Conversation 475-022

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Okay, and, uh, well, we have a few other hands, so... We have a second letter from one of these armed detectives down there who tried that case.

He hasn't released it.

And, uh...

Our inclination now is not to get into a shouting match with these guys.

The sewer's dying down.

And we're also probably reacting to the press reaction.

We would rather have you check the background, but while we're doing that, we're going to thank the gentleman, the first guy in the house, and the second one, I'll get started.

But the, I wonder what you would think about the idea of simply referring the letters over to Reeser.

Sure.

And we'll tell Reeser what to say, but let him answer.

It is our job.

Sure.

All right.

And that keeps .

Be sure that you have proper response .

What did you find?

We haven't said where he went, right?

Right.

Now, he's not going to get any questions on it.

Well, they know what this is.

Also, the press knows what you said in the news.

It had nothing to do with what he was talking about.

Somebody put him up to that.

I don't know.

I don't think so.

That doesn't sound like it.

Both of these guys, I assume.

Yeah.

Do you think they're writing the book?

Not yet, but I think it's only a matter of time before some publisher gets on it.

My guess is just check this top, and I'm projecting to find they're in the book writing business, or something else, and they want to get publicity, so they start, this is the way you do it.

See, my clients are out of personality.

Well, I guess also is that you will find they are very strong pacemakers on both sides, both of them.

The, uh, my guess, or just for the reason that I, you know what I mean, and that they're, uh, and that they are, uh, that they're in the sort of the, uh, my league, ring my hand boys, that sort of thing, you know what I mean?

Hey, he's getting the, uh, and from the last, just, just a little bit, I'm thinking probably about this correctly.

intelligence estimate here on what the protests are going to be this spring.

And it looks like it centers around two dates.

The event was in April from the 19th to the 3rd.

And they're expecting $2,000, $2,500, something like that.

You can't allow them here.

And they won't get that many.

They'll be checking things around.

And so I'll provide it to you.

All you have to do is just find one.

Just one.

from the end of that one until the 5th of May, from the 25th to the 5th, a rather intensive moratorium type of activity with a lot of different kinds of things ending up on the 3rd, 4th, and 5th of May with massive sit-ins blocking the highways, blocking the bridges, and quite a lot of heavy stuff.

Good.

Thanks, Mike.

There are a lot of other options.

It must be that the less responsible ones are taking over then.

That's the Rennie Davis bunch, the same bunch as the Grand Moratorium pretty much.

Oh, I thought the Moratorium was all right.

Excuse me, what was that?

Oh, yeah, not the Sam Brown bunch.

Yeah, right, right.

And so, as we go along, it starts to look like I would have noticed when your D.C. message this week was the last of the special messages.

And the legislation and the messages are now all up.

It's made it way easier.

All the messages.

I noticed the D.C. messages are beautiful.

So, at least D.C. cares about it.

I care much about it.

I'm afraid so.

It just seemed like a good time.

I'll be going over here.

I'll be here.

with congressional wives.

Congressional wives, sir?

Well, don't let me bother with that.

You're not going to have to bother with that now, right?

But I think I have to do the administration work for that.

I think the congressional wives should be out there.

I'm very, very proud of you.

Yeah.

And at least he's having them all along, right?

Congressional wives.

Yeah.

a big thing for them to come to Wyatt, so I'd move them around.

But I got this two or three times from some of these ladies, and I think it's a good suggestion because these gals can work on their husbands.

You ran until 1230?

We ran until about 12, 12-5, 12-10, something like that.

You just did the future shot?

Did the pitches, and then we did good questions, excellent questions from some of these gals.

You made a great pitch.

So we did...

We did maybe ten questions.

At least, then, the main thing is, well, we really know on ourselves they aren't good watchers.

They can't do this, but it complements their culture.

A couple of them came up and said, you know, the nice thing about this was you didn't talk down to us.

That's right.

I thought to myself, boy, that's a bad sign.

You want to be able to read the mail.

You think I just didn't have to read the mail.

Yeah.

Oh good, you weren't, you mentioned Peterson.

He did a very good job this morning.

The only thing that he did, George, and I hadn't talked to him about it, he shouldn't have rushed.

I mean, he kept rushing through it.

