Conversation 346-010

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Where he said, he shall come back and serve you, and then serve another person for the amount of time he deserves.

You know, really, we forget it.

There's so much mythology in politics about Reagan, who was in some ruthless fall in terms of winning the war, and told us in the letter to his enemies, why?

To get back to win the war.

And we forget as a matter of fact, and that's why I did raise that damn thing about Teddy Kennedy, and Petey Kennedy, that we were odds on favor with Kennedy.

We never were.

Do you remember?

I'm sorry?

They already built that, and they know that development.

Actually, it's built in ACO, and it's out for the most of the time, and it's always going to be there.

Yeah, here you go.

I know that's lunch later tonight.

I, uh, we're going to leave last night.

I've got to get it off.

It's rather inevitable that I don't know what happened to this building last week.

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

There's a lot of interest in the press and place of control.

I guess, I mean, well, yeah, but we want to question it.

It's going to be amazing.

Yeah, we bring about some speculation.

I don't think I have a question.

The way I answered yesterday, the newscast, you said you have control over food prices.

That's it?

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

You have to fire a 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.

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 quid for what can happen.

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

I haven't had a part of it.

We're going to watch the situation before it's necessary.

I would, and if you feel comfortable about it, I'd do the tender bit of saying, you know, if we do a disservice to the market, and we permit speculation on what we might do, something like that.

P.K.

Johnson, Connelly's friend, called me, and talked to the Australian Meat Board, and he said,

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

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

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

I agree.

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

I said, the president's already thought about that.

What follows through with that is, well, I don't know.

Now, we gave that to Kerr, let's see what we have out.

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

I think there's got to be a tougher look on Kerr's.

Well, I think maybe you have a way with Laird.

Cold turkey.

Or Weinberger.

Weinberger perhaps used to love to see.

Laird would dance right around him.

I think he's got it.

I want to know what he's done.

I want to report to him.

He's a classy young guy.

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

He's the heir to Bloomberg.

He's fortunate.

You know, see the protocol or something, something where you need it.

Sure, of course.

Yeah?

Let me go over.

Sure.

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

How do you think you want to do that?

Um.

We've got a tiptoe and arrow line here.

We want to keep the Detroit people and others upset about it.

To keep the issue going.

So we can say that Ann Gravedog, 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, where 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, yet it could get into 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 valid, serious doubts that we'll be working.

Its own sponsor, Congressman Broomefield, has written me this week

to express his hope that my moratorium and other passing legislation, if we want it stopped, we only share away the moratorium.

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

Out of Illinois.

I'll go 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.

Griffin?

No, no, no, no.

No, 803.

Oh, yeah.

Now over 803.

The Attorney Giles 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 Groenfield 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 they adopted, but one of their versions, said the issue is not busing, it is quality education.

It seems to me you could 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 in a busing curve.

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.

Bussing doesn't solve that.

That's your lost generation.

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

But bussing is the only tough one.

The bussing is the one that they've got to be robust.

It may be strengthened on the floor.

They'll hold down a portion.

I think so.

They'll hold down certain areas.

Although they'll have been held for that.

For that.

For the homosexual marriages?

Sure.

It was about three to five.

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.

To bring out the people on their side.

I think it will.

I think so.

It will force, be sure as ever, to take a stand in California on that issue.

I know we have something for working mothers, if you turn around.

Well, I can see what you're getting at in there, but I do think that you make unnecessary trouble for yourself unless you give a nod to the idea that we want to get working mothers in the workforce, and that having kids shouldn't stand in their way.

Social Security might understand that there's a problem with that.

Or what is going to happen?

Well, we don't know yet.

I just talked to Clark.

He says, unless Mills and Steger 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 it Friday next week.

Friday next week?

Next week, because if you have two holidays on Tuesday,

And then they're entitled to three legislative days.

So that's Wednesday, Wednesday, and Friday.

You guys would have to come back on their vacations on Friday.

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

So they'd have to come back on 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 him.

They think something will work out, something always works out.

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 it.

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.

See, well, lowered the tax bite.

...from paychecks.

Lowered taxes, right.

So wipe that off, right.

And we'll eat into the general fund.

The payroll taxes is the big point here.

I can get you some numbers if you want.

I think that's enough.

So we'll just say that we have to realize that we have to pay for it between the tax reductions.

Legal services, I want to get, I'm against legal services, you know, having started with that, but I understand we are for a legal services corporation now.

Here's what we did.

We said,

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

And it's our legal services.

Reagan's going to be calling us up for a grand job 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.

Then, 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, the 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 flaunted us.

And they said, well, our president's going to 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 vetoed it.

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.

We're for splitting it from OEO.

The OEO thing that we'll get if we get it split is so innocuous and so watered down in our science.

