Nixon & Ehrlichman on Press conference strategy and Meat price controls

Transcript (AI-generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI (WhisperX) and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Names and numbers are often wrong; speakers are not identified. Do not cite it as authoritative — verify against the audio and the finding aid.

Download transcript (.txt) · JSON data

Click a timestamp to play from that point; the page address then links to that moment (e.g. #t=125).

You know, really, if we forget that there's so much mythology in politics about Lincoln, who was a tough, ruthless fellow in terms of winning the war, and told his son to let him do his own things.

Why?

To get him back.

To win the war.

And we forget it's a matter of action, sir.

And that's why I did raise that damn thing about the era.

We never were.

Do you remember?

They rebuilt that, and they know that they don't.

Actually, those of you who see that book, it's out for the most of the time.

Here was part of the history of that.

Always.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Have you had a good time?

Sure.

I know there's lunch later tonight.

I, uh, work a little late last night.

I've got to get to work.

Yeah, I mean, it's sort of inevitable that I don't know what happened to this young girl last week.

Of course, the people there will raise questions about what happened last week.

A lot of it is just the press and police control.

I guess, a meeting.

Yeah, a week on questioning, especially on the race.

Yeah, we bring about some speculation.

I don't think you guys have any questions.

The way I answered yesterday, at least, the newscast, you said you have controls on food prices.

That's it?

Obviously, whenever you talk about waiver price controls in the White House,

You have to fire the silver bullet.

You either do it or you don't do it.

But you don't speculate in between.

Because every time one of us says something, that has an effect on the market.

So you're just saying you're speculating.

It would be very irresponsible of me to do anything but to say to you, we know there's a problem.

We're going to do what's necessary and appropriate.

But I can't speculate in advance about any specific thing that might be done.

We did get a flurry of market speculation over the weekend because we had that meeting for the end of the week last week and a rumor got out that it was going to be president-elect.

And so there were a lot of futures traded, and there was a certain amount of retail speculation.

And so that's just a little quip of what can happen.

Instead of that, I called in and said, we believe we're going to run into this kind of deal.

I would, and if you feel comfortable about it, I do the candor thing of saying, you know, we do a disservice to the market.

We permit speculation on what we might do.

P.K.

Johnson Collins went and called the Australian Meat Board.

And they told him that they were going to be able to send some meat in.

And Kleberg, of course, has Australia interests as well as Australia.

And so he felt that you've done the right thing.

He thought that in a couple of months we could see some improvement in the prices.

And he said, for God's sake, don't impose controls on farmers.

I agree.

And he also said, if it hasn't occurred to you, you ought to do something about your procurement policies in the government.

I said, the President's already thought of that.

What involved through running this?

Well, I don't know.

Now, we gave that to Kerr-Lucy to bring about.

He was going to do it on two fronts, the defense and GSA, and check out and see what he's done.

I think there's got to be a tougher luck on Kerr-Lucy.

Well, I think maybe you have a look at it, Dr. Laird.

And cold turkey.

Or wine burgers.

Wine burgers were just a lot to see.

Laird was dancing right around.

I think he's got it.

I want to know what he's done.

I want to report to him.

I love that.

He was a classy young guy.

I don't know if he was out at a ranch party or not.

He was the heir to the Bloomberg fortune.

who wouldn't be a bad prospect for a captain.

Let me go over here.

What about the 803, you know, congressmen kind of say it applies.

How do you think we ought to do that?

We've got a tiptoe and arrow line here.

We want to keep the Detroit people and others upset enough to keep the issue going.

So we decided and braved out.

You wrote a letter to Broomfield this morning.

And what you said to Broomfield was, you did the best you could with a tough congressional situation.

This was an answer to the letter he wrote.

He said, I know it doesn't do the whole job, and I support your effort to get your legislation right.

So, you say, 803 was the best in Broomfield, and the others could get with a tough congressional situation.

