Conversation 555-009

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

It's a big story.

a lot of personal goals.

So apparently today, what is this story?

I'm going to be the real economy on Monday.

I get rumblings that it's going to be a very vicious story with a lot of personal goals.

The thing is, he's trying to be directive.

Come on.

I picked up the two very sources.

One's direct member economy.

One's the two males that they've, according to me,

to the fact that the problem with the economy is that you're not anything.

We can't get you interested in it.

We can talk about it.

Don't quote me.

Don't quote somebody saying I said that.

So I'm going to see Larry Malligan this afternoon if I talk.

And you all know I called Teddy Donovan.

I said, I don't know if it's a precise quote.

I just want you to know it's categorically not true.

I don't hold the time about the industry.

I'm learning something new.

Yeah, it's worth it for me when I approach this category.

It's not true that I want to have nothing to do with it.

But it's me, so anyway.

Did you go up and see them?

Uh, I was supposed to go to the garage tomorrow.

Well, they'd probably be here at 8 o'clock.

Yeah.

Well, I ain't got a dress that I didn't have.

I just had to get on with it.

Yeah, that's good.

It'll be worthwhile.

Who's writing it at the time?

Who's going to write it?

That's right.

I got a bunch of them.

Their manager is deeply involved in it.

Larry, uh... Larry's not the one that took us apart at the same time.

Fortune.

At the what?

Fortune.

It's got to be the fortune of this Larry and around that person.

Yeah, they'll be that team.

Time will be that one.

Yeah.

They're supposed to quote all of us, not each other.

And Burns is supposed to be...

He's deeply involved.

I don't think so.

Well, let's go into this situation here.

uh, uh, uh, uh, uh,

to take a look at what we would have to do if we had to raise the interest rate to even 70%.

It's the same high level of housing as it starts.

So there's been work going on, and through that study, we've formed the basis to take a more recent idea in the last few days to see what ought to be done.

But I think that now, with those of us who've been meeting the field,

person to face, this is impossible.

That is, we can't continue with the 7% rate without doing more than we're now doing, without a fall-off in housing starts in the immediate future, in the magnitude of going from around the 2 million level to the best.

The consensus viewpoint is around the 1.6 million level for the last six months of this year, which if you buy a drop-off in that next year of 1.5 million to 1.6 million.

Now, that, despite the fact that

We're already putting about $600 million in.

In the last year and a half, we've been putting about $600 million in the form of a subsidy beyond the normal subsidy programs through this GMA special authorization that is available.

But despite that, that's the indication.

The increase in the interest rate ceiling is still an economic and political consequence right now.

It seems to why it's bringing zero attention.

As far as I'm concerned, I see no certain way that the housing levels that could be maintained have been a higher

in 72, unless we can affect the choice of psychology and have it exist so that it doesn't play a part in this current fighting in the financial community.

Now moving to the alternatives that this working group has come up with.

In light of the current situation,

We had a number of them, but I think the two that appeared to have the most merit were, number one, take a look at maintaining the 7% rate, and in order to keep housing starts from dropping to the extent they would on the present basis to supplement what's being done now by extending this mini-medicine

to the non-subsidized program, to the insured program, and this would include existing housing as well as the insured housing.

And that would cost about $600 million in the next year and a half in terms of all of the costs, beyond the $600 million that we're not putting into it.

And then, in addition,

We seek appropriations for a home loan bank or a bank program with the Associated Loan Associations to increase their input on the mortgage, and that we ask for a funding of the 243 program, which we never asked for, which is a thin subsidy program that was passed last year, a 1% subsidy for housing units that are not not covered to some extent, but present to the program.

And with those two additional programs, which would cost about $300 million, it was the viewpoint that housing starts from the balance of this year could be held up around $3,800 instead of $2,600.

And that housing starts at $7,200 could be around the $2,100 to $2,200.

Now, that's one alternative.

And in that connection,

I said, I said, there's no round, no round.

You've got a chance to look at this or not, but in the end, there's no round.

My other choice was to list the presence of, on the bottom of page two, I listed the reasons why the 7% break

.

FHA, VA interest rates are raising, financial mortgage interest rates, and other interest rates.

Gentlemen, now, the home donors are convinced that if we increase the FHA rate, the conventional rates are going to move up half a point, half a percent.

And five, we're going to confirm that you're one of those who plan to use this risk management policy.

Now, the fact is that you avoid the impact of this rate increase on the consumer price index.

And seven, you avoid the blue area.

Now the other alternative that, as far as I can tell, most people present tended to support is to increase the interest rate to seven through four percent.