But with legal services on them.

See, this is our argument for splitting.

They leave a bad legal services formula.

Then it'll wipe out the whole thing.

Adam, there was something in here about some Jack Anderson relief.

Later, yeah, it just came out.

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

He didn't, Anderson's done it.

He did the most.

Anderson's got it.

He turned them over to the Post, the Post Grant.

They're the so-called diplomatic volumes.

Yeah, the ones on Henry's being rioted against.

Now, the California case was reverted to Ellsberg.

It's the Ellsberg-Russell case, and the argument there is

That, Ellsberg's lawyers and people turned these papers over to Anderson.

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

And the judge is inquiring into that right now.

So you shouldn't comment on that.

On the meat price thing,

I think we've done that pretty well.

Speculation is a very, another way that we drive any speculation about controls, we'll have a counter-reduction effect that drives up prices.

They're both speculating on something.

We say we believe our present program is the right program at this time.

I don't know where actions have acted in this.

What would you think about this?

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 definition.

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

We will...

This is the kind of economic problem that hits...

Every American in his pocket.

And so, 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, and an American who studies will take the action that's necessary to deal with the problem.

Yeah, my mind's open as to alternatives.

I'm not...

But both of you say at this time...

I wouldn't say that.

Because that's a signal.

You just say it is proper for me to comment one way or the other.

We're going to comment one way or the other.

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.

We'll take action as necessary.

That's not 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 just say that I'm not going to speculate.

We're watching through this.

I want you to get for me an answer to the question of how many people live upon them.

They said 80,000.

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

But what I meant is, we can say the welfare rights organization, supported by some senators, can we put it that way?

Offered by Senator McGovern?

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

All right.

I won't mention Senator McGovern.

I want to say the welfare.

The well on $6,500 national welfare?

That is, I would say that it's been offered by one of the presidential candidates.

Sure.

that have been introduced by one of the presidential candidates.

Sure.

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 for you.

I want to be able to set them down.

I can say there are presently 12.

The purpose of our program is to provide a way to move those

is to reduce that, not increase it.

That's for 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.

Do you pay a person $6,500?

Is that an incentive to get off?

I don't think so.

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

Aren't they going to have all that?

That's immoral.

That degrades human beings.

Gun control.

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

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

The big problem is to draw the line between these cheap handguns that come in from abroad, or that are manufactured by dimples, 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, whether it's Smith & Wesson and Colt, and people of that kind.

Smith & Wesson and Colt are out of the reach of the average cheap hood,

The kid that holds up the search station and shoots the tenant, 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, in statutory language, the line between those two kinds of weapons.

And outlaw the cheap ones.

Outlaw the very important, taxable ones.

What do I just say?

Saturday night special order, $3.00.

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.

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.

You better...

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

In other words, you know, the 75 words.

All right.

In other words, I am for, as I said, I am for the control of these young people.

This is for the goal of the committee.

We have worked with the committee.

I hope and am confident that Congress will pass legislation and deal with this effectively.

That's all we can say.

But, you see,

Very good.

Can I say one other thing that hurts me?

I just wonder if we don't feel as well there as we do in my own position and so forth.

I think that, for instance, McGovern is taking some substantial damage by changing it.

You think he is?

I think so.

I don't know.

Maybe not the average set, although I got 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 was letting off the hook on that issue.

Because he said, I shifted too.

Yes.

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

Put the emphasis where you want to put it.

And at the family assistance chest, it would increase the number on, but only as a bridge to get them off.

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.

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

You'll never have the problem.

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

Oh, yeah, sure.

But you see, and I think Elliot's analysis, I think Elliot's analysis that we just made, that he's a driver, where it fails, is that, frankly,

That would be on the first, but beyond that, long, little filibuster, until hell freezes up.

But that's it.

It just happened.

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

Now, can I ask you one other thing?

Well, I'm ready to share.

What are your questions?

It's a little different.

I've had a problem talking to Javits after I talked to Ron.

Javits doesn't have to.

So there will be some battle.

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

I hope the Senate acts responsibly in some way.

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 nearly three years.

Three years.

And in my first bucket list.

I could get that, wouldn't you?

Yeah, I kind of would.

Would you like to have just one?

Yeah, I know.

And yet, I know the problems that it makes.

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

I can 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.

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 challenge for the lawyers that we put the clamps on in December.

But on a press conference, if you should get a question on something like that, say, I was back on this before the end of the fiscal year, and I still have it.

I can't recommend it.

It's quite another point.

Do you believe we should still take the stand for no tax increase?

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 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.

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 long run when we're spending on the domestic side, on the domestic side.

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

That is true, they've come to hell.

They only gave about three lines to domestic guns.

They just said, you know, this Congress, we don't make part of the country.

We can't make any domestic guns.