On July 23, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon, John B. Connally, John D. Ehrlichman, George P. Shultz, Caspar W. ("Cap") Weinberger, Kenneth R. Cole, Jr., Edwin L. Harper, Ronald L. Ziegler, Paul W. McCracken, Henry A. Kissinger, and H. R. ("Bob") Haldeman met in the Oval Office of the White House from 10:26 am to 1:03 pm. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 544-008 of the White House Tapes.
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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
Well, uh...
Do you want to look there?
Well, let's see what's... Let me see what you're saying.
Are they over the other place?
No, I said it's all right.
Well, let's make that right.
Let's do it over here.
Let's do it over here.
Let's do it over here.
Let's do it over here.
It's not quite a picture.
I wonder if it would be better to just... No, no, no.
I'll read it out and you'll write it.
You'll be on whichever side of the word.
That's all I say.
Would you get over to Steve's here?
All right.
Why don't we get together?
You hear it?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Thank you.
I don't know what I'm saying.
Let's get it right up here.
Come on.
First, the church.
First, the church.
First, the church.
Okay, Paul.
All right, I don't know why you're on there.
Well, Mr. President, this presentation is not a very near-term economic outcome.
It takes a longer perspective since the economic relationship between the economy of 13 to 72 and 73.
I thought it might be worthwhile to get a little perspective on the general long run path of the economy to Quebec in 15 years of it.
This is, this top line here is the major potential of the economy.
In other words, it is roughly what the pack the economy would have traced out year by year had it been operating at reasonably low performance throughout the period.
Now, it happens that this 15-year period
might suggest that the normal, that our economy normally operates at a substantial level.
Actually, if we were to carry this care back to the beginning of the century, except for the Great Depression, this is really the longest span that the economy has operated below four o'clock of the century, except for the Great Depression.
And this goes from 55 until about the end of 69.
And as you can see, for quite a period, even in here, there was no real progress made toward closing the gap.
Well, you have to take, though, you've got to take out the, like there's, you've really got to take a five-year period before a war was won, actually.
In terms of the American economy, it did operate in full supply.
Starting about 1914, we're through 1920, but that was World War I.
And without that, we're through with America.
You've got to take a period of World War II also beginning in 1940.
And we're through 1945.
Well, there's another five years.
You've got to take three years, three to four years.
Now, when did the economy operate in full supply?
Well, except in those four years.
It was the decade of the 20s where we had a recession.
But that was, I think, not inevitable as a result of that policy.
This is just the general broad kind of path that the economy is on, around which the short-run changes have preoccupied us from month to month.
Now, here is...
is a chart which looks at this in a sense a little bit more specifically, and in fact shows the year-to-year rates of growth in real output.
And from 1955 on to the present time, as you can see, the increase in real output ranged from a peak of 7.5% from 1954 to 1955, and of course the 1958 was the largest
actual reduction in output.
Now, I thought this might be useful because the calendar year that is quite pertinent, fiscal 73, is calendar year 72.
That happens to be two years after the fall of the year 1970 that contains the real outlook.
Go back and look at the history of this, you'll find that
And then in the two years after other troughs, for example, 54 not shown here was another trough here.
In the two years, the economy increased real output by an average of a little over 9%.
Now it's uneven here.
We got over 7% one year, only about 2% the next year.
After the 58 thing, we got about 7.3 here.
about, what is it, this is close to 9, I think, about 8%, and so on.
So that on the basis of history, at least, and this would seem to suggest that after 1998, in a two-year period, we ought to see alpha, real alpha, grow something like 9, 9.9%.
Now, in moving from real oil at a total of nine hundred, not an average of nine, but a total of nine in two years' time.
Now, in going from real oil to what they have in the gross energy, you see better silver here.
to what they have to process the product.
We do, of course, have to take account of what we, what our case market will price.
This is a, it looks like a slightly complicated chart.
You can do a very simple one.
It shows for each year the rise, the percentage rise in the price level along here, and
The percentage shortfall of output for a reason we both want, which we saw in Sharpeville, for example, in 1957, the rise in the price, in the price level was about 4%, and the GAG has made it a long year, it's been about two.
But the GAG, the slack in the economy, to which the rate of price increase for each year is related,
is not that near sweat, but it's like the year of the bull.
Now, the point of that is, of course, that it takes time for easier operating rates and technology to translate their effects through into the price range.
There is another chart here which I won't bother to get, but it demonstrates quite conclusively that, in that sense, the price performance of the economy this year is more closely related to what happened to the operating rate of the economy last year than this year, because it just takes time for changing conditions in the economy to get to a new category.
Now, the slack of the economy this year, the shortfall from recently quote-unquote going to be in the area of, oh, we'll say five percent or thereabouts.
And this is, you'll notice the price performance has been a little out of line with this general experience.
though this tendency really moves back in the 60s.
But one reasonable expectation on the basis of this would be something in the, oh, we'll say the 3% to 4% zone.
I think it probably would not be realistic to expect much less than 4%.
Another thing we have to bear in mind in taking any look ahead at the U.S. economy is that projections are dealing with probabilities.
There are a lot of things that are bombarding the economy.
We have to recognize any projections.
really are talking about a range of probabilities within which the economy may finally work out.
Now, just to illustrate this, here is a series of projections for 1971 that came into the, saw the way it came around the turn of the year.
And this very same projection, 1065, was the highest on those standards before saying it was very close to it.
And you'll notice that these rain going down, a series of these, to the Irving Crest Company and Townsend Greenspun, this is Townsend Greenspun, I've been talking about them, of 1036.
Where are we at?
We're not here.
Well, I guess that we're going to come out of the Irving Crest Company and Townsend Greenspun.
Now, you know, the conservative groups have heard about us.
Now, they've been looking at our cases.
Now, this is the year.
This is about where we're going to have it.
Where is the consensus?
The consensus is at 1050.
Originally, at the turn of the year, the consensus would have been about a year.
About 1045.
I think that that's been moving up a little.
I think the general expectation now is that it will be about a year.
So, 1060.
I'll be saying in advance of the 1065, if you look over the last 10 years, the average divergence between the projected figure in the economic report and what turned out to be the case is 1.2%.
I think we'll be within that top.
And the worst year was 1962, 2.5%.
We'll go lower or higher?
Lower.
To extend to that case, the projection was
Two and a half percent higher than what I heard.
This year our projection will probably be one to one and a half percent higher.
I say one to one and a half percent higher than what I heard.
One thing too, a couple points.
The total level of the NP has been lowered to the starting point of the year.
It was about three billion, I believe, below what we had.
so that the equivalent of 1065 is now about 1062.
I think that's the kind of point probably we can never get across, that our advantage is that.
Now this is an attempt here to do as realistic a job as possible to protect the course of the economy.
in the two years, one or two years ahead, and also show certain alternative assumptions.
This would incorporate, as I say, I think a realistic expectation about prices and the gain in real output, and would result in a net product for 1972, here in the 01, 11, 50 to 55 billion range.
which would compare with, well, that should be about the $100 billion buys from 1971.
Now, that is the red line here, and if I had to identify any one of these as the most probable course for the economy.
In my judgment, it's this kind of general path here.
This is the kind of path the economy would have to show
If we were to achieve 1065 for 1971, bearing in mind that half a year is already over, so any shortfalls have to be made up in the second half, and also if the economy would come out by the end of fiscal 73 at 4% unemployment, it would be easy to have some time to close.
Well, that would be the kind of performance, which we'll see in a moment, is very much out of context with what history would leave anyone to expect.
Now, this is an alternative assumption, which would assume that beginning at the end of the calendar year, calendar 71, we were to make action to balance the budget.
This requires, it would require, and it's assumed here that this would be done by a substantial tax increase.
And, of course, a large tax increase reduces African-Americans and has a negative effect on private demand.
If it were done the other way around, by a large reduction in expenditures, it would show a more direct and adverse effect on the economy.
And this path here, the red path, would leave us with 0.9 point of rate out in this range.
In that part of 72 and early 73, I would say 5%, let's say 4, 4.5 to 5 in this kind of zone.
we would be, we would be, we would have to assume that unemployment would be in the six and a half to seven percent range by here, and that there's not going to be enough growth in the economy there to employ growing productive resources.
Now this chart here shows, it's based on the Preziere chart,
This shows the annual rate of growth from 1971 to 1972.
That would be based on the red line.
This gives a strong gain, as you can see.
You have your general gain from 1961 to 1965, 1965 to 1969.
1970 was, of course, a relatively small gain.
This is our expectation, my expectation now for 1971.
This is a little higher than these.
But, of course, the rise in the price level is a little more now than what we had tried here, a little more comparable to what we had here in 65-69.
If we were to achieve the 1065 path this year and remain on by the end of fiscal 73, we would have to achieve from 71% to something like this rate of gain.
That, as you can see, is destroyed.
It's conceivable that it could happen.
I don't see any, I don't see the expansion forces in the economy which would produce anything like that.
When you come on out to 72, 73, and this is really from the second quarter to 72, the second quarter to 73, the final quarter to 70, the rates of growth, the rates of growth would more or less converge, but we'd have to bear in mind
This relatively lower rate of growth is also from a lower pad than this.
In other words, we're talking about a rate of growth from this general pad here.
Now, we have talked about some figures pertaining to outlays in 72-73 have been discussed before.
And I thought it might be worthwhile to see these figures in the perspective of the economy.
And one interesting thing is that even if we were to have something like 253 or thereabouts, and 73, and 234,
the budget relative to the economy would still have been, even in terms of actual gross net product, the expenditure, the percentage of actual GDP would hold about unchanged and would still be slightly lower in 1968.
Now, we relate outweighs to a measure of the size of the productive potential of the economy, as measured by quote-unquote GMP.
we can see that these outlays relative to the productive capacity of the economy would be slightly lower than in the late 60s.
Now, I don't show this by way of trying to make the case that we ought to have a cheaper record here, but just to put it in perspective, we need to recognize that while the budget is growing, the economy is growing in relative terms.
Well, as I look at the general budget picture, I think the important thing is, of course, to bear in mind the interface between the budget and the economy.
And what the economy does, you know, if you determine heavily the revenues that will be actually realized,
But on the other hand, of course, the budget actions we take are going to influence heavily the path of the economy will follow.
And we need to bear in mind our economic targets as well as our military targets in terms of investment policy.
Well, that's very quick, but there are two or three other questions.
I'm sorry, sir.
I see you don't know where they are.
You don't want to stay here with us without a chance.
We have business.
Please don't leave me out.
Take down whoever else today.
The board of taxes.
I suggest that you move over to the church and work for the senator here.
Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President,
Oh, in the actual figures.
71 actual is why.
71 actual deficit is 23.2.
And that is now again with the revenues down to 188.3.
And the expenditure is moving just under 212, 211.6.
That's about what we get.
The revenues are lower by about something like six billion.
Now this is from the trend in the years of January, the changes in the years of January.
And then this... Well, it's now out, and it's a question of when we want it.
It's regular.
It's due out in 48 months.
We'll be looking for it last year.
It's been anticipated, fortunately, at some by a French liar.
You know, this was a figure that the Joint Congressional Committee, one of the last years, said there was a Sinovac kind of 34-week wave.
Yes.
Well, I don't think that could be wrong.
But this is, what are most people projecting around this?
I just think, look, I think most people are guessing in the 22 to 22.
But it's no surprise that most people don't get it.
This will be the first confirmation of it, but this has been the estimation that's been made right along.
The thing that we have said is that we will keep expenditures within the total employment revenue.
That's what we've done in this case.
We have a 2.5 total employment surplus with that.
In addition to that, it's sort of a smart plan.
The price has to be around 30.
I think he's good with that.
What measure could we be intelligent enough for once to continue to feed that?
I told the leaders that, you know, Tuesday, I raised this point.
I said, well, that is the thing.
It's going to be about meeting at 33 rather than 34.