Or we should start now.

Or we should have a line presentation.

We should start about ten minutes late.

People like to talk a little, and he should have it.

And when they have that room together, it's swell to get, say, let Conley, you know, say something.

You know what I mean?

So that his thinking, that makes it go, rather than just...

It's a tremendous amount there.

Oh, it's almost scary to death to think of all those problems that we ought to be working on.

And what he really ought to do, and maybe you could mention this to him, if you will, as to what he's going to do.

He's got an excellent idea to shift those things around to the various members of the council asking them to set the priorities.

Then what he ought to do, I think that he, you, maybe, and John, Henry, and I should sit down and discuss those priorities and make a decision on them.

So in other words, with a small group,

to say the truth, by God, there are some terribly important things there that we ought to be doing.

You know, I'm looking way ahead about the things.

And I know he's not gonna be able to do it.

More than one.

You know, when I say more than two or three here, you agree?

on the list of things.

Sure, go ahead.

But on what I was going to say, don't you think we ought to sit down and create an example to George?

So many of the things cut across other things like

Like antitrust.

Now we have got to get their thinking wrong.

I don't know what is right about antitrust, carbonization and all these other things.

But we ought to decide it now.

Maybe we ought to have a flag in line.

Some things like that we're thinking about.

Maybe the way to save, maybe in agriculture first.

maybe it'll be agriculture, the idea of ranch arts and more standards.

I just don't like a lot of Dan Parkins working on these things.

I think we ought to figure out what we want this country to be, and then we make it, and we help them try to direct it in that way.

Second, Dan, on the matter that he brought up, that is with regard to the, the, the, the,

What is the United States really going to try to be first in?

What are we going to try to import or, I mean, export?

I mean, are we going to give up this market or that one or the other?

Are we going to, you know, when you see the fact that we are, we are number two, in other words, we have a minus balance and all those, you know, that doesn't all blow the line above the line and everything.

And they put out oils above the line, it's a big mess.

what they call a high technology, high technology.

Well, all right, and even that, for Mr.

Minus.

Now, that inauguration is a reason to get terribly disturbed, except the fact that then we've got to determine if we are, then where do we go?

Then, when he comes to the other point that he made, maybe his idea of possibly we ought to make a massive investment in

in industrial research.

That's appealing to me, you know what I mean?

That's maybe one way to pick up these scientists and so forth, or if you have a massive investment in light, not to go after, of course, the defense of space, the idea that you spin off things.

Let's go directly to the problem and not go with any idea that the National Science Foundation is that kind of an investment, because the space of the National Science Foundation is just a half-assed carryover from the Defense Department.

I mean, it's built up, and now it's a built-in budget item for colleges and universities.

Oh, it helps a little, but it doesn't go at this problem.

I think Pete has a feeling, and I think he's a businessman, he must know.

He has the idea that maybe, maybe what we introduced, it costs a big bundle over there.

Let's take the breeder reactor.

If we go on that, that's a hell of a big decision.

But, incidentally... We're doing as hard as we can.

And I'm saying on that, in charge, if we do go on that breeder reactor, we do know I want to make sure all that field and the rest know we're doing it, and that I get it, so that we can protect the administrator, and they know something, and they do not.

And they can talk about, what did I say?

We do that.

And if we do make a breakthrough there, that changes the whole game about energy.

Hell, you're going to have that thing, right?

I mean, you're not going to be worried about coal and all that sort of stuff.

Well, that's a long distance away.

The coal technology is also something that's very...

Exciting, and that's a fuel that we just have.

Oh, and what about that stuff we got on the shale, too?

Shale oil.

Also, that's coming.

There are a lot of things there.

Yeah.

Well, what I'm getting at is that Pete there was getting a lot of things that were obvious, that were related to the others, but related to all of our fuels.

Now, what I would like to do is to have that discussed in a group.

Maybe Henry should not be in it, actually.

Maybe you, Pete, and I...

Plus, be green.

In the White House, the only other direction should probably be Paul.

If he's, you know, I mean, I mean, if it's in the economic field, but it's, in some cases, maybe David comes and maybe we do him on ad hoc basis.

David is pretty good, I think.

