Conversation 468-017

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Jordan's running away.

Maybe we can cover the grinder for a lot of minutes.

Harden is getting some overtures from Purdue.

And the clerk there wanted to know if it's possible, if you have a change of mind, that he does have a place to go.

Yeah.

Uh, no.

He's about as good as she could be, but I think...

All right, good.

No, I don't think so.

Who's that?

I don't know.

I'm terribly well, but I would be surprised if he could do it.

This marriage, you can jump out in the cabin.

I would like to schedule 15, 20 marriages per week today.

The agenda would be for Weinberger to make a presentation on the fact that we are not withholding funds from the cities, which is getting to be a rumor around the mayor's fraternity.

Sightly to talk to them about the whole harmless and special revenue sharing and how it works, what it means for cities.

The third is for Romney to talk to them about

especially when we're sharing a little bit, indicate some of our political problems.

And then Louder and his sidekick, I forget what the other person's name is, go out to the press and the lay of this goes about this administration getting all the funds from the cities.

Get rid of that money.

Or do you want to say, well, I'm supposed to do the whole meeting, but I have to do the whole meeting?

Well, it wouldn't ordinarily be, except that there's, in currency now, there are two groups that you refuse to meet with, on the black box, and there's mayors.

I've met with mayors.

Maybe this lends

That's a different group.

Well, we'll mix part of that with Luger's group.

As I know, we have that with Luger's group.

Oh, sure.

Well, the land is easier.

And you put out the fact that we have that one.

Oh, sure.

We have it.

It knocks us down every time it comes up, but it still keeps coming up.

So I think it's important that I'm not going to get into too much.

I'll hold that for two hours.

I'll be back for the end of the meeting or the beginning or something of that sort.

I'm not going to sit back here and hold that presentation for a bunch of years.

I'll be here for a while, the year after they've had the readings.

I just don't think it's the best use of time.

Well, let me disagree with you on this.

I don't know what to do about this.

about this business that you're refusing to meet with mayors.

I must allow me, but I don't think you can have me for the whole two-hour session.

Well, it isn't two hours anyway.

We can pause this all off.

We might have another two-hour session.

That's all right.

That kind of presentation, I'm sure.

That's all right.

If you would wander, maybe I may like it.

That is what I have.

Oh, no, no, I don't miss that in any way.

It's a good use of time.

This will be here in the cabin.

It'll be, it'll be, I called you together because I want you to hear these things.

And here's Weinberger, and here's Romney, and so forth.

Well, that's fine.

So we understand it.

But Mike's sitting down and gassing it up.

Yeah.

special revenue sharing that's you do that once but not twice well we'll be back to you with an agenda and a formal proposal on our hands so i want you to know what that was all about there in the interim sure that's what it was and we could make it an hour okay you had a format for me a few months ago which the president uh

attended for a while and then left and there was a presentation and then afterwards I don't think we can get away with that here because of the fact that we've been hammered by this lynching group about the president being you know refusing to meet with mayors I'd like to even though it's false even though it's false I'd like to get it out of the way and lay it out once and for all

unemployment is timeless.

There are a number of things going on.

You've asked about that a couple of times.

And I've got a long report here, which I don't think you need to spend your time on, but there are quite a few government activities going on in this direction.

Some training programs and that kind of thing.

It seems to be showing some action going on.

Yeah.

Okay.

And they're continuing to work on it.

There's a task force and they're working full-time on it.

We have a major political problem with our friend Gordon Allen over the unsecretary of the Interior.

Allen is mad because we've cut off the healing vine in this budget.

And so he's going to get his pound of flesh by mobilizing the Republicans in the Senate Interior Committee against Lester.

He's got Morton pretty well puzzled.

Morton is now thinking that he'd rather switch to the fight and very easily get him.

And so I think the general consensus around the White House is that we would rather roll out on this if at all possible.

And we think it is possible.

Clark and Greger thinks it's possible.

He's been counting measures pretty carefully.

But it will make Al, of course, a bigger priority than he is not, and that's pretty good.

Whatever has to be done will have to be done rather quickly because Al, as time permits, is getting around and weaving his web up there.