Well, let's get this out now and start being bright.
Right now, you understand, it has to be done today.
Get out over the weekend.
The people that grow on those in terms of the thing, you know, the bigger action is anybody who doesn't have a good lead.
figure we're expecting, so that it's more believable.
It's about 29 and a half, so we're very shocked by it, but we're trying to keep that in mind.
You got it?
Okay.
It's 72, sir.
Since we published the budget in January, the expenditures have risen, which I want to detail in just a moment, from 229 to about 233, mostly through uncontrollable changes.
And the full employment receipts we're showing in 227, I think they're pretty close to 229.
Actually, this is the result of the congressional action in deferring the increases that were previously programmed to take place in Social Security.
And so that is showing a full employment deficit at the moment of six.
The budget receipts of 212, which would bring out an actual deficit of fiscal 72 of 21 million, those budget receipts of 212 are based upon assumed 1065 GNP.
And as Paul just pointed out, that is not reached.
If we get, for example, a consensus figure of roughly somewhere in the neighborhood of 1053, something of that kind, this will drop to 207.
And that would mean that we pick up another 8 billion deficit down there.
We should run that to about 28 actual when we collect the full appointment figures.
That would be the 1972, unless there's some major reductions made in the presently planned expenditures for that year.
The base for 1973 with the defense on these figures, this is the base representing the increase that normally comes about an existing program without any additions, without any subtractions, just like what we are now planning to do this year, carry over with normal inflation.
the population growth and everything else in the 73.
That brings the base out to 258, starting with the 233 figure for 1972.
The full employment receipts, plus or minus a couple billion are listed at 251.
And that would mean that we would have a full employment deficit of 6.8.
If we don't do anything with the base, the actual revenues are estimated at $3,244.
Again, on the same kind of a target path of $10.65, which would bring us out at $11.84 for the next year.
If we don't achieve that $10.65, and therefore do not achieve the $11.84,
The 244 revenues here that are planned on the basis of that high target would drop to 227.
And that would take that actual deficit to 30.9.
It would be 1053 full for the first year and 1147 instead of 1184 for the next year.
So it would drop those revenues from 224 down to 227.
And that would add 17 billion to the deficit, bringing it to 30 billion.
for the base of 73.
Now the proposal that we have today is to reduce the base from 258 to 253 and with the full employment revenues in that margin of 251 to 253 to bring us out at a full employment balance for 1973.
Further reductions can be made, but that will be the reduction that we would propose in the budget outlays for 73.
I just interject, Mr. President, on that, to describe that target, which describes, in a way, the balance of CAP's presentation.
We think that that's a guess that the total point of receipt can perfectly readily be estimated in the neighborhood of $253 million.
So we have to try to see how we might get ourselves into that ballpark.
Now, I'll take this one anyway, because I know we're going to do the best budget week or so.
Let me just comment on roughly where we stand in terms of the numbers, as I understand it.
The 78.7 is what David Packard has to go out of the services with his sort of initial fiscal guidance, which I don't even know where it's at.
I have another suspect over at the defense department.
Last week I had a discussion with Packard about that.
trying to anticipate this discussion and see where we might go.
And we pretty much agree that if the desired defense content, let's say, was in the neighborhood of $79 billion, that is if it weren't for quality reasons and defense reasons.
So if that is the content that you wanted in a defense way, that we could do
two things, at least, that would probably give us a figure of 77 billion.
One is that in that 78.7, we're carrying 3.5 billion for the Volunteer Armed Force.
And there's a big investment in the Volunteer Armed Force in the military pay bill, as you know.
And I think that one could justify the case in the position that that is an effort to make that work.
And we put that down, and we see what happens.
And we don't need to do more in the 73 question.
That would more or less take about $800 billion.
That's 78.7.
Now, in the
working out of the fiscal 71 budget.
We have moved, initially we moved about $500 million.
We've moved a little bit more than that, possibly as much as a billion of our money from fiscal 72 to fiscal 71.
That is, in the last month or so of the year.
It makes a lot of decisions, and I've studied about exactly where that falls, and it's a perfectly
And so we felt that we could stand it in fiscal 71 if all gets considered.
So we moved that game through there.
Now, we can take that money and we can, in effect, move it through fiscal 72, so to speak, and carry it into 73 if we want.
And that is by way of saying that I think through
through measures of this kind, just in terms of what the actual outlay is, we have about a $2 billion room for maneuver if you want to do that.
So in looking at these possible ways of getting from 258 to 253, if something on the order of 79 billion
is a figure that you would want to settle on as additional guidance for defense, then we are, in effect, getting to that number without affecting the content of the defense budget in terms of when the ships are going and so on at all.
Now, I should add that since the discussion I had with David, no air has written
on his views about the defense budget.
And he's reflecting, I think, the services.
I've come back to David on his guidance.
And he is calling for a defense budget with allies in fiscal 73 on the order of $83 billion, $82 and $83 billion.
It's quite a many-weight third, third, third, which probably gets you
uh so that is that that is there in the in the way but i wanted to sort of give this background about uh where we are and just suggest this amount of room for maneuver on defense uh yeah of course there was all sorts of subsequent things that could be done one way or the other on but i wanted to do that but i want to say that
And going from 258 to 253, I have no assumption, is really not being done by cutting it down to just a bunch of more closed cases or what have you.
I'm particularly positive about the report.
A lot of people are positive about the report, the fact that he can't.
He's got to be able to get a certificate for that, and he has to study it.
He's got to be able to do it.
But there's one other reason I wanted to ask you is how late you could wait to get the final cut.
We have two strategic papers moving through the DPRC and coming to the ICM office today, which would be the content of this strategic program, in terms of which it would be easier to make decisions than of these competing service plans, which are almost impenetrable.
I mean, I can't do it without you.
Get ready, please.
But I think we could get the, uh, this bigger technician to come up today, who handles the deployment demands,
elsewhere would become clear after those two years.
I must say, when I worked with you, that was really sort of different from how I worked with all the other departments.
You are a commissioner, and I am a general clerk, and that's programmed differently.
What we need to get is guidance from you
about what we should strive for, basically, with the domestic program.
We also have a tax discussion here.
And if, I think we need to get a feel for what the ballpark, if you want to shoot for it, the best is,
Because if it, for instance, is going to go to 83 or 85 or 86 or something like that, doesn't that just knock us out of the box as far as the... Let me work with you.
Let me, in the first of terms of Henry's question, of course you can wait.
because we've got a couple other fish to fry at the moment, so I think that's what you're talking about, two weeks at least.
But how it may be, because I think you're going to have to give me about two weeks.
He's making me need to think a little bit, too, how nobody's done a better job on the fence than Henry Hadsworth in the past two and a half years, and it's been a pleasure.
It's been a pleasure for the reason that
Uh, not because of Henry's, uh, behavior, but due to the fact that, uh, Henry has taken, uh, the domestic market and he's treated them up.
Uh, we're doing a hell of a lot better than we've ever done.
But on the other hand, in terms of, uh, what we have, we have the DPRG or whatever it is, they sit down there and the sons of bitches sit down there.
And it's the same old shell game.
Well, gee whiz, I can't get rid of these wings.
And the Irish are going to be all fed if they don't have these many slots.
So when I go to West Point and find instead of 500 people in West Point, the bastards have 4,000 for 1,000 new people at West Point planned for the next year.
They have 3,000 this year, which is too many to have officers right now.
And the Air Force is worse.
The Navy probably needs theirs for reasons that naval cars are going to be necessary as long as it's safe, as if even a minicar.
We have got to shake up the Diet and Defense Department in a way that it has to be shaken up in a way that you and I are taught.
We've been too busy, you've been too busy, but I'm not too busy now.
Those bastards are going to shake it down if we don't need air defense, and we don't.
We don't need those gun hammerings up there.
We don't need all those flash-blows flying around.
We don't need those Air Force generals.
They're going to get rid of it.
We're going to get rid of the air defense, and we're going to get rid of some of this ground stuff, and we're going to get rid of some of the Navy crap, too.
They've got a lot of crap, too, despite the fact that they talk about other things.
Now, the real problem here is that defense is not what defense really wants and needs.
Got eyes fighting the dead for them on 8 p.m.
missile strength on divisions and so forth, you know what I mean?
Who would fight harder?
You would fight harder.
We're not going to let them cut into the real stuff.
And it isn't just a question of, you know, back in our business, we ran it more efficiently.
We ran it more efficiently.
And as a result, the United States has become a second-rate power of defense.
That is what we've been efficient to do.
We've been trying to run it more efficiently and maintain some credibility through our ADM, through our assault defense.
But we have not gotten a hold on it.
Laird is not questioning it.
Packard is not questioning it.
You have gotten to the fringes of it.
I mean, they've come in here, and I've seen their things, but I know of snow jobs as well as any other job.
They've got to have the best department.
The more it changes, the more it remains the same.
It's the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force fighting for the slobs, for their generals, for their personnel, and all the rest.
So if it comes down, it must come down deep, boy.
rather than put in the emphasis where it needs to be put.
And you and I both know
where it needs to be put, where it is going to come.
And I can't emphasize too strongly.
I don't want to go over it in advance and say, look, that was 83.
It's a crazy figure.
How can we compromise on 79 and a half or 81 and a half?
Bullshit.
We have got to make an advance now.
But wait till you hear what I have to say about revenue here and the environment and family assistance.
All of which are going to be turned right down to the bone or up.
Because I don't believe any of the goddamn things.
But all these things, on defense, Henry, we have got to shake those bastards up.
Now, you're the only man who can do it.
I know you tried.
But they haven't done it.
From the top here, we've got to shake them up.
It may be, it may be that half of the mess, but you don't really need it.
I think it probably should.
I don't know.
But it may be that as far as the Army is concerned, you say, I know what's going on.
You say, because our morale is terrible.
I say, why is your morale terrible?
You say, because of my leg and all the rest.
No, it's not because of that.
It's because, for Christ's sake, they don't have as many slots for as many generals and as many officers.
You don't know why it is.
That's exactly it.
You hear it.
Why is your morale bad?
It's because the Ryan Cooper is a good guy.
But for Christ's sakes, we don't need those flyboys anymore.
They're irrelevant.
They're obsolete.
And they're just obsolete as hell.
And all these guys, you know, the air defense, I've seen them arrive, and I've seen all their planes out there.
And, you know, if you get ready, I'm looking at Mrs. Clobius, and I'm flying over the pole with a bunch of planes there.
And I'm flying over the pole with a bunch of planes.
You know that, and I know it.
Why in the hell doesn't somebody tell them?
That's my point, though.
And that's why we're not getting into a defense.
I don't want it.
That's why, rather than two weeks, let me say right now, take 30 days.
I want you to take 30 days on defense.
I want you to take them in and shake that treaty for once.
And God damn them, we want to do what this country needs, and we have got to cut in those areas where it's really going to help.
That's what we're not doing, because the DPRC idea is basically a brokering deal.
You broke, you had to rope her in there and you looked over.
I looked at how fast you'd be doing that.
You wouldn't even have 80-10 because 80-10 was walking the fence.
You know, except the airport had bought it because they wanted history.
Why did the airport buy it?
Because they wanted a new fighter.
Or a new bomber.
Screw them.
They're not going to get it.
That's what I think of it.
The DPSD is the trophy of what happened to this.
They have let you know of it.
Hell, yeah, that probe is its own little enterprise.
There's not a lot of us that got to the DPRC to try to lead.
If we put a ceiling up, whatever it is, 83, 79, you know, it's not a three-way.
It's self-sliced, three-ways, and hell, do it in terms of blood.
That cannot do.
What we've got to get done in the DPRC and in the NSC is practice.
It's got to be in the NSC because until the issue is saved, none of us can really make them do it.
is a statement of what it means to love the Lord.
and then hold them to those missions and scrap all the others, that they can get done.