We've been working, you know, I've been talking quite a bit about

how to get federal research structured better and more directed.

And seeing if there is some way we can think of NASA a little bit more as a big manager of research rather than riveted so much on space business.

It's very hard to get them because they like space and so on.

But anyway, we've been working around.

We had a little continuing to work with this productivity commission.

We're working at that with the Productivity Commission a little bit.

But anyway, to see if our federal effort can be organized a little more affirmatively outside of the Defense Department and pointed at particular problems that we think are promising as far as research is concerned.

We do that in the medical area.

We don't seem to do it much.

Outside of defense in the medical area.

Elsewhere in the service.

Look, now look, this is a perfect place where Peterson's idea of bringing in some outside people works.

Now look, how about the head of research for GM, the head of research for GE, the head of research for Bell?

You know, you pick the companies.

Pick four or five big companies and say, now look here.

What really could we do?

And let's put a bundle.

I mean, when I talk about the bundle, I know we haven't got any money, but we'll just decide to.

But I have a feeling, I have a feeling that the whole, well, let me put it this way.

I have a feeling if we're looking at that in 10 years from now, if we don't get going on something, we may find that because of increased costs and stupid policies with regard to business combinations, restricting labor policies that are anti-production and the rest, that we will be in a position where we will be trying to build up barriers around and not able to compete with the rest of the world, and it's going to be a very uncomfortable position.

and other countries, and they've all got their problems, but they're a little hungrier.

They'll eventually have ours.

But we've got to find a way to revitalize this thing.

We've got to find a way to...

It might be the one.

I think that's the one.

We can talk about this the other night.

I think that the breaking up of the Stanker off, for example, was a good thing.

After all, Jersey Standard and Standard and NAM and Standard and Cal and LA, they combined a lot.

But they combined a hell of a lot, too.

That's a good thing.

On the other hand,

I'm not so sure about airlines.

I'm not so sure at the present time that the way the airline thing is going, particularly when they're competing internationally, that you can run four or five routes out to Hawaii, you know, and have none of them make any money.

I know this runs contrary to your Adam Smith theories of mine, too, because mine are the same.

But the more I look at it, the more I look at this thing,

I see us coming to a situation, it won't come, it won't come however it may be in the next three or four or five years, but it'll come to us, as soon as we sit here, because those terms will be made.

And he is right about the fact, and Connolly is right about the fact, too, that you can't continue to just tamperize and tinker with this international monetary thing.

You know, we've got this in here.

That's right, so this has to get a face out of it.

This has to get a face out of it.

People have been trying to manage it by this thing and that thing and this thing.

Well, anyway, what I would like to do, maybe, is to see us, maybe you can think of a better group to get together than the one I should get together.

I think early on we should be in it.

I think you should be in it.

Henry, to the extent he wants, because he's pretty good at this sort of thing, at thinking strategically and in a reasonable way.

I think Paul, if you think of somebody else, well, you've got two people.

And I like to sit down there, and I like to brainstorm.

I'm not in a meeting like that.

We sit down and spend the evening, I mean, a whole morning.

Maybe we're just sitting around over here at the EO meeting to start about 9 o'clock, go to 1 and figure out something.

I think that's what we've got to do.

And take out some of these things.

And then let's get these guys to work, because I really think, John, take Maury.

I can see that Maury's sitting there biting his nails and so forth.

He's going off in one direction on some of these things, and, you know, McLaren's going off in another direction.

Huh?

And Pete Kershner says he doesn't want Maury off there doing any negotiating.

He's right, because Maury is not worth negotiating with.

So there you are.

We've got an interesting exercise to declare.

I just had him put down in writing the antitrust law review studies and policies.

And I've got that now in a book that I'm going to read this weekend.

Oh, well, I think I better read it out of the book.

Yeah, I think I better.

They tell me it's the first time that an antitrust commission has ever reduced the writing of their operating policies, which is very, very interesting.

You're going to have a cabinet meeting Tuesday.

How would you feel about having your peaceful uses of the animal?

I'll ask for your presentation at that time.

Good.

We can get Hopfield to... Are you ready then?

Yeah, we're ready.

And I have a good idea.

I think we ought to have Hopfield sit it over there.

If you have no objection.