There are a couple of approaches.

One would be just to charge ahead and roll right over it.

The other would be to have you down here and have you working.

Now this kind of thing has been in very many apartments.

It's obviously quite a lot of bad work.

So I had to come and get you down from a healthy boat.

But we can do one of several things.

We can back off such and such.

And if we've got somebody else, we'll get several other names.

We've got a fellow in the phone-up.

We've got Cora, who's over there in the department.

There are two or three others who are around.

Cora will be acceptable now, allegedly, although I don't know.

I don't know if it's the place that he's working, but you should try to do it with him.

Well, for one thing, his complaint is not legitimate.

He was in Europe and could not be consulted on account of his being in Europe.

His staff was informed.

He's contending that his senatorial priorities were abused.

Secondly, it's pure peeve on account of the helium plant.

There's nothing to it on the merits at all.

Why don't you try using Harlem?

I'm not going to waste any equity.

I will not waste any equity in order to get .

Sure.

That's the point.

I don't think it's .

If I do it with this, it'll be down on everything.

I have a fight about this thing.

You're a great follower of my life.

You can't give it to someone else.

All right.

That's how it is.

I know it's .

It's terrible.

Yeah.

And he's a scorpion.

He'll get you down behind if he doesn't get you straight on the wire.

And yeah, on the tie, on the cadence, it can be very good too.

That's why he's so, you know, he stands right up there at times.

Fights like a tiger.

I don't want to argue with him about an appointment with an undersecretary.

But I am.

Well, certainly would have not done that.

said I'm perfectly that I don't feel that the

But the long gas sessions are necessary.

I mean, I think that we could, we can have them somewhat breeder.

We wouldn't have to do the, as far as my participation is concerned.

Oh, I don't, I don't count any of the whole thing.

It's got to be over 45 minutes.

Well, it'll take an hour.

You can figure it out.

I'll take them, but don't count any more than that.

Because they go on and on and on, you know, bitching about everything, every problem they've got.

Right.

So if you could put it on, you know, quickly, it'd be good.

It'd be a good brand.

Right.

It's interesting that they could make an issue out of it.

I remember meeting with the Lindsay group.

I've met with the Bogart group at least three times.

I've met with some of Bogart's people a number of times in different combinations.

Lindsay's group consists of Stokes and some others.

I'm not sure that you've seen them in a long, long time.

They are the legislative committee of the mayor's office.

And they've been a thorn in our side.

I get it.

Which can.

How do you feel about having Lindsey himself here?

I don't care.

It's okay.

Maybe he's just gonna scream at me.

Well, yeah, he might be the terror of it, so he won't be the spokesman for it.

He'll be the only one who will do it.

Maybe if he's damaged, I wouldn't have him.

What I mean is that he will go out and be the only one they'll talk to because he's the only one that has any national seat.

My view is that if you could get along without him, I would.

But he is not the spokesman for the group.

He's got his group and gets so excited to be the spokesman.

That's the way I feel about him.

I see no reason to get busy with this forum down here.

Because then he'll get off into politics and all those other things.

Not that he might be the department.

What about me, then?

Well...

My feeling is that we can make a good case on the facts.

We've given a very damn good look at it.

What I mean is that John did step out before Christ.

They'll spend one minute on that.

And then they'll go on to Vietnam in 1972.

What do you think about blacks?

What about you?

You see my point?

I don't think it makes any sense.

I agree with you guys, this will not be what they'll ask you about.

But if you can't work it out the way you said you can, I think you can.

I think you can work it out.

We're going to try to protect ourselves on the intent of this thing by harming it out to leave harm, and being able to say it gets us to this development by the officers, the citizens, not by the officers.

Well, I'm still stewing about how to handle the Social Security impact on the budget.

There seem to be three things that people have come forward with.

One is to say that we're going to take that money out of the budget somehow or other.

No.

I really don't see where it can be gotten from.

No, no.

So with that...

The second is just to, in effect, call on Congress to do the same thing that has the same efficiency.

The third is to call on them to finance the benefits.

There is Social Security being acted on.