But if we give them a figure, even a high figure, they're going to split it up to protect their long-term slots.
But if you tell them the only missions you're going to consider are A, B, C, and D, and everything else goes, and what's especially close, then we've got a handle to operate on.
And that's what I think, if we could have one NSE meeting, it would be the longest in this.
And we have one NSE meeting, one NSE meeting in which they hear you say, these are the missions I think we put our money on, and we'll scrap the others or reduce them to a handful.
Then I think George, there's a way of pleasing them.
Uh, Dutchess Phoenix won't do it.
They'll kill us, but Dutchess Phoenix won't do it.
I got through it.
First, there's twice as three ways to get you within the services.
They will name themselves and scrap no programs.
They'll find out they're one third on all of their programs.
They'll spread it again.
That's the advice.
You're going to have to scrap the missions.
We have to determine at the highest level what the United States needs to do in the past.
Now, of course, all of this is complicated by the miserable problem of baseballs.
And the fact that it's going to have, you know, it's going to do the rest.
But what I hope we're talking about here, you see, is the 73 budget.
What we're talking about is what we do, frankly, after November, and the league may think it a lot.
We can put all this stuff in in terms of base closings and arrests and close those goddamn bases, half of them, the day after the election in November.
I understand.
You can't do it before.
You don't have to put all that stuff out in the damn Defense Department.
It's not your fault.
But believe me, I'm sick of those bastards.
Because they are here squibbling and squirming around, but when you point distraction at them, what do they want to do?
Well, they want to keep a couple of acres of neck and neck, or they don't want to give up the Presidio or something.
When the hell are they going to start taking them to the United States?
Now, the other thing, they don't have to give up a good nightclub or anything.
You can bet on that.
So no matter what season you put on there, there's plenty of over-existence for that.
Sure.
And then I say that one place to start, one place to start, this is going to be done.
For God's sakes, they've got to start in terms of their three service academies.
You can't produce 4,500 officers every day out there, can you?
The House of Graduates here, without suspecting those poor bastards, don't want to have a command.
We've got too many college graduates and we've got too many service graduates.
Is the volunteer armed forces that thing too far down the road that we can't scrap it?
Well, it hasn't been enacted yet.
The wage and pay increases, of course, are in conference now, President.
The conference is on the extension of the draft, so the pay increases in the volunteer armed force bill are way above what we asked for.
Pay increases, of course, do not speak to the subject of the volunteer armed force.
They speak to the subject of higher patients in the places where, by God, we don't not and should not have them.
Okay, they're going to track me.
In fact, you get paid increases to bunch of lieutenant commanders and pages and so forth.
It isn't going to bring any more riots.
And they can't well know that.
Here's defense again, playing their goddamn show game.
And they're going to take it.
But the paid increases is a way of killing us because it means that
that takes 50% to 60% of the budget goes to pay to be able to get into a war and have to expand it.
The cost of it.
We also have a bridge between civilian and military pay, so whenever the civilian employees go up, even the military pay is increased by the military.
We're going to try to avoid that.
My view is, Henry, that I would prefer to take them up.
Now, by the way, this is a crack we can hit at it.
We can crack them in.
Take them up.
But believe me, we might crack them.
I don't want to fool around with this same business.
And I'm there to come back in here, and I sit down with the chiefs and make them all feel good.
I mean, to that, they don't feel good that night.
But they're going to be taken up.
It's going to be changed.
The Air Force is going to be changed by God.
It's going to be changed.
Or else...
The President of the United Nations at the present time, you know him damn well, he stated to some of them, that don't be a damn thing, you just have to do the commands.
And a lot of the Haiti commands, a lot of the rest, the Piper, got on for paying all those that have to do with it.
The hardware, the people working here, fine, but the Defense Department has got to take a hard look at what the country needs.
And then, they put it within that.
Now, it may still be E3.
That is what I'm talking about.
What I am talking about is not E3.
I mean, that's a terrible budget.
It's only interested in actually getting low.
We're asking to get it down to 78.
You're supposed to believe Sebastian.
That's what we're talking about.
We're talking about that never has a country spent more or less than the United States of America.
Now that is true.
It's as true as it can be.
It's true of Russia.
You compare it to the Russians.
You compare it to another great power.
And here we are.
We've spent a hell of a lot.
All we do is we weigh 300 pounds on a 150-pound frame.
And we've got to get ahead.
Now, I suppose everybody's talked to this, I mean, but believe me, I know those, I know that, I know that I love Moore, and he's a great guy, and he's got a broker.
Blair and Packard aren't strong enough to do it.
But we are.
Now, that's why I want Henry to have the time to do it.
But let's understand, Henry, what the job is.
You have got...
I want you to come in here and say, while we're ahead, the same thing with intelligence.
Now, I know all arguments on intelligence never really, at a time when the world is opening up, never really needed more intelligence.
Our intelligence is in Britain.
We know all about the Sudanese coup.
We knew it was going to come, and we knew about the countercoup.
And you know, we didn't know a goddamn thing of it.
CIA doesn't tell us anything that I haven't read three days before in the New York Times, pardon the expression.
Not a goddamn thing.
Now, in terms of the minute intelligence, despite what that great, great Franklin Murphy says,
I mean, when we get, when we get that general over here, Walker, cut that goddamn Georgetown, Ivy League, CIA in half.
Get them the hell out of there and get them to work.
They sit over there talking to each other, screwing each other, it's terrible.
And it's not gonna happen anymore.
That's pretty what we've got to get at.
Okay, take a look at them, huh?
All the other things we've got to do?
No, we've got to do it in a month.
We've got to have some information on how to deal with content.
We've got to have it done.
We've got to have it done.
We've got to have it done.
We've got to have it done.
We've got to have it done.
We've got to have it done.
We've got to have it done.
We've got to have it done.
We've got to have it done.
We've got to have it done.
We've got to have it done.
We've got to have it done.
We've got to have it done.
But it cannot be done, George, by you.
Now, the worst thing that can happen is to have you or Kat Weinberg tell the Defense Department that because of budget considerations, you've got to cut this or that.
That does not speak to the subject.
It's got to be done by Henry.
But on the other hand, it's got to be done in terms of us teaching you.
Sure, we all know we have budget problems.
But the way that, the way that a person, it's, it's like a sausage, you're very involved.
But he'd haggle around and nickel and dime into debt and so forth.
But he had no strategic concepts.
He's in a good place where he is, right over there running that thing.
That's why I tell him his budget's 25% too.
Let it start right now.
Yes, sir.
That goddamn place, this time I'm gonna shoot for 25% of his personnel.
Have you ever been out there?
Well, it's awful.
It's awful.
They're standing around, coffee breaking.
There's no shortage of people.
There's no shortage of people.
But let me say, everybody says, well, you can't make a cut across the board and all that sort of thing.
They really can't.
You can do it right here in the White House.
No harm, no strain.
Take your service, cut it down.
They're too goddamn many.
George and I have to work together.
We have to in terms of missions.
But he has a lot of information already assembled.
Uh, by the middle of August, we ought to be able to get you to the Tennessee meeting.
Because they've got to get it from you, because you can't ask to go to town.
But they won't take it from me either.
They've got it here, just a chapter away from you.
Now, John, we've got to listen to you on this and tell you what I want you to do.
You've been a part of the Secretary, but I'm sure the Secretary is a traitor.
You know where to buy your parents.
And I don't know whether he's on the DPR.
No, he isn't.
He's got a man on him.
And he put a man on the project.
That's it.
He isn't a man.
Well, whatever it is, let me say, I want to listen for this reason, because we've got to talk about it.
You know what I mean?
I want to hear her approach.
I don't want... For three years now, we've had to pass.
We've seen you now.
And I'm squealing again, because they say...
Bob Mayo had the same problem.
He said, budget.
He said, now the budget department, I mean, I mean, Bob Mayo would come in and later say, Mayo was trying to get into my budget.
And Mayo was right.
He had to.
But Mayo didn't know anything about it.
But George H. Schlesinger had the same problem.
Schlesinger's really, oh, he knew a whole lot more than Mayo about it.
Schlesinger was nailing the dime.
He was not thinking in strategic terms.
George was not trying to think in strategic terms.
My point is,
Defense will only take, if you're absolutely right, from me.
But I've got to know where in hell it can be done.
Bill, I've got to tell you how many men you can have and say, okay, Air Force, you've got too many people out in the cabin.
That's a place to start right there.
Bill, I've got to tell you, if the Lord is going to be in that intelligence thing, it should by then too.
Yeah, let me have those.
We have no illusions about the cultures.
All right.
That's, that's a big answer.
I mean, uh, how, how's $5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
and the border battle effort here in classical on the, what are they called?
The, I don't know.
On the Sudan.
The Sudan, the Sudan, the Sudan, the Sudan, the Sudan, the Sudan, the Sudan,
Anything to do with the political company.
What the hell was shit?
What the hell was that?
Was he able to tell us how it was about the vintage?
That, for Christ's sakes, we all didn't know.
Nothing.
You might as well not have taken the trip.
They could not order a battle.
That's indiscretion.
That's not good.
That is indiscretion for our political... Yeah.
We ordered a battle.
But that also could be...
could be turned down.
And the way to do it is just start to turn it at the top.
Listen, it works the same for the government as it did when I was an OPA 25 years ago.
And the little boys come to you and say, gee, we should really ought to be raising more money.
And I said, fine.
So I said, fine.
I said, I'm very much needed.
I was a leader.
And he said, well, if you want to be paid, fine.
He said, we've got this table of organization.
You've got to indicate how many people report to you.
I said, well, I don't need any more people.
I can do this work.
I was running tired after the session.
It doesn't work that way.
the torturous way that fortunately I got to the Navy in 1979, which I was attempting to go into a month later and didn't have to go through goddamn agony and lies with it all.
But that's the way it was then.
That is the way it is now.
People are promoted to this goddamn government depending upon how many people they supervise.
That is the way around this damn White House.
Even in here.
I don't care how many people they supervise.
I want to know one guy that'll do something once, just once.
And that's also defense.
How many stars do you get?
What do you get stars for?
You get stars for, well, if you have a destroyer, no, you can command it.
Prove it again.
I thought you got a nice little bruiser.
Gee whiz, there's your camera.
Oh, you got an aircraft carrier.
Here's a hammer.
So why don't they want more aircraft carriers?
Now, maybe you need them.
Why do they want them?
They want them because they want to have more hammers.
Just as cold as that.
And, uh, let's make, let's, let's, uh, I don't care about the, the, what, that will be commanders and destroyers.
But the Defense Department's out of the way.
I said, Evan, do you think this is rough?
Wait till you hear what I've got to say about the rest of the goddamn government.
Let me see that back assistance for now.
You got it, Evan?
Right, sir.
Let's play it.
Whenever you're ready, all right.
We'll do it then.
Mr. President, on the train, the submitted agencies will need to get season letters very shortly because they take about 30 days.
So if we could get a ceiling based on a target figure roughly of this kind, we can always expand it, of course, and change it.
But these submitted agency season letters, based on that kind of a target, would be desirable to get out as soon as we could so that we
Now this illustrates the difficulty of the whole problem, because the budget is now 72% uncontrollable, meaning items that without legislation, without legislative changes, require expenditures based on previous commitments or existing laws.
And they're created through Social Security and Medicare, the interest on the national debt, the revenue sharing we now carry in this category, welfare reform, and all the rest.
of the controllable portion, which is only 28% of this whole budget, 70% of the controllable portion of this defense.
And that is the measure of the difficulty that... 1973, just right now, move general revenue sharing, though bear with one, the hell out of that uncontrolled input over to controllable percentage.
Yes, sir.
Hold on.
All right.
It's going to go because I'm making a different decision.
All right.
Then it will require a change in the formula, which is right at the bottom.
We're going to have to make a change in the formula again.
We're not just going to go stone.
We're going to go down the road, the same old way.