It'd be great if Denver Congressman, he would be so competent.

Hopfield's that positive.

All right.

I sent you a note from Glenn Seaborg.

I remember you asked to have him come in at some point and talk about this.

So he came in and wrote up a little sort of agenda item that he might like to talk to you about.

Well, that's in the works here.

He would be one of them.

He's just an interesting guy to talk to.

They've got all sorts of things they're doing in the cotton fields.

I heard he wants the Bohemian Grove for breakfast.

He's fascinated.

You know, we're so busy with other things.

Well, don't you ever, I just wish you to, actually, I wish you to spread it over another half hour and let other people sing in with it.

If you didn't hear it.

I'd like to have him give it to the staff.

I'd like to hear it again.

I mean, he went through it so fast.

Well, he went through it so fast and said, well, I'm sorry I had to do this.

And I finally, John and Bob stopped him.

I said, John, I said, look, I said, don't hurry.

He says, I'll put the next guy on.

But he's still worried.

And every time I had a situation, he said, thank you.

And then I went on to the next job.

That is the way to do it.

You know what I mean?

I know why he did it.

Because he's a very well-earned guy.

And he had the whole thing figured out for an hour and a half briefly.

It was one of the best presentations I've seen of a subject.

As a matter of fact, as a matter of fact, it would be a hell of a reason to have the cabin.

Well, there's some happy cabins there.

The ones that were not there on here, that too, they really shouldn't.

That might be a way to have it sinking a little bit more.

I'll tell you what you can do.

There's a ton to pick out, cut in half.

And I'd like for some of those that are not there to hear from us.

That's another big job for us.

Actually, the background material, standing by itself without the policy issues, makes a good presentation just to get yourself familiar with what these issues are and why they're important.

It shows you why we're in dementia, what is happening in the world, how Japan is growing, the peace is growing.

You know, we all, we all usually do our thinking based on how things were when we studied them 20 years ago.

And we don't keep up to date.

And there it is.

It's all new.

Wow.

Sometimes we know things without really... Yeah, of course.

What I like to do is this.

Because it's, for my purposes, if you could tell him, I'd like for him to put that into a book for me, and I'll read it.

Now, he can do that.

He can make his little, he can put it in a little book with the charts, and I'll take it and read it.

But another presentation would be very good.

I hate the cabinet, the sub-cabinet.

It's a hell of a thing.

This is a, Peter's is a good property.

He's smart.

and clever, and he's going to have a hell of a time with Roger then, also with Connelly, because he's so goddamn smart himself.

That's all right.

It will work out.

I think it would be a good thing, for instance, for the domestic counsel staff to hear, because that's so much of what they do, touches these products, but the NSC staff, do they want to hear it?

It's an excellent idea.

And another thing, and then invite over, this is a great compliment to the undersecretaries, and the cabinet officers who are in attendance.

Tell them that the president wants them to hear this briefing.

Well, I have something just straight through then.

You're scheduled to see Paul McCracken tomorrow.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, because I have Tucker leaving.

I believe he's going to suggest this fellow Solomon that I've talked to you about.

He's a very good person.

I don't know whether we can get him or not.

He is also going to, tomorrow I'll offer you his resignation, I think, or say that he can go back to Michigan next fall.

And I believe...

Thank you.

If you want to persuade him to stay, that you can.

But at the same time, it would be very easy and graceful, and he'll make it that way.

He's that kind of a guy.

So that if you don't want him to stay, he'll leave on the best of terms.

So I think that before he comes in, he'll probably want to...

Let's talk about it in the morning again.

Yes, sir, I'll be here.

Let's come in and talk about it in the morning.

I think you should.

That's very important.

I don't know what to do.

Let me say this.

I think McCracken on policy is very good.

I think McCracken on salesmanship is very poor.

Now, maybe there isn't anybody that's worth a damn on policy that's any good on salesmanship.

and vice versa, so maybe we, maybe we can't find Parker this very well when he was in this job.

You didn't vote.

I think Stein could.

I don't know.

It's all extraordinarily good, Tucker.

But you don't think he should do it?

As a matter of fact, I personally think I have a few

I personally think this economy is coming around, I don't know, I think some of these bastards that have been fly-speckled, so they'll fly-speck the first quarter earnings and all that sort of thing.

