we're going to talk about.
The point is that I think it's very easy to go out and make a totally non-political, speaking before a political audience, I just make it totally non-political.
And you think that's the way I think it's done?
That's perfectly all right.
On the ground, if you would be saying, I am here, and I am not.
I am here to discuss the economic policy in a non-political figure and all that crap, you know.
And this is very good in California, too.
California is a state of the art.
and I'm going to ask for the cooperation of the people.
The President deserves support from Democrats and Republicans.
They can take another redistricting total term and put it out that way.
And I put a disclaimer right at the beginning.
I am not here to talk partisan politics.
And I'm obviously here to talk about the President's program, which is about partisanship.
It deserves support from Democrats and Republicans.
And it's important to fight inflation and bring peace to the world and prosperity to the world.
Don't put a political thing in it, and I think there's no sweat.
I would cancel the other time.
I think it would be very good to do a campus thing, if you will.
I think it would still all use a version then.
And I'd like for it to be in this thing, too.
But I think it would be very good to do it in San Francisco.
from places like the Commonwealth, from Chicago, and the elite, the elite of economics.
Say the hell out of the economics.
He's got two experts like yours.
You know, you've got to say that Compton is a clever son of a gunner.
He is very, he touches around those issues with great skill, great skill.
And as you say, he sounds so convincing and so absolutely precise.
You read it, but...
Thank God he hasn't been here this morning.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Hello?
Hello?
OK. Bye.
Well, this is very helpful.
I think this is the line.
If I get a chance to say anything, which I will.
I'll bring them back to the high ground.
Our program is all hands together, and it's our position in the world.
Our program for expanding the economy and reducing unemployment, our program for fighting inflation, each is related to the other.
You can't do one without the other.
And of course, we run about inflation.
It's very important to know that we run about inflation.
What aspect of the problem is the cause of the deal?
the group of causes must still be dealt with effectively.
And that's why we're going to continue our program of going after those causes because we can also find out that our program of going after the cause of inflation had already reduced the rate of inflation from 6% to 4%.
And we're going to continue that game at the same time we're fighting this one.
Can I report one thing?
Yes, sir.
The Operations Research Society has done a good thing
They criticized Jerry Wiesner and those fellows who testified against the ABM for the lack of quality and their lack of professionalism in their testimony.
The fellow who did it, Bob Mako, the president of my old district, kind of opened his hand.
What is the Operational Research Society?
Professional Society for Experts in Operations Research and Systems Analysis.
And he caught hell with this comment.
He's a professor at the University of Illinois.
He's a Northwestern.
Why did he catch up with him?
Sure, you know, for doing a study that might be critical of some of the people in his profession.
You know, they're clubby like senators or politicians or anyone else.
And he went right ahead.
I just thought you'd like to know that somewhere in the country there's some acts of middle-level leadership by good people.
There's good intellectuals.
There was a guy who did something that was hard to do, and it was right.
And the next time someone testifies in the Senate, he's going to be a little more careful, and he's going to know someone's looking over his shoulder, and be a little more precise and professional.
I think that's a good piece of progress.
One thing we try to do, George, is you love to see the barbers, and always keep one jump ahead of the other.
But it's pretty hard.
I tell you, the one thing I must say is, Don, remember this.
I'm glad that you're on track and getting this be controlled.
One thing that you have to remember is that on the coming days, I just don't buy all that jazz to be effective.
Well, if only we could reassure people
Because everybody in the country wanted wage and price controls, that's what we should give it to them.
I've never felt that, because I know they wouldn't work.
The second part is that having taken this step out, which is an awesome step, and we were triggered into an international problem.
The thing to do is to handle it skillfully as well as we can.
Get the benefit of it, which we're getting some political benefit of it, right?
The economic issue is not very as potent against us as it was at the moment.
Do you agree?
Yes, sir.
They can't scream around.
We're doing something about inflation.
People think we're trying.
All right.
All right.
We can ride that for a while.
But in the final analysis, what counts is what works.
That's why you've got to do what just means that.
Because for a while, for a while, you see, for a while now, we've got to have, we've got to create the impression that we're all trying to work together.
I think it'll blow over on the way to this point.
But by that time, if we get some movement, the economy moves and inflation comes down.
And I'll tell you, one of my favorite expressions that I used to say, I developed this in the 60s, 60s, I forgot the 60s, and I was talking to some of our
Uh, we got a bear in mind when he, uh, went back to New England.
I think it was in the 80s.
Let me know what's wrong.
I just got your memorandum for doing.
I didn't respond to the past, but I appreciate your request.
No, no, no.
I knew we were going to have it.
Sure.
I didn't know the question.
Thank you.
Anyway, I was going to say that I was pointing out why the foreign policy leadership is a major function of the president.
Even a minor mistake in foreign policy
But the American economy was real strong.
It was a genius to ruin it.
I don't want to be a genius to ruin the damn thing.
Just remember that.
And I believe that, too.
Okay, thanks a lot.