At the same time, our Justice Department has been instructed by the President to leave no stone unturned to stay orders of this kind.

Therefore,

although they have reservations about the applicability of A-3, they'll do what the President has instructed and they will assert A-3 in the Detroit case at the appropriate time to seek a stay.

But I must warn, we have a thousand serious dogs that will be working.

Its own sponsor, Congressman Broomfield, has written me this week.

to express his hope that my moratorium and other passing legislation, if we want it stopped, we only, you know, we sure will.

Now, about the same time, well, I'll be on the wires ahead of you tomorrow.

I'm out of Illinois.

I'm going to Illinois first, and then up to Detroit.

And actually, I'm going to Lansing, so I'll follow you.

My Lansing story will follow yours, but I'm going to have a meeting with the governor, and then I'm going to have a press conference in Lansing.

And I'll get into all of this, plus Griffin's legislation, which probably will be offered on Friday as an amendment to the OLO Legal Services Bill, which combines

the Griffin Amendment and the moratorium.

You won't want to say anything about that tomorrow night unless it's been offered.

But I think you could say my opinion from the Attorney General says it's ambiguous.

No, no, no, no.

No, 8.03.

Oh, yeah?

Now over 8.03.

Yeah.

The Attorney General's opinion indicates ambiguous.

We're going to leave no stone unturned.

We're going to go ahead and assert it because it's the only tool we have at the moment.

As Rumpiel said to me in his letter, we will continue to press for the only sure thing.

If you want to coin a phrase in here to respond to the Democratic platform,

Democratic platform, in one of its versions, not the final one, but one of the versions, said the issue is not busing, it is quality education.

It seems to me you would say, in those communities where this is a problem, the issue is busing, as well as quality education, or something like that, so that you meet it head on.

In other words, we're busing curriculum.

Yeah, and it isn't.

It's a cop-out to say, well, the only problem here is quality education.

That isn't the only problem.

Certain quality education is one of the problems.

And busing doesn't solve that.

That's your lost generation.

They've got about five of them that are going to go to the floor.

But busing is the only tough one.

Robustness is the one.

They've got to be robust.

They may be strengthened in one way or another.

They'll be able to, you know, they'll hold down abortion.

They'll hold down, I understand, they'll hold down abortion.

I think so.

They'll hold down certain marriage.

Well, they'll have been held accountable for that.

For that.

For the homosexual marriages?

Sure.

You know, there was about three or five.

Yeah.

Committee?

Yeah.

Did you see that the marijuana initiative will be on the California ballot?

I think it's more likely to bring out the people on our side who are against it.

To bring out the people on their side.

I think it would be more true.

I think so.

Take a stand in California on that issue.

Okay.

I know we have something for working mothers.

I do.

I don't like this accent.

And I do think that's a good one.

Okay.

I'll say it.

Give a nod.

Just give a nod to that going by.

That's all that's necessary.

Well, I can see what you're getting at in there, but I do think that you make unnecessary trouble for yourself.

I should give a nod to the idea that we want to get working, we want to get mothers into the workforce, and that having kids shouldn't stand in the way.

Social Security, as I understand it, is a problem.

What is going to happen?

Well, we don't know yet.

I just talked to Clark.

He says, unless Mills and the Speaker give a clear indication to the Senate,

that they will not take 20%, but it's going to be improved on.

We're going to get 20% and we're going to go over to Friday next week.

Friday of next week?

Of next week, because... Bill, they'll adjourn to a Friday of next week?

You have two holidays, Monday and Tuesday, and then they're entitled to three legislative days.

So that's... Once we leave, the guys would have to come back on their vacations on Friday.

They'd have to.

Well, they'd have to have three legislative days next week.

So they have to come and do something?

Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.

Or Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

Yeah, we don't need to be here.

But Clark says that the old boys up there don't believe it.

They think something will work out.

Something always works out.

Yeah.

And so he says it's pretty hard to convince anybody that they're facing a crisis.