But, you know, you notice the things that are coming.

I mean, those departments are sales and returns, not of the soft goods, I mean, they're buying the clothes, but, you know, the home furnishings.

automobiles, all that sort of stuff.

That's going up with a real bump right now, right, George?

Doesn't that need things to be coming?

The thing that holds our first quarter back is a decline in inventories.

And while that may be interpreted as representing some hesitation in the business community,

Once they see these sales on the end of the line, it's very buoyant for the economy because their inventories are very skimpy.

Incidentally, I noticed GE had their record all-time one-quarter profits in the first quarter.

They just announced that.

So that's a good sign.

Well, I think the market is reflecting an expectation that profits are going to be pretty good.

I'd be inclined to discourage him.

I think that everybody would read the wrong signal from his point of view.

The policy's going to work.

I just found the subject of economic policy.

The line that I took out with a group in Cleveland last week here this noon, and which I'm thinking about putting into this talk I have to give in a couple of weeks.

It's sort of a steady-as-you-go line, that there are strong policies in place, and the thing for us to do is just stay cool and go work and not to be running around after every statistic, lowering taxes or increasing expenditures.

But stick in there, because we're not only interested in this year, but next year and the year after that and the year after that.

I think one of our problems we're beginning to get hit with now is the notion that everyone is,

saying, oh, well, all they're interested in is the election.

And so I've been trying to counter that by saying that we don't know how this economy performs over a period of time.

We act as if we're not interested in the election.

We'll be all right in the election.

I know exactly what you mean.

So that, on the other hand, this boosts things up.

We're actually not.

I mean, we're resisting a lot of these hair-raising schemes.

How hard is the temperature on these days?

Medium, I would say.

I mean, Dr. was feeling that they were getting along better.

He has a really impressive network.

He got feedback from my performance in Cleveland, and I had, without really thinking about it very much, had praised him.

And he got that right away, and he came up to me last night and said he'd heard that, and he thought that was good.

He asked me if I was listening to him.

Good, and I'm going to set it for a while.

Yeah, good, good.

But the main thing is, I wanted to talk about this.

Right now, I'm telling Martin, you could be the man right now, things are beginning to move, and one good speech, where you are, you're going to have a hell of an effect.

You know, give him a little accolade.

The speech last night was marvelous, I thought.

I heard it in a group.

No, it was a party given by Joe Barr before John Connolly.

And they had the former Secretary of State Arthur was there.

Neon was there.

Yeah.

They still have great food.

Timothy's still there.

Yes, that's right.

Anyway, it was a nice party.

But they had the TV brought in, and we stopped.

and watched.

And there was a real round of spontaneous applause at the end.

And there were lots of very warm comments about it.

It was a group you'd expect to be supportive, although it was Democrats as well as Republicans.

But just from my personal standpoint, I thought it was a superb performance.

And I think that if we can

get in this notion that you emphasize that this is coming to an end and we are in a period of sensibility, that's going to help the economy too.

Well, let me tell you something that's going to help it more.

The recent direction, if we just keep the goddamn Congress on our backs, I don't care what they do three months from now, believe me, we'll be four jumps ahead of them.

We'll be ready to do things.

I'm not even going to promise anything.

I'm not even in this room, but I know exactly what I'm going to be doing.

But I don't want to do any of those things at this point for two reasons.

One, I don't want to jeopardize Jews' reelection in October.

And second, I don't want to destroy the chance for negotiation.

Now, ironically, the chance for negotiation now, for the first time, exists.

It exists just about when it's ready to run out.

By the end of this summer, by the fall, then all negotiation chances stand.

And then...

We, of course, do announce a terminal date.

See my point?

But you can't announce a terminal date as long as this because, let us suppose, suppose we get a deal.

Let me tell you something.

Suppose we get a deal.

Just suppose.

It's a long shot, not a long shot.

It's about 7.30.

Do you realize...

then, for what it does, could come in the goddamn thing a lot sooner but ain't it, you know what I mean?

Because we could be a better, well, not only just a POW, but a ceasefire.

You see, just say we set a date for withdrawal, they'll still be shootin' our butts off.