And couple this with the use of the Ginnie Mae authorization to guarantee the mortgage market against the return of an unreasonable level of discount.

Because the homeowner's in particular, the viewpoint that even an increase would reduce the discounts,

not only 9 or 10 points, if it takes 8 points, they represent a percentage more damage.

But they claim that there'll be a temporary reduction in discounts, but then the higher level of discounts will return.

This is just my guarantee, looking to do them, I'm sure it's not going to be our promise that we're not going to get a discount back at that level.

Now, doing that would cost about $100 million to $200 million.

18 month period.

And this quote primarily comes from the Home Builder Act.

In addition to this, Jim Nice's report recommended that we have a position where we could recommend these other two programs that I mentioned earlier, the Home All-Time Board program and the 243 program, yet they become necessary in order to realize a housing start level of 2.1 to 2.2 in 1972.

We'd have several weeks to make sure the actual interest rate before making that decision.

But if those two programs were included, well, that would represent an additional cost of about 600 million.

And the advantages of that cost would be the subsidies received more likely to be added, but the unnecessary, the less likely we'd have to increase the cost.

more likely that this program will result in a rise in the level of housing production next year compared to the last six months of this year.

And Florida's starting to hold mortgage money to track funds with mortgage-to-market resources are not pulling out because of the long track record of alternatives.

Well, those are two of the, it seems to me, the most basic alternatives to be considered.

I think this fifth aspect of the situation is increasingly important, and that is that the subsidization in the housing field is a very heavy subsidization.

And it's increasing, and it's going to continue to increase at a very substantial rate.

And we've been pointing out to Congress for a year now, the families that deal with this,

In our opinion, you can't continue with these present subsidy levels without the countering resistance and the high cost of subsidizing housing.

Now, I think that has a relationship with this, because to maintain the 7% interest rate level would require a much higher degree of assistance than the 7.75%.

And I mean, you start an additional level of subsidization in housing,

may be more difficult to get rid of later on.

And even the home builders that I just had with them, as a matter of fact, tell me that they recognize that these private subsidy programs have got to be reformed, and they do intend to be reformed.

If they plead to continue the 7% rate, they're saying, let's commit ourselves to a reform of these subsidy programs by the middle of 72.

Well, I don't think that's realistic, in person, but in any event,

You need a case of acceptance on their part of the fact that these processes are going to go on and on.

Again, facing either of these approaches on the promise of meaningful and effective action in the inflationary area, I personally think that the latter course of 734 is the widest course, even though the

home builder reaction will be negative at the start because they're concerned about the softness of the housing market, the impact of this on housing sales, and also the impact on conventional rates.

So I think that's those are the two alternatives.

Peter and Paul participated in these meetings all the way through.

They may have some additional comments.

comment of this meeting.

Mr. President, it seems to me that if we go to the 7.3% that does reflect the reality of the market with regard to crime rate and other rates.

People know that this 7% is highly subsidized and it's not a real interest rate that has more of an impact over the mass of our money.

It did however seem to me that if we could go to 7.3%

watch the effect of that before we committed ourselves to a 10-plan guarantee, though I would certainly be in a position not only to do the 10-plan, but to visit the Federal Home Bank Board and other plans if we needed to keep that $2 million level of housing starts next year, $200 million level.

On the other hand, for a reason you might as well admit that the rate of the market is as such that $734 million is about to pay off.

I think the basic situation is that people in the National Committee are thinking that inflation is about 4%, and when they own that money, it's about 4%, and at the moment, it's much less than that.

That's the basic problem.

Other than the 7%, it's below that.

Are you ready?

I think we need early action.

I don't say we can't take a week or 10 days or something like that.

But I think the situation is quite urgent.

That's the viewpoint of the group we're dealing with now.

Well, I agree.

I've talked to some of the home builders, and they've expressed the same views since the first.

But if you'll recall, they were also saying this about two months ago, that you weren't, but they were.

They were saying, you've held off for two months, and thank God.

And the city's saying, oh, I think you're gone now.

The integration can only reach the point where

As Peter says, I agree completely with Peter.

Everybody recognizes 7% is totally .

That's right.

And it tends to lend an aura of unreality to the whole thing.

Everybody knows you're such and such to a major extent.

It costs an enormous amount of money.

And this is another one of the cases where they just think you're not willing to face such a reality.

So let me ask you, what about 7 1⁄2?

Now, 7 1⁄2 might work, but it won't do it enough.

It doesn't.

You've got to move to a level that you hopefully arrive at through 72 without having to make another reference.

At this point, the 72-quarter level is the only reason I suggest that I'm convinced of my own mind that it would not be easy to trigger any kind of a...

further push interest rates to turn.