You know, that welfare reform, the welfare reform bill, Social Security matters are being handled in line with that, and they could readily increase the rate, for example, or change the base.

give attention to the financing of the benefits.

And it seems to me that that's the best that I can think of, and how to handle it.

I hate to see us get in this position.

But I think we have to say something about this problem.

As soon as that message is ready, they're down.

Well, ideally, when you send an assignment statement, how are you going to handle that?

Well, because of the debt compensation, it may have to be signed before midnight tonight.

Connolly doesn't think so, John.

I know, but they're still checking that.

Are they?

They've passed.

They've worked it finished down there.

I'm not sure they're finished yet or anything.

How could you sign it?

Well, it'll be down here as soon as they are finished.

And the point is that there's a law question here, so whether you have to actually execute it tonight or it has to be done in the morning, we'll get that iron out in short order.

There's also a question of what it actually was.

have some kind of a ceremony that makes an impact on support for an increase of benefits for the aged.

That kind of question on the other one, of course.

Well, you're in the position of being both positive and negative about it, but...

Going back, for example, to the discussion you had with the Fortune people and the importance they attach to continuing attention to the inflation problem, it seems to me kind of lame that in that context of calling on the Congress to finance what they voted for is by way of demonstrating that you're alert to this problem and continue to be on your mind.

That's the right thing for Congress to do.

I think if we hadn't had Archer's testimony just at that time, twitched it long around, Milley was ready to go for the wage base in January of 71.

And that long switch, when he heard Arthur's testimony, went through the Senate.

And they had a question of whether or not the wage-based issue was conferenceable or not.

And lots of people think it was, but that was a good excuse not to do anything with it, in any case.

So it went by.

But I think that...

As the weeks and months go on, this business of maintaining some kind of discipline in the budget is a refrain that is going to have to be played again.

What we would do is sign this and ask the Congress to change the... Well, you could point out to the Congress that you're signing this, and this provides needed...

of benefits, but there are many other things in the Social Security area that need doing.

The cost of living in question needs attention.

And then there are a whole list of other things that are being worked on in ways and means, and point out that they haven't financed this benefit.

They have other things that they're considering, and call upon them to finance the whole package properly when they consider this.

I don't think that's an unjust...

Well, I don't understand.

I don't mean it's an idle gesture.

It's not one of the records.

Yeah.

I mean, do you think there's any chance the Congress is doing anything about it?

Yeah, I think that that's a...

There's some chance.

I don't think there's a good chance.

You mean some chance of which?

By what?

We just try to get the Congress to the next Social Security bill.

Well, there is the next Social Security bill, but we've got H.R.

1 that's going to be running across.

And it could be it.

It certainly could find its place in there as it was going to in the first place before Long came up with this other name.

So it comes from the house sign.

It's over here.

Yeah.

Is it a...

Well, I haven't thought of any other.

I'm sure there are other things.

I think what we should do, though, I do not think that having a signing ceremony for the benefit is going to make a lot of difference.

I mean, after all, we're going to get the 10%.

I'll sign the bill, and that's that.

Because if I have to sign it, then you get the Congress to say, well, we should have put more money in that bill.

I don't think it's going to get George much, I don't think it's going to get any additional rye.

You and John have seen much of it.

I guess we've been going through these assignments to an extent there, but I'm not sure in this one where we've got a double-edged sword.

I think we should sign it, I suppose we could sign it with a statement that said, we wish they'd gotten a cost of living increase between the four of them.

Now that should be an end.

We're very troubled about how this is going to be paid for, and so we're going to have some specific suggestions from the Congress on how to put it and how to pay for this, but that's fine.

What I'm getting at is that I don't believe that having a group of congressmen down for a ceremony is the occasion for that sort of thing.

I don't think that fits.

What do you think about that?

No, it would be good if we could have a lot of old people in here in our wheelchairs, but I don't think we can put anything like that together.

.

Well, we have to have some way, it seems to me, of dealing with the question of are you going to give up on revenue sharing in order to save the full-time budget?

Well, we need something that gives us the time to keep talking about revenue sharing without... Well, I was thinking, I don't know, I just...

Or if you could put it, we could get a little more sense for you, and say this is a major revenue sharing loss.