Well, the thing is, that 1930, 136 billion years of innovation, 1871, just climbs right like that.
1868 to 79, that's no improvement.
That's just all base figures, except they do appear, of course.
All right, where's the environment now?
Senate under control.
His department is moving very rapidly into the uncontrollable area.
I want to see how much of that can be done.
Don't show me uncontrollable things.
It really isn't just because there are tech projects that we've got to fight for.
Well, if we've got anything that we can change their mind on, we want to change their mind.
We also plan to change it.
I think the first half, if you've got that $1 million for a foreign school, a southern school aid person,
Uh, if that's an administrative initiative, then all right, we'll move it over to the controls.
That's control of life.
I'm going to change my mind.
You understand?
Yes, sir.
We're going to change our mind about the defense of this country.
We're going to change our mind about some of the terrorist things we're going to.
Now, this one shows that nothing's a secret job.
Don't leave it in the controllable stuff.
That television is such a bunch of crap.
Move it over here.
Well, that's the, uh, I mean, a lot of times, if I ever see anything to show up here, what you want to do usually is just, well, we'll cut the markers out of something, the markers of the program, or we're going to cut the number of border agents watching the narcotics center, or cut something like that.
They have all these social programs, OEP, model cities, and all that crap.
That's over on the other side.
Now, none of that, all of that is a control site for change.
I want to really see what it is, and I don't know the numbers.
Well, we can certainly get that.
This shows the growth of the outlays.
This is what took place.
233 figure up to 258 for the base.
And these are the existing law programs.
8 billion is added to that base just by requirements of existing law or carrying out previous administration programs and so on.
We have added 11 billion with our own initiatives that require legislation.
Now, not all of these are enacted.
But they're proposed and are before the Congress in a way that makes them uncontrollable.
So that you get my directive clear with regard to the CIA.
And you have not done this before, I mean.
With regard to the CIA, you understand, I am not talking about the boys that run the little chains.
No, I am talking about all of their administrators.
And it's a 25% across the board, and I want an online testing board by Monday, not Monday, Monday of the week, in 10 days, and get them off their ass and do it.
I've asked for this before, and I'm not going to start doing it.
I hate that tree.
Same with the AEC.
Now, the AEC, I know the problem over there.
We got a new man there.
We got a suspect here.
He's a great fighter, but if he gets over there, he's going to be fighting for more people.
I wanted to know right away, his first assignment at the AEC, how do you make that overblown, jackass outfit that Seabird was created cut at 25%, you know?
But this time, let's go back to MIT, start seeing the documents.
We have a proposal later in a few moments here that indicates the way in which a lot of this can be done.
And if you put this so-called zero in, or if you don't prevent the growth in personnel that is now planned and complicated, if you just hold it where it is, you can make substantial changes.
If you do better than that and go back to it with a reduction program in personnel,
And if you change the structure so that whenever we impose the ceiling now, an agency will knock out all the GS3s and 5s and 6s and increase the 8s and 12s and 15s.
And that, of course, adds to the cost.
So that if you look at both the structure as well as the numbers, which we plan to do, substantial savings up in the $700 million, $800 million range can be a gap in how to do it.
Yes, but don't be too impromptu.
Do you know how to do it so that they don't just keep the 7s and 8s and 12s and so forth?
So that they'll keep the guys, the people that have to, you know, to wash out the toilets.
The problem is that they have to take care of the people that...
They've only used the front of us.
We can do it.
There's no question about it.
The screens are out.
I don't get it.
And that's the point.
We have got to get a hold of the personnel.
We have sat here and we've had far worse than Johnson's administration on this.
And the reason is that we're supposed to be responsible for people.
We bring in these ninth grade people and so forth and say, Jesus, we're doing this.
Every time they turn around, they're adding good.
They're adding a new agency.
We reorganize and add more people and the rest.
Now, this is going to stop.
It is going to stop.
I've got to cut it down.
I've been unsuccessful.
I've got to cut that goddamn Secret Service counter on me.
One way or another, I don't need all those people standing around.
But my advice is, cut it down.
Always, you see, they've got to cut down the number of people.
If they have three secretaries, use one.
If they have more administrative assistants, use one.
Now, there's some, of course, you've got to have some brains here.
have that empire of brains at the highest levels.
That's a different thing.
What we're talking about is this empire building with agency after agency after agency.
We have old line agencies that are not sacred cows.
We have agriculture.
Get out to the goddamn agriculture department.
Some of those.
But particularly these nobles.
Jesus Christ.
A-U-D-H-E-W. Transportation.
You know some of the communities.
forward with it, but they're doing some of the things you're doing, transportation.
Oh, yes, sir.
You know, we have a million of them.
First of all, the wind races are just fantastic, and we have all kinds of them.
Before we had Willie John last meeting, while you were there, I said, why not a 5% cut across the
Well, every time you do that, they call me back, and they cut the wrong people, and it hurts.
Well, it's a bad administration.
I'm not so sure.
I'm not so sure that the only way you can get at it is to cut.
Like I said, that goddamn CIA is going to be, or it's going to be abolished.
No, it is going to be cut.
Get those people the hell out.
This is the show that we have so much to start, and that's the show that we, at least where the president's got something to say, we are cutting it.
We have to thank those people.
We have to thank both of them for getting at this.
But on the one hand, it would hold on to the totals in various departments.
We are at some level, the same level or lower level, but anyway at some level.
And then to get around this problem of cap mission, of that upgrade that takes place.
But imagine when you do that, we can find that I believe it's over the period of 65 to 70.
that the average grade level in the government has risen from, I believe, a 7.2 to 7.9 just by this process.
So we have an idea in our program that we, if you approve it, we'll move on.
I was saying to people that they must really lower that average, and it can't be done by just telling them that when they have an opening, say they have 315 openings, well, they can only fill two of 15, or one of 15, and they must fill the other to lower grades.
I still think the arbitrary number has much, well, all this is nice stuff, very eternal things, and I take them up with a little number, which is a one-day story.
But a story indicated that we're cutting 10% down on government personnel that have a hell of a good impact on this country, and that's what I want to keep them for.
We've got to put it in terms of people understanding that we're really bad.
Now take, for example, how this thing works.
I go over and talk to John the other day, you know, he's digging on some of these economic things, and I find for Christ's sakes he's got an undersecretary and a couple of assistant secretaries,
And the Department of Transportation's got six assistant secretaries, and about all the rest, you can't do your job.
You can't do it.
You can't do it.
Here, I've added a couple there.
But the point is, the point is to see these new departments that have all grown up in the new way.
And the new way is to get them all on the slide, the capital committee, the commissions, and the masterminds.
It was nice to raise the salaries of the president, the salaries of all the cabinet people, and that's very nice.
But what had all happened was that we are building up this huge, this idea between the American Americans and American business.
And that's one of the business excuses to make problems, but it's in this goddamn government.
We are just adding people, adding people, adding people all the time.
And that's what costs the money is people.
The only good thing about family assistance, and I'm going to get rid of that, but the only good thing about family assistance is that I think it would cut down on personnel.
for a lot of social workers back in the college classrooms teaching others about the law of the citizens.
Well, this is a percentage cut, Mr. President.
We illustrated it there.
Again, the problem, a 5% cut would bring $3.6 billion in reduction.
But $2.5 of that would have to come in defense, and that is because of this tremendous uncontrollable problem.
So the more that we can get out of this formula category, we can't do very much of it without legislation, but we can do it with legislation we submit.
But the legislation that's already on the post would require change.
But when we submit a bill... Well, I've got a very much better idea.
Just cut the civilian agencies 10%.
All right?
I mean, just change it around.
The civilian agencies are cut 10% while we would save $2.2 billion.
All right, fine.
That's nice.
10% is fine.
John, he can't submit an agency that's more than 10%.
Well, if there's other personnel, there's no question at all, really.
But most states, if I count it, the gromple can come in and stuff like that.
Yeah, but that's where we're in charge, I think.
Now, I'm not going to question if you don't run it here or something.
Justice is to be owed.
We can't put the person in jail otherwise, and so forth and so on.
But they've got too many lawyers over there, too, that can kind of...
So, now we can...
with the receipts estimates i think we've been through those pretty well
Now, in order to get to this target of 253 in the George Scotia, these are the general area of the cuts required.
And that is only $5 billion out of that figure we're bringing down.
But here, our facilities is milder or balanced on any kind of actual figure.
I know we run into immediately when we talk about balance the problems that Paul raised, that we're adversely affecting the economy.
I have to say that I don't think that the budget and the expenditures in it
tremendously important factor in the account because we've got three-quarters of the account that is made up of the federal budget.
But anyway, this is the range of the reductions, and it's not in any sense impossible to achieve.
And that 253 figure will give us full employment balance generally, and it will involve comparatively small reductions in these programs.
Does that include your 2.1 program?
Well, that can be made up in that way, yes, sir.
But out of the 5 billion here that is required to get from 258 to 253, 1.7 would be assumed in defense, and therefore 3.3 would be in here.
So we can get that, and we'll have to get a bit more to get down to the 258.
The original targets that we presented in Camp Davis...
But these numbers there include the concept of a 10% cut on all civilian deployment.
They don't include that concept, no, sir.
They include specific reductions in programs that we have here.
I am talking about the 10%.
We can get a 10% cut on civilian agencies.
And as a result, that's the way that it comes.
There's a 5% cut in defense.
On the basis of 71, if you got 10%, as soon as you got the 10%, you have to get the right figure on the basis of 7 on 13.
Over here?
Yeah.
You get a 10% cut of the personnel or of all incidents.
Now, if you go to an agency, a 10% cut would bring you 60% of those people.
Yeah.
So that involves cutting controllable as well as uncontrollable.
You mean such things as a national debt?
No, it's not a national debt.
In terms of the personnel, just make it across the board, 10 board events and civilian personnel.
Yes, let's take a run at that.
That includes military personnel and other personnel.
After everybody comes in, they come in now, what do you head down to?
What do you head down to?
I know this is, well, what about the little girls over there that ride out the Social Security check, right?
They say we have to kind of help.
No, the things they'll tell us, we have to help.
True.
They'll close the restrooms.
Yeah, they always have to.
The most sensitive programs, we want to ask why this has to be monitored so carefully.
You can't just say, all right, you tell us how you're going to cut the 10.
You didn't tell us.
Yes, you did.
Yes, sir.
We told you to cut 10% across the board.
It can be done.
Fantastic.
I said, hey, how do you do it?
Well, you 10% a couple of times.
Well, they certainly can't.
But when you need legislative or congressional approval, you have a very difficult time to do it.
How do you know that?
Do you need legislative approval to cut, for example, some of these?
And we don't have to spend the money from it.
You can reserve that.
We've done that to some extent.
We always reserve the money for a...
The typical action of our administration is to reserve the money for a very sensitive project of a Republican in a very close district.
Now, we don't have to do that.
That's not what we did.
I don't know what that's going to mean.
I'm saying if you can cut in personnel, I would have set an example for my house, and it would be everything else.
10% here, too.
Every place.
Don't screw around.
But the 10% of our in-personnel will not bring about a 10% cut of total dollars because they aren't all personnel.
Oh, I have $20 million on my hand.
That's $90 million.
Your number of dollars is about $2.5 million.
That's the dollar we're giving you for defense.
Let's take a crack at 10% for defense.
Now, listen.
Don't tell Henry or anybody in defense that we're thinking about defense.
They're to come in with their number, and then we take 10% off of that.
But it must be 10% off everything else, too.
Oh, yes.
Right.
That would be mine.
And that would be in personnel, and it would be, uh, it would reflect, uh... Get ready.
Let's get ready.
I want to, so we can announce it.
And, uh, how the, uh...
You have found that there are critical areas.
Transportation is not critical.
KTV is not critical.
KCW is not critical.
Agriculture is not critical to our personnel, etc.
Well, the areas where they only want to make them think of as really critical are those related to law enforcement.