I didn't.

I don't think he can either.

There's no point in.

And payroll taxes is a big point here.

In 1969, in your tax reform, you did a lot of things to lower income taxes for the average working state in the lower brackets.

This 20% proposal by the church would

virtually restore all of those taxes and more.

Lowered the income tax.

Lowered the tax bite.

I don't know.

Lowered taxes.

From paychecks.

Lowered taxes.

Right.

So wipe that off.

Right.

and we'll eat into the general fund to our deficit.

The payroll taxes is the big point here.

I can get you some numbers if you want to know.

I think that's enough.

That's enough.

So it'll just say that what we have to realize is that you can pay for it between the tax reduction

that would be wiped out by the increased statutes required to finance the 20% social security.

What's the cost?

The cost is not to be able to .

Legal services, I'm against legal services.

I'm kind of starting with that.

I understand we are for a legal services corporation now.

Here's what we did.

We're going to take gas on legal services as long as we have it in the damn government.

And it's our legal services.

Reagan's going to be calling us up and we're going to be in trouble.

But let's get the thing the hell out of the government.

That's why we want a corporation.

So we form a corporation.

Javits and a bunch of guys come back and say, great idea, but let's have a lot of poverty people and a lot of clients and a lot of woolly-headed lawyers on the board of directors.

And we said, to hell with that.

We owe something to our clientele out there.

So the president's going to appoint this board.

And we're adamant about that.

And if you don't give us that kind of power, we'll veto it.

So then they sent us that thing last year.

And they flouted us.

And they said, well, our president can appoint, but he can choose from one of six people who are poverty clients, one of six people who are poverty lawyers, and that sort of thing.

And so we beat them.

And so that's where the thing is now.

We're still insisting on it.

Well, I don't know.

They're still trying to split it up.

I lost the order.

Are we for OEO?

We're for splitting it from OEO.

Are we for OEO?

Yeah, the OEO thing that we'll get if we get it split is so innocuous and so watered down that we'll sign it.

But with legal services on it, see this is our argument for splitting.

They leave a bad legal services formula and then we'll wipe out the whole thing.

There was something in here about some Jack Anderson leaks later.

Yeah, it just came out.

What was it about?

What four volumes of the Pentagon Papers were withheld by Ellsberg.

He didn't add anything to them.

He didn't divulge them.

Anderson's got them.

He turned them over to the Post and the Post ran them.

They're the so-called diplomatic violence, you know, the one on Henry being rioted, which was right.

Now, the California case was converted to the Ellsberg.

It's the Ellsberg-Russell case, and the argument there is, I'm not going to say nothing, that Ellsberg's lawyers and people turned these papers over to Anderson.

That's the thing that the government's contending in the case out there.

And the judge is inquiring into that right now.

So you shouldn't comment on the matter before the judge.

Right.

I'm just not sure I can comment that closely.

On the meat price thing, I think we've got that pretty well.

Speculation is a very good element.

If you drive any speculation about controls, we'll have a power reduction effect that drives up prices.

I've instructed the people around the White House and in the departments not to engage in idle speculation.

And I will be bound by my own.

But, shall I go on to say, we will take the action.

At the same time, I think you all realize that this is a matter that is receiving my most intense attention.

We are exploring.

We are considering.

We are studying.

and watching.

We're continuing to watch.

And we'll take the action that's necessary.

You can demograph a little bit.

You can say, I know that this is the kind of economic problem that hits every American in his pocket.

While others may be concerned about the fluctuation of gold or municipal bonds, this is one that I'm going to watch very closely.

And then you go on to say... My mind's open as to alternatives.

I'm not...

But those who say at this time...

I wouldn't say that.

That's a signal.

If you just say it is proper for me to comment one way or the other, I'm going to comment one way or another.

We have taken some action to continue to study it.

And I just have to keep all my options open without sending any signals as to what I might or might not do.