Well, there are two ways of looking at this, in terms of overtly calling attention to comparative revenue sharing.

There are an awful lot of people who are still testing our commitment, who will argue, aha, they're bailing out of revenue sharing.

Yeah.

And I think there's as much danger in that direction as there is value in saying it in the hopes that you'll stimulate the mayors to wake up and do something.

The mayors are stimulated enough without having to say this.

I think if you say, I'm going to ask the Congress to properly finance this, it does not say why, sir.

It does not say why.

It keeps us in a rough ballgame.

Because we say, well, I hope we can still afford it because we're kind of in Congress to do the right thing.

We also want to serve the people.

Well, I suppose you get it.

I suppose you get it.

Then Congress is kicking this budget right through the full-blown ceiling.

No, you're right, Mr. Chairman.

See, that's the question I put you out.

But you can never sign this.

And they'll say, well, I suppose the Congress should sign this, but I suppose the Congress does not want this.

I think you have to duck that by saying, I'm not going to assume the Congress is going to be responsible.

That's it.

That's the answer.

A million years, Social Security has always been on a pay-as-you-go basis.

It would be extraordinary for Congress now to deviate from that sound principle and jeopardize the non-inflationary question.

If I can't help but get into our conference, all people should hear this one.

All people must say he's the guy who's talking about the dangers.

I think he's doing us a favor by doing something stimulating to the economy.

Is that really stimulating?

I doubt it.

To the extent that you have spending... We heard a lot about that last year.

The pay raises and everything else was stimulating the economy.

Pretty bad year, as I recall.

Ever?

Well, as you know, my feeling is it's the getting a sustained and substantial monetary growth that's the key thing here.

I guess you're right.

Let's go through this and, or let's go forward.

We'll sign the bill and state it.

Should somebody be willing to say that I shall, shouldn't we move rather quickly then?

What do we do if we have to send another bill to the Congress?

I mean, you don't send bills to legislation sometimes at this time.

Just send them now.

Somebody should go call on the mills or somebody should pitch them on this.

Oh, you don't ask for him.

I said, he knows him.

He knows that bill, so the House of Ways and Means Committee.

Oh, is that right?

I should have known.

I do.

They initiated the drug.

I mean, it's a legal act.

Well, I've worked this out on a gentlemanly basis.

Who sent out the tax code?

L.D.

In fact, she called L.D.

$3,400,000.

That's what it now, that's the amount of the variance.

There's some sick things.

This would, of course, improve the budget on the deficit.

The full budget deficit would be in question.

Among those who decide to be those particularly on fixed incomes are those on social security, in terms of the circumstances by a staff responsibility.

So I think it's very brief.

I'm just going to go.

Sarah, I think it would be helpful.

I don't know what size.

What I see we have, John, is this, that what Laurie Stanton and Romney and others say in the answer, whether the car industry deals with as much sex appeal as revenue insurance is, and spending money for cars and suits and all the categories of cars means so much to them.

That's really what it gets down to.

It makes me think of the

I think you're advancing us to the end of the congressional level.

The other point that should be strongly made is that if you do not suggest supposing citizenship at birth for eight and a half, maybe eight years before we were here, nobody suggested it.

We were the first to propose it, and we propose it now.

If there are any alternatives that come up, they're solely a result of our initiative.

That's right.

We'll have to negotiate and do the best we can to take whatever it is that the Congress comes up with.

But in the meantime, do we have any course with this to continue to hunt on the home on this, but ahead of the revenue share?

Now I can start to follow the scores.

You think you can make them care then?

Yeah, I think that's the trick, is to make them care and to do it in terms that you suggest them to follow.

What's the money about?

You just go into those towns, you go into the cities and you say, here's what this means to us.

If there's anything at all that the reports that all of our traveling people bring back, it goes over very well.

Yeah, they say so, yeah.

Well, of course, they're actually the editors of the issues and the rest.

And the business people, of course, they're on our side, actually.

They're here on the other side.

Of course, that was a while.

It was on the other side.

It seems to me, it makes me a little overwhelmed.

I wonder if it is...

political section.

Well, your Republicans are pretty well fired up.