I don't know.
What could you do there?
What could you do?
Well, you can't be selective about it.
In certain areas that are more critical, you can.
But there are other areas within law enforcement, and there are areas of... Can I just pretend?
Yes.
Just abolish that, not that.
the whole thing right out of there.
No, seriously, we haven't even got to, there's no reason why Justice can't understand, too.
You see, because they always make a move, they can't find anything.
One of the reasons is that there's very small numbers, let's face it.
The old land, the ones that really can't, which is that state can't, they can't even cut it.
I mean, that State Department, for Christ's sakes, their embassies, they're all terrible.
You can cut down the State Department, you can cut down AID, the Trace and Release Department in some areas, like what the hell, how do you cut high?
Would you cut high at our air stations?
You would have cut down your ability to get money.
That's what I was going to say, that you're cutting down your ability to get money.
I know that's you.
I mean, John, there are different kinds, but you haven't got to talk about that anymore.
I've watched this.
You take State, Justice,
Tracer, here are the three big departments.
The amount of money you save by a 10% cut is none.
We already had that at the end of the game.
We really don't do that.
Well, at the end of the game, I'm sure.
If we already had it at the end of the game, then you can see what other Christians will say, well, why doesn't Tracer do that?
We have to take it.
And the White House, everybody else, 10%.
It's like that.
Now, we've got a few other, let me say this.
to the average person who's taking in terms of the budget balance of the government that we're wasting money or the rest.
The average person.
Cutting 10% of Rome's federal payroll, that's far more to me than saying, well, we got in one half of 1% of a 200-odd deal.
And Paul, if we cut eight areas, I mean, personnel, I guess this is the country, it is going to have this great effect on this GNP as well, because we're going to keep doing things, you know what I mean?
We're not talking about, we're still talking about $253 billion.
Not bad.
Let's see, how much, for example, how much does federal personnel in ATW, having more federal personnel in ATW help the GMP?
Not a hell of a lot in my opinion.
So I will say that I am wholly supportive of that.
There are a million eight and two million four, two million four events and a million eights.
Well, that's a total.
How many are in defense?
Three more.
Three more.
Three more.
Three more.
Three more.
Three more.
Three more.
Three more.
Well, it wasn't an accident.
Our company submitted employees to the National Guard.
And they're being reported.
Only being reported?
The, uh... Well, that's a good time.
We don't have that.
About two days.
No.
About two days.
About two days.
All right, fine.
So you cut down.
You cut 200,000.
Well, for God's sakes, we've taken a wallop of about maybe 300,000 already dimensioned in other plans, so that is a fact for sure.
I just don't...
The federal staff of 2.8 million employees has also...
We had the numbers in the archipelago at that time.
The archipelago was about 2.8.
2.8 and the other is 2.2.
That's a ballpark.
So what were we talking about?
Two and a half thousand voters came across the border on the same one.
Blue collar, everything else.
Toilet operators and so forth.
You've got 200,000.
Now that isn't going to put the economy into a recession.
It is not going to put the country into any damn sin, in my opinion.
And the text, you know, the defense, I forget that through Henry.
We've got to find out how we can move on some of those things in the last half of the 1972 calendar.
And we won't want that to happen.
Mr. President, do you remember at the campaign that we talked about the desirability of only people in the armed forces so as not to dump out of the entire point of the statistics?
Now, we still want to do that.
We want it on.
And, John, this is what we're all talking about.
We're away from 71.
We're away from 72.
We're talking about what we presented to Congress in fiscal 73.
Now that meeting started July 73, and we're talking about what we talk about and what we do.
Everything must be done in terms of after November or whatever the hell the date of the election is.
You're not talking about an immediate announcement of the personnel cuts.
You're not talking about an announcement, say, in the next several months about personnel cuts.
Oh, yes, you are.
You're holding an announcement of personnel cuts for the next fiscal year.
It's fine as it is.
It's the idea for us to start now, you know.
Not just to start now.
That's what I want to get.
I need to agree with all your guys.
Yeah, there's some that are going to start now.
You understand.
You understand.
Unless you start these.
Unless you start.
But I don't want them to now.
I mean, CIA had to get those people out.
And they just started shaking it up.
Shaking it up.
Shaking it up.
That CIA.
That atomic energy commission.
And a few of the other commissions that people sit on their ass.
to get them out there, too.
But what I mean is that in terms of the
Well, I'd like to see it both ways.
I'd like to see what we could order even now in terms of personnel costs.
But I don't want to dump an excessive number of people in the armed services out now.
And we have enough.
We have enough.
Again, this bill is incompetent.
There's a limitation on the number of people who can be in the uniformed services.
That's why I hate it.
I hate it.
move anyway, they're gonna cut that.
That's why that cross would have to be so firm, because they'll cut it, and then they'll cut the bone.
and break on the phone just because the dance services will take the cuts and spread them three ways, and we could take the money that Congress gave us and spend it well.
Now, a budget vote would go to the Hill this coming January, and it would speak to cuts that would be affecting the following July.
That's correct.
That would be our best way to announce it.
But let's start shaking up CIA right now.
That's what I'm about to shake up in the morning, and I'm not landing.
Please start CIA.
Okay.
Yes, sir.
25%.
That's our goal.
Now, these six calories, these are, but don't, but don't hold it to this before Christmas, kid.
Now, now, Christmas.
Okay.
We'll...
These are examples of possible changes in that base, this base that takes you to 258.
And this is in the human resources program.
And these are different kinds of things that might be done to bring about a $900 million savings.
Now, these were made up before and are not calculated on any basis of a straight personnel reduction.
And to the extent that that is put in would add to
some of the savings involved in here because these are specific program reductions such as deferring a special revenue sharing scooter at an advance hour for one year and reducing some of the health research programs, reducing housing research and housing production subsidies
producing OEO programs.
These are just different kinds of things that can be done.
There are even some clauses here that would change some of the base.
But this type of individual items, and we would ask the Department of Supervision to do some more, these are things that can bring about in this one area that billion dollar reduction when it's necessary to get it done.
How much does it make the assistance?
Family assistance, we are carefully sending for you.
I'll give that to you, so we can take it after you're done.
We are carrying $7.5 billion for H.R.
1, with an effect on receipts in the active that all sections are inactive of $3 billion.
That's broken down.
Welfare is $4.9 billion.
We would cash out the boot stamps for $1.8 million.
We would add $3 million to the net increase.
Net increase, that would be $4.5 billion in 1973.
And it would be $5.7 billion
Um, it would be lower, it would be lower one billion, it would be adjusted as starting dates as has been suggested, but the actual bill that is out of the House and before the Senate calls for a net 4.5 billion increase.
And that's, and that's insurance control?
Yes, sir.
How is it?
Because that's what I was fixing for one week.
Very nice.
Very nice.
Very good.
Okay.
I don't believe these numbers like they are, but that will be the control.
in the near future.
Or, we're talking about some very empty...
We may have to do some very hard things.
As you know, the controls and the unenacted items that we're carrying, our items that we have sent up ourselves, so these uncontrollables down here are those that are already involved.
These are 11.4.
In other words, in this market that you've shown us cap over here, that 253 includes a bomb of four and a half minutes that we put in for that insistence.
It includes a total of 11 pages that we put in for administrative initiatives all over our house.
It's not the other administrative initiatives, too.
In the 11.4, there would be the organization that has the revenue share.
That's right.
That gives us another four or six times.
Okay.
Move the revenue share also over.
Did not have, that's not controllable, that's not.
Did you control?
I don't see what they're doing on this end.
In other words, if you put six percent, six plus, six per revenue share in the fourth band, you've got $10,000,000, right?
Yes, sir.
Okay, but what is your actual deficit in 1973?
If we make the 1065 forecast and the 1184 is showing a 13.9, if we make the consensus figures, it is 30.9.
Because we lose the revenues here to the extent it takes it down to 227.
So we have 30.9 would be the actual deficit if we don't get any higher than the so-called consensus.
So actually, our level 0.4 administrative maintenance is really family assistance plus rent and insurance.
So those are the two very biggest items.
There's several other awards.
There's an environment.
There's an environment in general.
That's easy to get.
The environment moves out of their control to the extent that the law allows to, you know, understand.
The law allows to move the hell over to that side.
We just got through this.
And, sir, that's the only items of effort we have.
I've talked away to the controls of this type of bilat, other than the necessary provisions that could be...
Well, that's the definition of it, Mr. President, that they can't.
They're uncontrollable.
By our definition, it requires legislation to change.
There are some that you can control the outlays, either by pushing one one here and one another, or by not pushing.
spending is un-actually required.
But for the most part, this wheel here that shows this 72% uncontrollable is something that requires legislation to change.
And as you say, about $11 billion of that in the budget itself is proposed for by the U.S. Administration of Initiatives.
Moving it over involves changing the proposal so that they're either not there at all or not on a permanent basis such as HR1 and revenue sharing.
The reason we classify revenue sharing as uncontrollable is because it is an automatic allocation of that amount of the income tax revenues each year without requiring legislative appropriation.
It's just an automatic allocation of that and therefore it moves it into an uncontrollable category.
253, which you finally come up with here.
Do you understand?
You do not include, do not even read the agency sending you about the 10% cut.
That's on top of that.
10% cut for defense.
We did not tell you that.
That's already on top of that.
You added 10% cut for defense.
And for the other agencies, what was that?
That's about $4 billion.
Including military personnel.
10% coming personnel would be, yes, in the neighborhood of about 4.
There's personnel, including military personnel, which is perfectly all right, too.
We have capitals down here on the right, which must be saved, because those red boxes are kind of counter-productive.
a lot of charts that just show the writing items that you sort of pick out and you can get it down.
They grab it and show it to you because many of them are hard decisions.
So there are a lot of other ways in which money can be saved.
The cap has material on the page, changes and so on.
We talked about the structure of it.
And another thing that
Obviously, if you change your view on the Race and Discretion Initiative, that has an impact not only on fiscal 73, but on fiscal 73 as well.
If we look over there on that chart, we see that we expect the catalogs to be 33.9.
Much of that is about 5.7.
Now, that is not much for reference, but what we get is the only half of it.
Well, three quarters of a year is figured in.
So you have $4 billion.
Yes, sir.
Very little administrative startup costs, which are somewhere, I think, in the neighborhood of $200 million, or a little less than that, something of that kind, is the effect of it.
In 1972, but in another way, again,
showing fiscal 72 out of 100.
What we have done is to add to it the things that have been done over by the Social Security Chamber, and then soon the administration program intact except for a few changes where we can see that we can fairly well predict what is going on.
And then there's, there that is.
So as soon as the passenger revenue sharing, as soon as the special revenue sharing, the various swingers that put on that, and so on.
So there's, there are assumptions built in there that are essentially illustrations.
All of those, like that human resources one, we have those for each department and they involve different kinds of selections and examples and so on.
This is another one that spreads across other agencies and is another way of getting additional reduction.
below that in this amount, a billion eight.
And this would simply be to stop some of the lower priority programs within some of these individual areas.
The biggest, of course, is the manned space flight.
And that figure, we've already done that.
Well, we'll see.
Manned space flight, we've already done that.
You're talking about the last two Apollos?
Well, this is not one of them.
This is Nerva and a bunch of two or three others that live on the land.
Space land.
Space land.
Well, you leave a program of about $2 billion a year, and you have that deal.
that has a lot of satellites and has an unmanned program in space, which is certainly largely focused on things that can move the Earth rather than the moon or whatnot.
This is a chart showing you what you would be left with if you cut out all the manned space flight and you see this.
That decision assumes stopping the space flight, the manned space flight program with Vice Captain Henry.
And that's why you get an issue.
If you did not make the decision to stop it until, for example, the budget was published, it would probably be about a minute long or something like that.
Because there's a great deal going on now, and it's even five years ahead.
And that, uh, and that's just, that's just the periphery.