But if we say we will withdraw, but in return for that, you quit cheatin' at us, we get our POWs.

And if we can do that at a time,

that will not bring down the government of South Vietnam, a lot of other chances to survive.

We've got it made.

What are you talking about, four or five months?

So that's why you've got to stay in there.

Hell, I know what everybody wanted me to do last night.

Come out at the end of the draft, end the American combat role, set a date, and so forth.

That's all very popular.

But it's like on the economy today, they say, Jesus, it would be great if we could just get $10 billion in tax reduction.

That might help today.

It might ruin us tomorrow.

But on this one, I can tell you, you could well have, between now and the 4th of July, a negotiation.

You could well have that.

If you have that, then watch this economy go up.

Yeah, that would be great.

And you also could have a negotiation with the Russians.

That will come later in the fall.

In terms of style, that piece of work last night, I think, was the best I have seen you do in eight years.

Now I pull that number out and I'm just going back to, I think you had some moments like that back in 59, 60, where you were, you had your hands on the desk and you were leveling and it was right from the heart.

And this was in that same, in that same conclusion, right?

Well, it was very effective, too, because I'd read

And when you read something, one of the things I like about that is you don't make any pretense out of looking at a teleprompter or something.

You're reading something, reading it, and then stopping and talking.

It has a special drama to it, and I think it was very effective.

At least it was to me.

Oh, true.

If I could just check by a few other things with you.

I think John talked to you about my last conversation with Neil and the nature of the deal.

We could probably put together with him the kind of package that he would go for.

I think he's more likely to go for it than Burns is.

But this would be a...

a form of revenue sharing, which he would like to call fiscal relief, or states and cities, or something like that.

The thing that would be different would be, first of all, some statement of purpose.

as at least he and I talked about it, could be extremely broad.

Like, for instance, our six special revenue sharing areas, link them together and call that a definition of purpose.

Well, gosh, that defines the world practically.

So there's that.

Second, the structure of the dollars.

Excuse me.

I just

I'm going to tell you the, would you put everything, I'll be sure about the finance, but call Holyoke and put it back 15 minutes.

All right, sir.

He's probably still at the embassy, and I'll see him faster than that one, so I won't come here to be sure.

All right.

I think the $5 billion one, he'll buy.

the question of whether it would be hooked to the personal tax base by a formula so that it would rise through the years, I think he'll wind up being very reluctant about it, and will want to have whatever amount there is set in there, and then not to tax on it.

Right, right.

So there's that difference.

Then on the formula, he has...

reasonably set on our formula, except for wanting to add an element of need, as you've got population and you've got tax effort, and he would like to see something in the formula that flows the money toward low-income areas of cities, or in some manner like that.

There are various formulas that we've worked on.

I don't like it too much, but don't get that too damn hard.

If you don't mind.

Well, there are those...

I think it's going to take a column of need tests to get by on the notes.

All right.

He's totally wrong about that, isn't he?

Well, he doesn't bother us too much.

Now, we're working on some of them.

I think we can live with it.

All right.

So there are those...

The main thing is to get it through.

Yeah.

Now, there are two other things that don't have to be in it, but which he is interested in.

And I don't know the merits, certainly, of one of them.

One seems all right to me.

The other, I don't know.

He has the idea that the Treasury should be sort of like a loan bank for states and cities.

They could come and they could make more money at a slight premium in interest rate.

be a place to go and bail them out.

Well, I don't know if that's a good idea or not.

Well, I said I was her bank.

I did it on his white hat.

Have you talked to, you haven't talked to, I don't know, the person coming in.

I don't know anything about that.

Why don't you run that by me?

I like it.

It sounds good to me, but I don't know anything about it.

Well, it might be pretty good.

I'll tell you the guy that I wish you would talk about, that Mr. Sprouse you mentioned.

Now, Mitchell, you know, is the greatest bond expert in the country.

And Mitchell will see that and demand it.

Would you do that?

Yes, Coach.

I want to know what he thinks about it.

All right.

Also, there's quite a lot of work on that right here.

Right.

Because we went through this in the first year.

The third piece in this, which probably goes to John Burns more than Mills, but nevertheless, it seems to me like... Tax credits.

It's not tax credits.