I think the congressional coolness that you're getting is pretty much partisan.

The Democrats have passed their word that they're just going to stay office.

They're going to try and come up with something of their own.

They've been boxed over a whole bunch of other alternatives this weekend.

public service employment, lowering the matching requirements, increasing the amount of money in existing categorical programs.

Accelerated public works, a whole mixed bag of stuff.

And he said, we're going to need you to come out of this fine program once and for all.

Democratic mayors went up there and beat his ears off.

Told him to get the revenue here.

Is that right?

Yeah.

You know what happened?

He had a very rough time as a speaker, too.

But he's putting up a big brawl.

And those things will flow out there, the same as Larry O'Brien's regional commission is saying will flow out there.

But none of it will come out.

Yeah, Johnny Burns is at school.

I don't know if you have this, but the infamous Barbara Collins was that much.

He was saying that the Congress is just getting out of staff on this whole subject.

They just haven't got the people on this to work with these concepts and try to come up with something.

He said the Ways and Means Committee staff isn't geared up to do it.

They're busy with other things.

And so they're depending on odd guys around them.

We don't want to do this ourselves.

That's right.

It's getting terrifically complicated.

Congress couldn't begin to put together

this package of special revenue sharing and reorganization bill is just a tremendous mistake.

So we can pull the energy from this kind of thing and we can continue to sell their alternatives as we can do and I think keep our forward motion on it.

Thank you.

And they've got a very tough choice because these guys are going to have to go up or down on this thing eventually.

How is it that we motion a recommitment from the Senate and probably get some sort of a, our bill has got to get up to one way or another.

It's not one way or another.

And that's a very tough choice for these guys, as matters now stand.

It's not to say they might not be able to develop something.

I expect to see some guy get up and make a speech about how many mayors have been convicted of rape in the last year and how many mayors have been convicted of embezzlement and all this kind of stuff.

But so far, it's all on our terrain.

And until we get the last of our six special revenue-sharing bills up there, we can get out the money numbers and get those out to the communities.

Then we can really start pounding home the number of dollars that each town is going to get.

I think there's something more going for us if we can somehow

get it across right.

And that is the relationship with a whole set of things in this domestic program that go beyond revenue sharing into the health area, the environment area, the welfare reform and so on, so that you do have a package that fits together and represents a domestic strategy.

Yeah, we haven't even begun to fight the governor yet.

I wonder if you have on that story.

The thing is that we have not begun to orchestrate the whole administration to our health yet.

We've had them all.

It's a very good problem.

Yes.

It's a...

It has got a very good response.

I gather there's trouble in your ways and me.

It has gotten a very good response.

That's what I thought.

Burns has refused to sponsor you.

John Burns.

Yeah.

Because he claims that we did not give sufficient concessions to small business.

He thinks it's politically unpliable for that reason.

And now... Yeah.

You know, we require every businessman to insure his employees.

Burns would like us...

or to subsidize the small businessman who does less than a certain gross.

And it's just not possibly due financially.

But for that reason, he's not aboard.

And we were up there seven or eight weeks ago, consoling him on this.

a lot of prior anticipation this time, so you can't complain about that.

While you're in California, at the end of this month, it would be a very good thing, if you're looking for some things to do, to go by one of Edgar Kaiser's health maintenance, because it is the epitome of HMOs.

And there is an old folks angle to it, because they do take care of Medicaid, old people in their HMOs.

So there's a possibility of setting something up that would be a good visual to get them to use it.

We'll talk to them.

We're alerted about that.

Well, we have some in Los Angeles, and I have one in San Francisco, too.

Where do you want to be?

Oklahoma, of course, is the home office.

Another subject I gather here, I'm thinking of a press conference on Friday.

There will be a consumer's price index announcement on Friday from the BLS.

I don't know what it's going to show, but you should know that that will be announced Friday.

There will be an announcement on Friday that's scheduled.

It's generally in the morning about 11.30.

Follow a different procedure.

whereby they will have a description of their table, and they'll distribute it, and they won't have a press conference at all.

They'll drop the press conference.

No questions.

And maybe the secretary could follow up the distribution with a statement of his own.