These are not here.
These should be free.
Well, I guess that they would be.
And of course, again, none of these are based upon 10% personnel reduction.
And that was just, these were made up for some time.
I also think it would include everything.
The emancipation, of course, requires the same guidance.
And the reason why all the others are already, well, why the hell do we keep this one?
Regional medical programs, community health centers, all that crap.
Those guys thought I'd be working at them.
Okay.
You don't have any more like that, do you?
We have a lot of them.
No, there are others.
The screens get louder as you go deeper.
They don't bother me, but they do have political implications in many cases, and they do get...
There are many ways in which you can get down even below 253.
What is the name of God's education for Christians at all, and how do you possibly stand with him?
Well, that is a program in which the federal government underwrites a substantial amount of what we used to call continuing education of the bar, that type of thing, and in which the federal government will support programs that train doctors or train others for bringing them up to date with the latest developments.
educational development within their field.
And for many of these, there is not a fee charge.
So we would recommend that if something of this kind is desired, they be done on a cost-sharing kind of fee basis.
Or that they be handled by the medical association, rather than a federal association.
Do you have an opinion that we could stop Head Start without legislation?
Only by not funding certain portions of it.
These programs, however, can't.
You can take $278 million out of Head Start without legislation.
Everything that we presented this morning, unlike the calculation we're doing, doesn't require legislation.
We know that.
But you can't just abolish Head Start anymore.
No.
But you can.
And there we can reduce the expenditure.
But on the other hand, what you can do is...
How much is in Head Start?
I can't believe the 278.
No, sir, it is.
I have to get the shadow figure, but it is large.
It is large at the 278.
And it could be...
Uh, it's done without legislation.
I can come up with that.
I can come up with a lot of that.
No.
See, the problem we're getting into in the process of getting license,
And we're getting the presence of the OEO extension now.
We've got to do that.
We've got to do that.
And we may not reorganize, and we may not shift these functions from OEO to the department before we have a chance to come and help.
And so we're gradually getting hitched about the fences and all of these things.
The men that you've been to said, yeah, it started out almost going to happen.
That was everybody else out there who were building it.
By the way, we may not be 270, but we've got 178.
Yes, you do get a start.
Of course, there's a strong constitutional argument that that kind of direction is not a constitutional problem for the Congress to interfere with the executive plan.
I would make the argument that the right-hand party, for what purpose, is for a type of taking it down or whatever, or what have you.
Now that, this is another proposal, there's a way in which some savings can be seen, and this is, you know, for example, the way we're having a peace conference, this is very, by the way, we moved it over to action.
And this, you know, especially if you want to do that, yeah, well, but again, we have to move it, we have to move it to action now.
Now, actually, unless we have that Maxwell from California to help out with the job, we'll be fine.
I was going to say, I've heard that news that it costs us money to not have it, but I still have the experience of trying to do it.
No, the total, again, you know, it costs us money.
The total action request is higher than the decision of the parts that went into it.
And let me try to go ahead and...
It's a very local assignment.
I'm not going to do that.
We didn't put him in that truck.
He doesn't like it.
Let him go out.
Guaranteed he won't like it, but I'll also guarantee I'll get him to do it.
I don't think I've made myself clear here.
I want the piece to work out.
I've got another report yesterday from the
He murders.
Nobody wants the goddamn thing.
No foreign country wants him.
So why do they send these little jackasses to Rome?
I mean, they all, some of them are nice people, but they go abroad and they're not wanted.
And then they screw up the border policy, so get the Peace Corps down.
It's part of the image.
Would you mind giving Maddie a kick in the ass, Mr. Turner?
All right.
I'm just not fooling around with this all.
I don't know.
I didn't have to contact your secretary.
I just got cut down in that Peace Corps, and I missed it.
Who would have thought I'd see you with that?
That's what he wants.
That's the way it is.
He wants a spirit shift.
This is the answer to the question you were asking a moment ago.
I'm not sure I know the chart off by that time.
Of all the federal cities, the south end employees are 1.4 million.
The military employees are 2.4.
And this is, these facts go to the suggestion that the pay raise is now scheduled for January 172 and October 172 could be deferred six months or could be reduced to approximately 3% instead of the 6 or 4%.
The problem there, the problem there, of course, is this would be quite practical.
Is there any possibility that the Congress is better than that?
Well, a possibility... That's right, we have.
The way it works now, the new procedure is that a finding would have to be made that economic conditions affecting the general welfare require a departure from comparability.
Then your proposal to depart can be reversed by a majority vote of either of us.
So if the finding comes in that it is indeed a 6% increase required on January 1, and he said in a number of six months, then just as with the reorganization legislation, either of us could knock that over and restore the 6%.
The savings that would be involved by a third of both would be $1 billion for 1972, $1.1 billion, and $800 million for 1973.
If you maintain the schedule, take a long schedule that says there won't be more than 3%, which you can do, you get the bulk of your savings in 73, you get $500 million a year, and a bit in the fourth year.
A point to bear in mind is that between 1968 and 73, federal pay raises will have gone up by 38%.
So it's more reading than the money.
In a sense, we're meeting the economy in a way that I think is sort of undesirable when we're worried about pay increases in the private sector.
And the pay increases that are already on this dollar box here, these are already in effect.
These went in January 1, and it was a 5.9% increase.
And I'm not going to lose all or most of those people.
Well, I don't know if you do.
You defer one, you defer six months, probably.
You get, they would get the first pay increase then in July 172, which is more or less what it is.
Depends a lot on what you do with other people.
If you do it only in the name of religion, if they're treated in accordance with the promise, you probably don't.
Another way to look at it is do we get there, folks, if those pay increases go through?
No.
I don't know, but why did we get some of their votes in any of that?
Why don't we lose all of them?
I don't understand.
Now, there's another way you can fly on a computer, fly this.
This is the place where you just need a very dramatic way to put in the way the price is raised.
Yes, yes, that's correct.
You have to run away from the police.
That's right.
It's too late, you know, to prove that it won't work.
Let's say you can't run away from the police, and I'm going to discuss it today.
When you are putting a full list on the government employees, another thing I would like to hear,
been all through this, and that is that proposed tax of firms that are people who get that inflationary wage increase over a certain fixed loan, any other number of things of that kind.
But that has nothing to do with the same, the same terms, the same terms of the wage price freeze in January.
They want to have the same time.
They've got to be able to do it the same time.
The wage price increase, how long can that be for three months?
The only other thing that would argue towards doing it, I don't know if it would test my science,
Yes, when this budget begins to speak, I know, I know, but it says deferral schedule increases by six months from July 2, and he took that action.
He could just cancel the increase as early as he can.
You know, he could cancel it, for example.
Well, you deferred it all.
You, you, uh, that's the question.
Well, the, uh, the, the action that's always present on, on the, when a finding of copper, uh, copper building required a certain percentage increase, you know what I'm saying?
The president can either let it go into effect, in which case it just does, or he can't be here basically.
I think, John, it affects something.
It affects certainly Thistle 72, which has the podium.
I don't know anything, you know.
On the Thistle 73, you've got something in there.
What do you got in there?
You've got $2,800 million.
Fiscal year 72 is still out of balance on a full employment basis.
I don't know how much work is going on there.
I don't know.
We have some scheduled raises in fiscal year 72 that increase the impact.
It was January 1.
January 1, 72, presumably a 6% increase, maybe a bit more if the civilian wages go up to $2 billion.
But we are, yeah, at the $1 billion.
An argument as to why it could be done with government pay alone is this tremendous rate here, and it's been reported and justified as a catching up and all that, but...
Just in this period of time, 6% in January of 1971.
Well, and again, when the rate on the schedule, the whole schedule goes up, any kind of ceilings that are imposed on them, they always take up all of the schedule.
So your total personnel has been going up even faster.
I think here, here we're looking at something that's been doing this for a long time.
Tell me who you've got.
I have a 10% rise in scenario pay rates.
How do you talk to the banks?
Well, maybe even more important, Mark Burns made that very strongly, too.
That's why he made his presentation.
He said, I don't care about the local level.
This is the goal.
It's not worth it.
So what the hell are you?
I came to say the other day, this very time you were talking about this, let's also remember that when you
On a broad scale, government actions are resulting in enormous inflationary costs in this economy.
This is true of the entire key of the environment, primarily the environment, where you're putting extraordinary demands on it that inevitably have to result in price increases and they go broke.
The demand prices right down to copper prices.
will increase their operating costs by 20 percent.
Just about their basic right now, 20 percent.
And this is to meet the standards of the Environmental Protection Agency.
And if they have the barrier, the clean air peroxide is the clean air in a special order.
Well, part of the special order, part of it.
The taxing, I'll share that story at this point.
But this, they say, will cost them 20% of their operating costs.
Automobiles, we're building it right now, approximately a $900 increase in the price of a rural vehicle made in America between now and about 1975.
All right, I owe us $900 a car.
That was a great deal.
They don't want to pay $10,000.
They don't want to pay $20,000.
That's right.
Then I'll be sure to pass the record.
This is a direct government fee on it.
Probably okay to set it by $76,000 a day.
Damn it.
Nobody knows how to do that.
That's right.
I'll just run this old car again.
So, these things, although they don't directly engage on Congress, nevertheless, they have enormous inflationary impact in this country.
There's no doubt that with this whole constability wheel, if we do this at the federal level, it's going to affect local government, just as now at local government, it doesn't affect us, governments.
a whole way more scale here in a very short time when you keep looking back to other salary schedules for your guidance.
And this has been a very substantial increase.
The argument against it is that this is the first year of the comparability
authority had been in the present to move this around then and therefore it's done the first year while you may bring about strikes and disparaging people and so forth and so on.
But it is a method of holding the pay line down.
I'm happy that has produced something else.
I think.
But this is another problem that affects
other actions.
If we can keep the standardized, too many things in this American society, we're better off because we have more flexibility.
Now this is true whether we talk about teaching, whether we talk about problem-solving, whether we talk about buying and laundering insurance, whether we actually have federal standards, whether we permit the states to keep standards so that they all differ.
so that you don't have an enormous impact any time you change nationwide.
If you can keep that uniformity down, then whatever program you're talking about, whether it's education, whatever it is, it always gives you a little more flexibility so that you can't have a different rate for the classrooms in Minneapolis than what you have in Texas.
Now there are a lot more of the departmental charts.
These are the others that just, that illustrate different kinds of examples of the way we could achieve the saving to get down to the 253.
This is the final one that we've prepared to seek the guidance that we do need in order to get the targets out of those letters out to the agencies.
And on that again, we'll go back to these tokens here.
If that is a target generally desired, then I will submit an agency total in that range.
and letters could go out at that time.
The letter includes in it a paragraph that this is the only one we have at the moment.
It's temporary.
It may be adjusted down and so on.
So that there wouldn't be anything that would be a sense guarantee in agencies not to come out of that bill.
But it would be the start for them to do begin their planning so they can bring their budget back in September so we can start our hearings again.
as to additional efforts of making other reductions.
And of course, the civilian personnel, 10 percent, and event personnel, 10 percent, is not getting covered by your base, looking at the collection of the last year.
Yes, that's what you would come up with without taking these cuts.
If we continue doing everything we're doing now and everything we have proposed, but it's not yet an act, with no increase except an increase required by inflation or by increases in population,
it would rise from 233 to 258.
And that involves a 78.7 defense base, which necessarily means a reduction in defense activity.
These do not, these use a continuation of activity in the civilian agencies.
And that measure of that increase is just, is shown by that kind of a jump.
And again, so much of that is now in the uncontrollable category.
So that you do have
uh, they target them and would get us at least into full employment policy.
Well, it really isn't solved by a couple of billion.
Well, the big piece of it now is it's, you know, it is not a plus or minus two.
All right, they'll change the, change the data now.
All right, okay.
Make it two-thirty.
Make it two-thirty.
