Nixon & Ehrlichman on HR 1 and Social Security

Transcript (AI-generated)

This transcript is incomplete. The transcription skipped stretches of speech — roughly 4 minutes of this recording (about 27% of it) is represented by only a few words. Listen to the audio rather than relying on the text below; a corrected transcript is queued.

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 Do not cite it as authoritative — verify against the audio and the finding aid.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

This is something to take a look at.

Try to synopsize.

On the first page, the dollar's involved.

On the second page, you have that kind of taxpayer.

I do not believe that an increase from the security tax or so forth or whatever it is, is a tax increase.

And so I don't know if we've said anything to that effect.

people never got money on their shoulders.

We criticize, well I forget we criticize, but have me say your own thing.

Is that violating my prototype?

Well, that's why I'm certain.

That's one of the two sticking points I have with this.

That one.

And the fact that we are adding to the outlays

even though we've got the records coming in, we're adding the outlays and where it is that they've received 200.

Right, right.

250 if you follow me.

Those are the only two that do, but I'm looking more in terms of the overall balance.

And I've been trying to think my way around this overall balance.

Because you see, the two, look at this one, Weinberger and Schultz would understand.

Schultz was Weinberger.

If you have

That's correct.

That's all we're carrying.

I don't give a goddamn.

That's going to be $300 billion.

Why do we put $250 billion?

Because $250 billion is within the full plan of balance.

Correct.

That's the other one.

On the tax increase, I can say, well, the Congress...

For a person earning $10,000, an increase of less than $100,000 per year.

For a person earning $15,000, an increase of $123,000.

For a person earning $20,000, an increase of $60,000.

That's probably why it's talented.

And if you talk about that, it's an increase.

Now, the other thing you say is, let me ask you.

Go ahead.

No, no, no, no.

Let me see what it does.

That's right.

These are practically all liberalized retirement benefits.

That's right.

All right.

This is what you're waiting for.

That's good.

And you end up with some pluses in there where you save money.

The issue line in this paper presents, remember three places, this is not that part of our program.

John, I'm sorry about it.

I'm the guy you gotta sell on the shelves, alright?

Just, George is gonna take the line that you gotta say.

You're just basing it, you're basing it, you're editing it all the damn time.

Do a little practice.

That's not bad.

Addresses itself to a full-fledged balance.

All right, a full-fledged balance.

That is the hardest problem.

How would you feel about it?

I think that we advocated a number of important reforms that are part of this legislation.

And that did involve additional payroll taxes.

But they were relatively minor.

The Congress in the meantime passed a 20% Social Security increase that was extremely expensive.

And there is where the payroll taxes have gone dramatically.

When we compare the increase in payroll taxes

This is a drop in the bucket for the $10,000 wager.

This is $35 a year.

On the other hand, the 20% Social Security increase is $100 a year for free tax as much as Congress has imposed on itself.

Now, to deny the agent, to deny the...

First afflicted with kidney disease.

Denied of social honor.

They were sitting in these bounties because the Congress carelessly increased payroll taxes in a 20% increase with, indeed, a cruel revenge.

They'd be throwing the baby out of the bathwater.

And the president and the governor are going to say we're going to try to keep this.

i think we're going to say this that uh and i could i could lean into it this way but there's a very interesting letter together in the washington post this morning raising the whole subject of the fairness of payroll taxes as a way of supporting some of these expenses president's daughter total presence very concerned about the rest of them we feel that people should have a new approach to this

and they'd be barring Saturday's death, and whether or not we could substitute.

I don't get into that, but whether or not we could find a more fair way to handle this.

I don't care about that.

I'm not concerned about that, of course, anyway.

But John, I can see why it's more important for you to read that.

Jesus Christ was a good Jesus.

it is not going to affect the budget now the budget parties argue to you that you can only look at the outlays and you've got to see because of the 250 four and a half billion dollars goes on the outlay end if I assume you're 74 correct so you've got to bring down I understand that but by about 250 you could have said it at 150

That's correct.

And the question I'm getting from the press is, well, then are you saying from now on the ceiling is going to be 254.5?

No, we're good.

Here's the answer.

The 250 is a fiscal year 73 number.

It's not a 74.

And this does not affect that.

As a matter of fact, it helps.

because while we're at 797 on the outlay end, we get a billion seven back in in additional revenue.

Now, it does create problems for us in fiscal year 74, but we're confident that we can keep the fiscal year 74 budget within full employment range.

It's much harder than it is, but the 250 is still our target for vision for the 73, 74.

uh that loses

certain piloting possibilities.

We've got a lot of good stuff, ocean dumping and a lot of environmental stuff and that kind of thing.

But it will have the impact of here at the time that you're in the middle of peace negotiations.

You're leading the free world out of darkness.

You've had to spend your time on 110 pieces of legislation.

I think you should say, use this term,

You might say, you don't really know.

You would say probably this past week.

As you know, I got a message from him in Saigon.

He said, Mr. President, I have a report to you tonight.

I said, I'd like the President to be up at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning and I'd like to discuss this with you.

And he said, thank you, thank you, thank you.

He said, I'll get him in the morning.

Come on, let's bug your people.

I think it's a nice little touch.

What do you think?

I mean, you've got to get across.

The only way you can say, well, he's been working hard for a very long time.

You just say, you know, I don't know, really.

I don't know when this man sleeps.

When he was inside, I don't know.

I don't know.

How about this Dutch?

How about them?

Saying, I know this was going on, because while he was up, after those conversations with that minister, man, I used to get calls from him about the bills.

Yeah, because obviously he would then work it out.

Oh, that's an idea.

You could say, you could say to the treasurer, he says, I have no complaints about my job.

I enjoy it very much.

But I must say, it's been a pretty, it's been a rather difficult period to deal with.

because uh because i get calls in the middle of the night and i know who to respond and uh because of that it's a very good idea

He said, you know, I did not, I was not, I had not, the president always compartmentalizes his work.

I did not tell Franklin what was going on in the equation of the second justification.

It was there, but I knew something was going on.

Because I used to get calls at the end of the night, very early at that time, and I'd go, there's a very nice touch, all right, I'm doing something, how can I do it?

That's right, sir.

All right, sir.

Nixon & Ehrlichman on HR 1 and Social Security

AI Summary

Audio

Transcript (AI-generated)

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Also recorded on October 27, 1972

Cite this conversation