It's just simply...

saying to states and cities, if they want to piggyback on the federal income tax, they can.

That is, they can specify that residents of that state

must pay either a percentage on the federal tax or a percentage on the federal tax or something, and then that gets added on to what we collect, aggregated and sent to the state.

That's performing a service for them, and it's leaving the decision in the hands of that particular locality.

It has some real efficiency

aspects to it since we have a system for doing that in place.

And this could be done without states having to duplicate the tax facility.

In fact, they could probably do it with fewer people as a result of this.

So it's a mechanical thing.

It would facilitate the taxability of states and cities in the income tax area.

That's something that's been kicked around some.

And I think that's pretty easy.

We're going to do tax reform next year.

This may not be a very good thing for us to get on board right now because we might be predetermined for the main thing this year.

The main thing is it's a damn good excuse not to do it this year.

He said, look, consider it next year.

I've certainly been afraid to tell Mills that we were thinking about tax reform.

Well, we sure are.

Yeah, well, I'm afraid to tell him.

Well, but he can see it.

He can see it coming from the expected picture.

Yeah, it's going to happen.

Well, anyway, I think we just want to think about piggybacking this.

It may be a major feature of our tax reform.

I'm sure.

I hope John Connolly and I are going to see him tomorrow.

We want that value added, and you've got to go.

We've got to have that study made and be ready to go.

That's got to be the challenge, too.

Well, what I would like is, is this a track you want to necessarily start at all the time?

Just keep on mills and burnish tables and get it done.

We can probably put something together here.

And then we might think about having another meeting with Mills, Burns, and if they then come out and we have to try to get them to go.

I have no objection at all to calling in Mills, Burns, administration, you know what I mean.

We worked out something.

If it just accomplishes our purpose, we'll still give them that credit.

Well, we'll go full steam on it.

We want them to have it.

It shows the Congress that the President wants it worked out.

He told them that I want them to share the creation and also share the credit and the credit both ways.

Well, we'll do our best on that.

The welfare bill is still holding together, although there are a lot of strains on the edges of that that we're working on.

Just quickly to bring you up to date on the intelligence reorganization, we've distributed the basic long memorandum to the PIFIAB.

And then today I've called Mel, Eric, and Dick Helms and given it to them.

Henry and I have worked together on this.

I've met with the 50F.

They're struggling and worrying about it.

Schlesinger has done an extraordinarily good job on this, and he's very effective in talking about it with these groups and with the 50F, I believe.

I understand they want to see you next week.

Well, it's pretty impressive, a bunch of people.

You signed, approved the memo that Henry and I sent in to you.

We haven't read that anywhere because that would make these people scream that they were not really being consultants.

So we just said, yes, you have some papers on it and we're wanting to get them to concentrate.

But this is starting to move now to get out into other channels.

And from all I can understand, if this is brought off, it would be a...

It ought to make the intelligence better, cheaper.

But it's a big fight shaping up.

And there are a lot of...

So that's for that sense.

Now the defense budget.

We have this $1.7 billion payover run.

Defense, I...

All of our intelligences, they really didn't fight that too hard in the past.

Now is claiming he's going to fight it very hard at the Senate.

And we have been saying and thinking to ourselves, how likely is it that the Congress would wind up with, instead of a $76 billion, as a result of this, a $77.7 billion?

And everybody's answer is, not very likely that the 76 is going to be our top dollar.

And what that means is, if this 1.7 passes, that there's going to be a major reprogramming done.

And I think the question is, we want to sit there and have the Congress do it, or should we work out a program

of how we would plan to do this ourselves and try to put it up there.

As it cuts into some very tough areas, and I think that the raising of the peg means that we, manpower costs you more per unit, and that's going to cause over a period of time

a rethinking in how capital-intensive the defense effort is going to be.

And that has a very... Let's pursue this again in the morning.

Let me tell you, you already told George that I wanted to think a little about the factors.

There's, of course, a possibility that we'll get an ATM thing.

So you may have that.

Now, I don't know about

But we'll meet in the morning, work it out with all of it, or wherever it is.

I don't want to take off in the morning, but before we have the first day, so you can get away with the afternoon.

Am I being deceived by being away?

No, hell no, I'm going to go where it's going out.