Now, and that does not include
or the 10% decrease in employment.
That does not include anything we can do with regard to that.
It's just that does not include anything we can do with regard to the rent and share, depending on what the Congress does.
In other words, there are three elements on there.
We have a chart, if you wanted to see it, about the effect of the non-act of revenue sharing and the possibility of a profit.
All right.
We know, we know, sir.
All right, and we, with all the hacking around that's going, we've got to see, we've got to remember, too, with the hacking around that's going, that they may do something else.
My word is always that they would do revenue sharing, but they'd use up the dollars, use the money for other things, and we're going to have to do something.
I promise to meet you later, but, uh, but, you know, the, uh, chair, uh, had, uh, uh, had to do with special evidence here.
I think it seems to be that Mr. Madison did a special evidence hearing.
program is inactive, it tends to sweep up in many cases.
A lot of programs, not in many cases, we have thought, are undesirable programs to give us a chance.
If they don't get inactive, then those categorical programs are all there.
And then we have, in effect, a lot of models that you go on and we'll turn it into special revenue here.
If you don't get into special revenue here, that model is still sitting there.
And so are various other programs getting bigger.
You see, the secret agenda in special revenue sharing is that once and for all, we get a maximum number.
And special revenue sharing only costs us a few more, as I understand it.
But model cities is an example.
The first year will only cost $50 million.
The second year will cost $350 million.
The third year will cost $680 million.
The fourth year will cost $1.5 million.
and make all your commitments, and then you just have to...
I'll check the defense number there.
When I say you're 250, what's your defense number?
Well, we're talking 77.
Why not?
I'm sorry.
We're really talking 77.
Why not?
Why not?
77-0?
Yeah, well, 77 is shown as the basis.
That's the figure that the fire sent out to the services.
I don't really want to deal with that.
In conversations with him, he's indicated that they could have been at 77 without any real loss of content.
And so we've taken that as a target for defense.
You can pull that out.
You know, if you think you're 253, it's going to take a lot of squeak.
Take half of the defense and half of the refunding, also just general speaking.
In other words, make it, get defense down to 77, 76.5.
75 and the civilian agencies make another payment on that.
Well, this shows, again, on the record, Sheriff, that there's a potential of a $4 billion saving.
Actually, some of that, such as law enforcement, we wouldn't zero off those categorical programs, but that is the amount that's put into it, and there would be a possibility of some savings if they don't, if the Congress doesn't use up the money for some other purpose, but at the moment...
That is the amount of the special revenue sharing of savings that could be achieved.
If not a failure of the bills, the programs or the majority of them are not recommended for reenactment and are not funded to the budget.
As soon as the programs would continue as their previous year, well, yes, it would try to move up.
I think it would.
Hopeful, hypothetical.
Right.
Well, they'd ask for more.
There's no question about it.
This would require... John, the special revenue sharing is going to have a lot of sense.
We don't want that.
All right, well, I think most of these questions have been pretty well answered, so I would let the President, when he has the chance, answer to the last two parts, three.
That the restraint at the end of the size of the area where there is no future economic vitality, and that the budget expansion, if there is the emphasis at all, be in the area where it has some hope for creating additional new products, new economic vitality.
It fits the general term.
That's why you would be, if you used an example, that's why you would not be
You're kicking a hammer with all the goddamn HBW stuff.
You know, I mean, if you have something that has to do with, uh, some housing, uh, those sorts, you know, maybe with ten thousand dollars, right?
Right.
Something that's going to make the economy grow, that's one thing.
Something that's just going to have to be handouts to people is something else again.
It's really bad because they're not paying their point.
This is generally what it is.
There's a lot more detail on this, but this is the, you know, areas that we want to present this.
This is what we have to start.
Oh, sir.
Most of the matter, in fact, we've got to get down.
One of the things I don't want to do is talk about the possibility of the word moribund.
It's going to have to be all over the place.
3 extra administrative assistants and 2 extra aides.
So I had to prepare papers so that you wouldn't want papers from your desk that you'd never read.
So forth and so on.
And I changed that.
2.50.
Not a dime lost.
I want you to get the CIA to 95% now.
I want you to get the ADC to 95% now.
Now the ADC is more difficult.
Sussman is a tough guy.
He knows what the hell our problems are.
I don't want him to take out, for example, our reactor.
But he's got a lot of jackass brothers over there.
They just got people running around with each other's fingernails to see what they can do to keep them from going yellow.
They've got to get all sorts of tissues so that things go better.
I don't think I know some of them.
But my point is, tell him, see what he can do.
And, uh, D.I.A.L.
's getting in, in, well, excuse me, C.I.A.
I mean, D.I.A.
too, 25% is gonna come out with intelligence.
Now, that's the only way to do it.
Goddamn, every time, I know it's gonna come up with intelligence.
Every time D.M.A.
has restudied intelligence, they come up and they say, well, we won't have the hexagon, or we won't go forward with this, or we won't go forward with that, or we'll get rid of, uh, of 1,500
uh, operators of chains, decoding chains, and all that sort of thing.
But they never touch the little bastards in both the CIA and CIA who sit around analyzing things.
Now, uh, that's going to be saving the hearts of a lot of money.
But it'll do a hell of a lot for my morale just to get us out of the government.
I want to bow.
Twenty-five percent of those people have got to get the hell out of the government.
Both places.
And the facts are not the same.
The facts try to get the hell out of me carelessly.
That's the way they work for you.
I don't.
I don't.
Also, they've lost their kids over there.
Oh, yes.
Well, almost.
Well, in that particular area.
Well, we'll bring them down on the ground.
Regardless of the other day.
Regardless of the other day.
I want you to, I hope you have the personnel to do this in some way or another.
With regard to the 10% cut, I want to be able to announce the 10% cut.
Federal personnel present this money in January.
Yes, sir.
Now, in order to do this, I know that you have now got to go through a search.
examination of these things.
And I don't think that anything's a sacred cow.
Or even take the decoding people.
Maybe they don't eat quite as many.
I just say, all right, we'll do a little less.
And maybe take the little girls around so they're security checks.
Maybe they don't eat quite as many.
You know?
I'm not sure they do.
But why are all of us in our sacred cows?
Well, we're just, since the appeal to the public is a terrible thing, I can't be stopped.
I know the ones that are always saying, those are old jeans, it's like those checks now.
Yeah, it's a terrible thing.
Anyway, it's just that it's not controllable in social security.
It's really dangerous.
Yeah, there's not too much personnel in the right line, but we do have personnel.
I was just talking about personnel.
I was talking about the hell of personnel.
Our income, what you agree on, is the tribe, the village, and justice.
Now, on justice, they're not.
There's a reason.
We've got to come, so we've got to come.
There are lawyers and a few other people over there.
The, uh...
The, uh...
It's, uh...
Because there's a hell of a lot of things in justice that have nothing to do with law enforcement.
You can start with it.
But first of all, the whole civil department, the whole bussing department can be cut.
You know, that boy that's working down and around there, cut the son of a bitch down, real down.
And the whole business sits down in the antitrust thing.
That can get done.
You take the Justice Department.
You've got to take the hard way to get client each time and not make sure it's as much as it could be with other things.
You say, all right, look here.
I don't know that the Justice Department, not in the firms, not in the terms of the FBI, the things that you know damn well you can't get done.
I really want to know about things that
except that the other departments can't cut them down.
So we wait a few years before somebody gets his suit on, you know, the current property from the government.
The whole civil division and all the rest just cut it all down.
The judge has got to find his way to a bill, because if you leave them out, that statement that gets left out stays easy.
They should be an example, too.
I think if you were to take a vote as to which department you'd rather come to, most would be the State Department.
People would say, many say, get rid of it, I'll pack it back.
But my view is to cut it.
Another one, that U.N. delegation, tell George Bush you've got 10% of the people on that right away.
That's the deal you need.
You see what I mean?
Yes, sir.
But we've got our American delegation to the U.S. That is to be cut.
And in terms of the, in terms of the State Department, the AIT is another stop on John Hamm.
But I guess, you know, personnel, have the personnel, I mean, look, give these people the seats, but, you know, people.
But that is the easiest thing you can do now.
If you can think of anything else where you can make, start making custom personnel now, yeah, please tell me.
We can.
Also, I want you to look around this whole warehouse, because we have a second channel.
I want people to be there.
uh, the Office of, uh, Budget Management, the CJA, I want, uh, I want everybody we have got to all be willing to do the same.
Actually, the White House is the only agency that has not increased a hundred trillion dollars or any cost.
They have been very tightly operated.
But our jobs have put through a 5% cut.
Well, thank you.
Two years ago.
But, uh, that is true.
But let me say, one of our staff has said, you know, you can't buy anything.
I know how, I know we operate.
much less, let me say, I am, I feel that we have got to be exempt.
I do not want to lie on the street.
I have not one other choice.
I want to come.
And this is an order to put it down.
Secret Service coverage of the President and the Vice President has become almost disgusting.
There are too many people.
They have too many ships.
They're standing around with nothing to do.
Now get them out in the crack states and get out in the smugglers
counterfeiters and drafts, but not cement.
Is that clear?
Yes, sir.
Also, another problem.
Captain, why not staff over in our corner over in the residence?
How long is that?
It's a little hard, but there are too many there.
There are a little over there.
And they just said, we carry a hell of a load there in terms of entertainment and the rest of it.
We're going to cut it down.
We're going to be cutting it back.
So what I'm getting at is there are no sacred pathways.
Well, another point.
You've got the whole business of the John Hage office.
John is leaving now.
This is a small thing here.
We do a wonderful job with all these tourists and people smack over there and shake their hands and tell the little ladies to go to the bathroom and all that stuff.
We're just going to cut that down.
You've only got four people.
You can't cut it.
Cut one up.
Cut one up.
What the hell happened to that?
I can see people running around the water.
Don't turn around.
You don't think so?
That's it.
All right.
Maybe you can't.
Do you want me to cut the door?
Sure.
Do you want to quit servicing?
I just didn't test it.
Well, I'm supposed to do it.
I'm not sure that the liberalist emergency that we've developed is too small not for a government.
What I'm getting at is, let's not be in a tradition where other departments of the government will look at the White House and say, why isn't the White House doing some of those things?
There are a couple of areas where, for example, we have to put on some additional people.
We've got this, we've got Mr. Peterson's advocacy staff.
I've already made a decision with regard to John Collins' deal.
He's got to have some people at Treasury that he just doesn't have at the present time.
It's almost ridiculous to have that.
I don't know why Kennedy didn't raise this point when he was Secretary.
Why isn't it the Treasury Department's decision?
I don't think we can be spared.
I think we've got to take these guns.
We've got to take them because something's happened and we can do it because another thing too is that
There's always a friction in the last year of any administration.
I mean, some people will be leaving anyway.
As far as the people that are at the so-called executive job, they'll have a trip, and then just give the job to somebody else.
You don't let one man do two jobs.
You don't have to do some of that sort of thing.
I realize now, why are you coming to the county?
You know, the chariot and all the rest.
Fine.
It's just too bad.
They're always leaving anyway.
I'll tell you, all they do over at EEOP, we're going to pull this thing, and I've got those telephone booths, all those,
Those women, they're all going to be in the car seat, and they're all going to have discrimination over there, at least in Florida.
They're all black girls.
And they're all on the telephone, so if I ever see a student, I'd ask them to get rid of them.
That's not what I'm saying.
I know that's said for me, and she's been calling me for 40 minutes.
That's right.
I don't know.
The place isn't too dirty.
It's not bad.
It's beautiful.
And they do, and who else would do that work?
But I came to this plan of 10% because it's very romantic.
Nobody wants to hear about it.
Mayo, I'm going to go out.
His president also didn't say anything about it now because he said it's the wrong way to go out.
The thing to do is to give the agency a seat and then tell them to come out.
Never.
We're going to do something about personnel because that's the heart of the problem.