Thank you.

will take action as necessary.

That's going to be considered.

See, that promissory aspect of it, I think you just really have to say whether or not I intend to take any action.

I'm not going to tell you, because that drives prices up.

That's right.

I'm not going to speculate about any action that's going to be taken.

I'm just saying.

I want you to remain and answer to the question of how many people they said anything.

I, uh, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and,

We don't have a new government proposal at this time.

But what I meant is, we can say the welfare rights organization, supported by some senators, could be put at that level.

Well, offered by Senator McGovern?

No, I don't want to mention Senator McGovern.

All right.

I won't mention McGovern, nor must I.

The $6,500 cash on welfare voucher that has been offered by one of the presidential candidates.

That has been introduced by one of the presidential candidates.

By the leading presidential candidate.

One of the leading?

Say one of the leading presidential candidates.

would add 90 million to the welfare rules.

I get those points.

Yeah, I want to be able to set them down.

I can say there are presently 12 million.

The purpose of our program is to provide a way to move those, is to reduce that amount, not increase it.

Although it's already good, of course, temporarily.

That's for purpose and purpose.

Whereas the excessive payments in welfare

would be an incentive for people to stay on welfare and not to get off.

Why don't you write an answer on that?

Would you give me a little bit on that?

Don't you think that's true?

Yes.

You pay a person $600,000 incentive and you don't pay an incentive to get off.

I don't think so.

Not for the race of people.

Well, especially if we're not coupled by work requirements.

Aren't they going to have all that?

That's immoral.

It degrades human beings.

I don't take the position that we're against them.

Well, I don't know.

I never bowled a gun in my life except once in the 80s.

I've never shot a gun.

I'm just against them, but I know that actually I was with the report.

We're certainly... What about the Senate bill?

Okay.

Are we a border against them?

No.

Here's our situation on that.

We turned over all of our material and legislative work to Herusker.

The big problem is to draw the line between these cheap handguns that come in from abroad or that are manufactured by gypsos and that are unsafe on the one hand, and those that are sort of under the tent of the National Rifle Association on the other.

Smith & Wesson & Co. and people of that kind.

Smith & Wesson & Co. are out of the reach of the average cheap hood, the kid that holds up the service station and shoots the attendant.

He buys a $7.50 Saturday night special order.

I don't know how much they cost, but not near as much as ours.

So, what we've been trying to do is define

statutory language, the line between those two kinds of weapons, and outlaw the cheap one.

Outlaw is very important.

Taxable.

I'm in total agreement with it.

If a bill comes to me that defines these things so that it's an enforceable law, I'll sign it with a flourish.

Now, that qualification is an important qualification, enforceable law.

Well, because Bayh doesn't know how to define Saturday Night Special.

For us, it probably does, because we've given him all of our research.

Well, he voted for it, but he has an amendment.

A better definition.

You don't need to get into all that.

You can say the administration has wholehearted them.

Let's just enter the committee.

You better prepare a brief answer on that one, too, for me.

In other words, you know, the 75 words.

All right.

In other words, I have four.

That's better than I have four to control these young people.

When it's all in the committee, we have worked with the committee.

Yeah.

And I hope that the Congress will pass legislation to deal with this effectively.

Good.

That's all we can say.

I hate you, but you'll see.

Okay.

Very good.

Can I say one other thing that hurts me?

I just wonder if we don't

I don't have an injection.

You don't think you can do it without alienating a lot of nice people in my name?

Well, it isn't just... Get back to the office of a client that I'm...

I think that, for instance, McGovern is taking some substantial debt

by changing.

Do you think you did?

I think so.

Maybe not the average step, although I had some people in my office today, just folks, and it came up.

And they said, gee, isn't that funny what he's doing?

We don't know where he is on this.

And everybody heard $1,000 a person.

And that made an impression.

Now he's shifting off.

I think he would let him off the hook on that issue.

Because he said, I shifted, too.

Yeah.