And also, it is not going to have any effect on Paul's problem because it's going to come after the election calls.
Correct.
Also, let's face it.
It's going to come in the last half of 72, but we trust the economy.
It's going to be what we have.
I mean, certainly the private sector is going to be a hell of a lot.
More than $200,000 worth of cut on the tariff, $300,000.
It's going to release a specific test.
They're going to come immediately.
D-I-A-C-I-S-S. Who are they?
D-I-A-C-I-S-S. And the U.N. delegation has an outside secretary of the U.N. Secretary of the U.N. Secretary of the U.N. Secretary of the U.N.
with a different economic strategy here.
That's what you're really getting at.
And if you look at what happened last year, the YSF was much lower than the 72% of athletes.
If you move on this kind of thing, sweeping away, take out a lot, take out programs that you have initiated in practice,
and do many personnel things and all this stuff.
They've got to add up to lots and lots of money.
And then you can go in for tax changes of the different...reforms.
Yes, you can go in for a reform and you can go in for a reform and a reduction.
Now, if you want to really take this into account,
That's right, that's right.
There is tax precautions to have a lot better way to get this economy going.
That is to add 200,000 more people to the CIA.
No, I don't think there's a real tax increase in January of 72.
I don't think there's something to do that.
Then this is for a tax change.
Well, we're going to reduce the property tax, increase the tax on us.
So the order is done.
It's a lot of trouble ordering.
That's the problem.
That's the problem.
This is one of the things we won't get caught up in.
So that, Brown had a great tax reduction scheme.
He recommended that the state decrease the taxes.
And then, of course, the local governments would have to reduce their property taxes because it would be a big one.
And there's always some mistakes up here that increase and so it'll open.
That's one of the issues for tomorrow.
Yes.
Because it's one of the alternatives and the whole trick in this property tax is to make sure that the local government responds in the right direction.
Let me say this, let's throw you the second one.
We're going through some domestic issues and in fact we're going to look at the Republican Party platform.
Well, we're going to talk to you about your domestic.
Well, we can take the animals off.
Sure.
What I meant is that they've all spent the hell of it.
And I think it's the biggest mistakes we've made is to go into an age where we haven't been, we haven't really thought enough about what we're doing here.
And I know that they sound great.
And I started, you know, lighting fire and crap.
I talked about the first activity, the first day of the union, the first one I delivered.
And then after the agreement we shared, the second day, we heard the patient's mind.
And I thought, you know, I've got to say something.
I don't want to share that.
I spent a lot of time sharing stuff.
But we gotta hit it goddamn hard with the whole car now.
Now, let me say, obviously, everything that's been said here is totally within this room.
Because when we talk about a change with regard to HRY, we can get a change without getting caught at it.
And when we talk about a change with regard to revenue sharing,
That's a matter which you can handle in our own way.
I mean, it just depends on how much we try.
And there are a lot of other things.
The strategy and the tactics are different, but I'm just simply saying, I do not consider, when we look at the big game, when we look at the big game, and the big game is economy, and we look at the jobs and the size of government and the runaway spend and the rest,
And then, in that case, why is it that we're doing something about this or that the other day?
Why are we helping the poor more?
Why don't we do more food stamps and so forth?
I didn't see any food stamps in there.
Food stamps and marijuana, that's all.
They're eliminating them under H.R.
1.
Of course, if you don't eliminate them under H.R.
1, it just moves.
I understand how that's still working, and we can handle that, too.
As you and I understand, H.R.
1.
H.R.
1, yeah.
Yeah, that's right, they're working on it.
The other folks have stated that H.R.
1 is 1.3 million.
Right, right.
1.8 and the net of the whole bill increase in cost is 7.5.
So, well, you know, that's pretty extreme.
It's pretty great.
But the point is that if we do not make a value, then we've got a low of 1.8 on some places.
That's a real cost.
We've already done it.
Interstate.
No, the president needs to see it.
You were thinking that, well, actually what I'm saying is that some of these initiatives, so-called, that we have is a complete deletion of other kinds of costs.
Well, John, I don't think I did that part.
The total saving, if you got rid of HR, was going to be $6 billion, but after you take off...
what it would say to you, what it would cost us to redo in March, that's a great term, when it's four, because for that roughly is what we're talking about.
That's what I mean.
I take it that way.
I take it that way.
I take it that way.
The approach, the approach that I take to this afternoon's president is simply to catalyze what we perceive to be the pressing domestic problems.
Now, they're about freedom, and they're the kind that become issues in a campaign.
And then we'll have a president to which his job, yes sir, and his position, to which this conversation has been directed.
Now we're riding all the reps. That's the thing that I just, we've got to get through our heads.
You know, this isn't great for the President and God's revenue share.
This isn't great for the President and God's, uh, ATPs and more people on welfare who work for the board and I'll get in line.
And we're going to report on welfare.
That is going to mean that tinkers God damn if unemployment is at 7%.
But I'm saying that it will have some effect on your statistics as far as unemployment is concerned.
And everything we've been saying here, as I get, not everything, but a large part of what we've been saying here in terms of unemployment is counterintuitive.
is going to aggravate, not solve, our employment situation.
That's left.
That's left.
Well, it certainly changes a great deal, but it's the pressures on the inflationary problem.
Yeah.
But I think the key is to separate the importance of very down-to-earth apartments.
I have no objection to that at all.
Providing we carry through the implication
which is that we want to increase the loyalty of the private sector.
Now, we just bear down hard on the public sector, and we're going to have to relieve the private sector through tax protection.
I tell you, Mr. Chairman, I have only half the policy.
That's right.
Well, cut in the expenditures so you can.
Tax is really the...
I think...
Well, say it another way, too, but if these actions are taken, which you talked about again this morning, this is going to be jubilation in the private sector.
Well, that complains.
Maybe we haven't given up.
Maybe we haven't given up.
You can say all you want about why the deficit is there and all the rest of it.
The fact that a deficit of that size has to be reported depresses the private sector very, very badly.
Yeah.
and they tend to tell it in their hearts and don't do it much, especially in their captivity of their own, particularly if they're worried about the possibility of a 30-billion or whatever.
And I don't think there's any question of capital.
But today, every major business concern in this country is worried.
And what's holding back is fear.
Fear of what's going to happen.
Fear that monetary things are out of control.
Fear that budgets are out of control.
Fear that inflation is out of control.
We see what you're looking at.
You're looking at a $23 billion house in 71.
You're looking at a $21 billion house in 72.
You're looking at a $30 billion house in 73.
Okay, possibly even 27 and 72, so it's really good there.
Because they're 29, you're living in a different lane there, too.
Yes, we're here at 29, 30.
30, 72, and 33.
I'm sorry.
I think I'll get a few more on that.
I'll ask John.
Well, he's a great domestic dentist.
Okay.
Well, I think what we're going through this afternoon, that is a certain immunization process.
We're going to look at the problems of the agent and
We're going to unionize ourselves against hearing for a year from Dole and everybody off and down the line who say, my God, you guys were just killing us with the agent.
And then we're going to look at the problems in the farms, which is the same thing, and the problems in the private cities and all these other things, which are going to be pressing in on us all of next year.
And we're going to be coming out in January with a budget that's saying we've got bigger problems than that, and that these other problems are going to have to wait.
The reason that we can't is because of that tie that he showed you there.
Because we don't control Congress.
And because the Congress continually jumps uncontrollables down our throat.
But why do we have to be so goddamn responsible in the budget that we're dealing with?
Why can't we build another budget that looks at the uncontrollables and proposes legislation to come up with a budget for eliminating some of the... That was our whole strategy this time.
But we didn't really do it and we didn't do it in our budget.
We ended up interrupting sharing in the only way that is better.
Now, if you go in and say we propose to eliminate all cities,
And that will save us a billion dollars in this fiscal year.
Everybody who's going to write about the President's budget is going to poo-poo then, because they know the Congress is going to get down on their throats.
And they know that it isn't just a question of our detailing something.
It's a question of our getting affirmative action.
And we send a bill into that committee, and it never gets a hearing.
That's where we've lost in the public life for two and a half years, because everything we've done, we've done responsibly on the basis of what kind of action.
rather than dramatically on the basis of what we want to have.
We've had some where we've never presented to the people the fact that we'd like to give it among the cities.
We have actually advanced some.
Remember, we set up there a bunch of, you know, Peter Drucker-type proposals in the county.
That's right.
And you know what happened to those?
They added up to billions of dollars.
And none of them ever flew any of us.
And we got kicked around pretty good.
I don't even know that.
There are two ways to do it.
You can budget a low budget by simply saying you're not going to fund certain programs or you're not going to request appropriations for them.
And that's within our own control.
The other thing you can do is what was done the first year, and that's to say that we will assume that Congress will cut out all this and will cut out all of that, and therefore the budget's balanced.
And that latter isn't very realistic because we don't have any hope of getting it.
But you can show to the public the kind of budget that you will use
without any requirement in the legislation, simply by saying all the cities, it's on the books.
But we aren't going to fund it.
We are asking zero dollars more.
And the corollary of that is that if you give us two billion more, we will try to cut it out.
And you don't get any real effect from that.
It's a free year because you're paying obligations.
that were incurred in private in the prior year, but you do show the public what you want, and that's the point, something to say to the public that right now the public thinks, in general, I can't, I didn't have to, that what you think, all the programs that are going on now, all the things you say are your base there,
We think those are good.
So we're saying spend all that money.
Then we're saying we think there are half a dozen more things we'd like to do, too.
And so you add 11 million on top of that.
That's what we want to do.
That's what God is doing.
We can't show them that we are just continuing to do some of the things that God is doing.
And I should not type stuff, but cutting 10% of the federal employees has this symbolic effect.
It penalizes all the wrong people.
If you cut 10% out of treasury of justice, you cut the wrong people.
You've got to cut 30% or 50% out of ATW and add 20% to treasury of justice, probably.
If you can find it, you can cut 25% of H-E-W-Q to it.
You understand?
You've got to go for 10% overall that you get by 20% out of some of the patents, and none more increases out of the 10%.
Some of the new programs that we've proposed ourselves, such as cancer and so on, there will have to be some selectivity about that.
Overall, you can't achieve that kind of result.
What I've been trying to test, I couldn't agree more with the legions.
It should be transportation.
Good God, Mike, let's get those things down, Tom.
I mean, it's just as bad as hell.
And there's too many of them.
In other words, let's be quite slight even.
Those terms don't just say who he is.
We're not setting it, but on the other hand, there are no sacred cows.
We must set an example here.
We'll cut it in ten and then let them cut more.
I'm attacking it, but we've got to hand it all along.
I'm not so sure of that, Bob.
I just think we can do it.
I think we can do it.
I think everybody should run the shop, run it well with a few less.
Well, an overall personnel cut is much more justified than
certainly an overall dollar.
because the personnel has been growing so rapidly and there has not been any attempt to do anything other than impose just an overall season, which doesn't get a personnel cost.
Had they been growing?
I saw some numbers the other day that indicated that actually we had a net reduction.
No, the first year there was a net reduction.
It started out in 70, the end of 70, and in 71 there's an increase in, there's a big increase in personnel in the 70s, usually, coming up.
Yes, I see.
Of course, that's just family citizens and people.
You know, crazy.
Well, we all have programs.
Cameron and OEA, a lot of those work.
We're going to test them there, too.
Well, we need to have about 3 to 3 o'clock with us next week.
We've all got to go to your functions, get all of your aids and everything.
I agree with that.
That's not...
I think you've got the best impression about how some of those are operating.
I'm talking about the frequency.
All right, we've got too many.
Now, they're all around the place.
Am I turning around?
All right.
Okay, listen, it's already on.
If you're going to be replying after the meeting, the debate, you and I, that's what we're talking about.
All right.
I'm curious about the fact that now, are you making a life of it?
I mean, you thought that we could carry it all at once.