So you think, would you just stick with our program and say, it is a program that will get people off the roll rather than off?

Put the emphasis where you want to put it.

and then the family assistant chest, it would increase the number on, but only as a bridge to get them on.

I think you could do this.

You could say, well, you remember family assistance was what we proposed.

HR1 is where we are now, and that's the House of Representatives bill, which we could sign, but differentiate between family assistance and HR1 or whatever that gets you.

That isn't your bill anymore.

And it'll make it easier for you to get off on the time lapse.

You'll never, you'll never have the problem.

I can see in my opinion, from having talked to those senators, they're going to fight this under oath.

Oh, yeah, sure.

And I think, I think Elliott's, Elliott's analysis, Elliott's analysis that we just made, maybe it's a river conflict, but I think it's one of those where it fails is that Franklin

That would be on the first, but beyond that, law will filibuster until Calvary's alive.

But it just happened.

And so there's been a lot of work done on this.

Now, can I ask you one other thing?

Well, I'm glad to be here.

What are your thoughts on this?

It's a little different.

I've had a program talk to Javits after I've talked to .

Javits doesn't have .

So there will be some battle.

My view is to say I'm glad to see the House is action.

I hope the Senate acts responsibly and so we can have this relief period .

As you all know, this is a piece of legislation for which the administration has been working for now nearly three years.

Three years.

And in my first bucket list,

And so you can say, I could get that, wouldn't you?

Yeah, I kind of would.

Would you like to have just one list?

Yeah, I know.

And yet, I know the problems it makes.

At the same time, there's this about it.

I could make a case for cutting a hell of a lot of city programs, a lot of state programs, if we've done that for sure.

We're going to go until the 1st of December.

We'll go after the election.

We can't get together with it that way, because we've been told that in a long time.

We've told everybody else.

Ken and I have just been working on it.

But there's a way to do this now.

Weinberg is sending you an auction paper, which I'll...

sent back to it and checked.

You know what I want.

I know we have to do it because we made the promise.

Just screw it up so that we can get out of it later.

It's a horrible program.

We could get out of it then in December if we wanted to.

That's a big problem.

Put the clamps on it.

I know we're up to there.

And these guys may be projecting forever.

Can't you warn them not to project?

We can do that.

I can say not to project beyond that.

Well, but see, then that sends a signal.

So we don't want to send them.

What we'll do is about November 10th, we'll give them notices that say the first of the year we're going to do a new stamp.

Because, well, we can say, gentlemen, we're ready to support you.

We're ready to support you.

But on...

Well, I didn't quite say that.

What I said was,

No tax increase unless the Congress... Oh, I know.

No, no, no.

I'm going to put it on the Congress.

I'm going to say that it would be...

But I must warn that the Congress substantially increases our budget about what we are asking.

Without funding, a tax increase will be necessary.

It will be their responsibility.

But in order to hold the tax increase, we must hold the budget where it is.

We believe, unlike the sort of hopeless forecast of the Brookings Institution, that we can make real improvements in the line of work that we're spending on the domestic side, on the domestic side.

Brookings is hopeless on domestic, and they're not foreign.

That's right.

And should they come to hell, they only gave about three lines to domestic guns.

As I said, given this Congress, we don't make progress in making domestic guns.

We are...

And they'll say, what are you?

I better watch them.

Say, obviously, any short answer that I make to that question will give a distorted, unbalanced picture.

Any cuts that I propose will be a part of a comprehensive package so that we can balance treatment and that we don't duly cut any sector of the society or the economy.

Nixon & Ehrlichman on Press conference strategy and Meat price controls

AI Summary

Audio

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Transcript (AI-generated)

Also recorded on June 28, 1972

Cite this conversation

Nixon & Ehrlichman on Press conference strategy and Meat price controls

AI Summary

Audio

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Transcript (AI-generated)

Also recorded on June 28, 1972

Related conversations

Cite this conversation