I doubt that the 7 and 3 and 3 quarters go, but it might be getting close, it seems to me, to the point where by government action it would be triggering another push on interest rates.

I don't think so, but I'm positive in my own mind that the 7 and 3 and 3 would not be sold.

That's the only reason I'm trying to argue with you.

I can raise that point.

Well, I'm not convinced that the 7 and 3 quarters won't see some increase in investment rate because

financing through FHA costs about a half a percent more than the investment process.

But in terms of what we face, to go up to seven and a half now, which as far as the homeowner is concerned, the impact on their market, I think they would view just as negatively as they do some of the reports.

At least in the position where we're probably going to move down here sometime in the

Well, I think that's probably right.

But let's get back to maybe we could, all I'm asking is that we could take it, get you into the fall, say October or November, middle of October, something like that.

And hopefully this thing, when the fall starts taking vacations over, maybe we would begin to see more of an impact in the expansion of this economy,

They can improve the point where we get by one of us.

I just think he's taking a step of this kind, affecting housing as critically as it is.

In fact, it might have one of these rates.

At this particular moment in time, I'm not trying to kill the proposal at all, George.

I think if I had to go to my face, I'd have to have a decision.

If I had to go to my face, I'd have to go to my face.

There we go.

Well, I don't think 7 1⁄2 would meet the situation from any angle that is really going to be of major importance in terms of what happens here and how it starts, because number one, it's not going to be realistic in terms of those who are looking at the district market.

Number two, it's going to be bad for the homeowners concerned because of injuries.

And I'd rather...

It seems to me it better to make the increases needed rather than to stop short of the services.

All right, on the point Peter raised, we spent a lot of time discussing this question with a couple of the 734 industry increases this time.

Again, it seems to me that we ought to do

what will be most likely to sustain the level of housing stocks rather than have it fall out too much.

And to not couple with the Tanner plan will leave the homebuilders in the position of uncertainty that they force very strongly that if we go seven, three, four, so on, the question of time for the discount wants to be back down to nine or 10.

It constantly seems to me that by providing this underwriting, if they don't go down, it doesn't cost us much.

If anything, if they do, at least we've got that underwriting down, we've got that insurance.

It can be a terrible thing, but we're conscious of the fact that we're not going to have the inflation that would cost us in this sense.

You said, I was thinking, you said you had to do a commerce to get the funding for the inflation 243.

Yeah, but that's not law.

We have all the authority to do this, Mr. Chairman.

All the content that you would need under your plan for 734.

That's correct.

Now, I'll say this, and I don't want to renew the discussion this morning, but if there are any actions here that are meaningful and convincing with respect to the inflationary situation, I'd be willing to risk the continuation of 7% that Harvard is required to

lack of that for a while until such a program takes effect.

In terms of interest rates and other things, I don't personally believe that either of these approaches is going to avoid a drop-off in housing starts at this point.

And I think that's going to be interpreted negatively under certain circumstances.

Either of these approaches, you mean ?

Leaving a settlement and supporting it with the three quarters will still result in some decline in housing starts this year.

Going to seven and three quarters and supporting it with the fan main underwrite, I mean the ginny main underwrite, and even the use of the sandbite measures, the other two, if we need them, will result in some drop-off.

In my opinion, it will result in some drop-off.

Now, there's another point to be considered here, John, and this relates directly to your situation.

The home builders are very insistent that if we raise this interest rate, that the net effect is going to be a loss of about 200,000 to 250,000 units over what holding the 7% and the supports that I mentioned.

And that that difference in units will be, quote,

more than paid for the subsidy and cost of the tangent line on the backboard of the 243 subsidy.

Now, Gene Gollich, who served in our shop, is the man who's closest to this whole production picture that we've been in all his life.

He thinks that between these two approaches, the 7% of the support I've indicated and the 7,340 of the support I've indicated, that we'll probably get 100,000 to 150,000 more units with the 7% of the supports indicated than with the 7,340 of the supports indicated.

He says he thinks we've got 100,000 to 150,000 more units with 7%

forcing the kids and the suburbs to be forced.

I just heard a few comments here, and I suppose it's just rather an obvious and unimportant question.

It wouldn't be here at all.

And they're very strong and cross-correct.

I found it difficult, but I stopped you.

I got my mind on this, but there are two or three points I think you ought to make.

One of them is

I think it is quite important that we stay on course in terms of our housing objectives here.

And of course, once we've stayed here, it's not housing or residential construction.

This year, it's next year.

Housing construction activity this year is main.

We're talking about next year.

And I think we have to recognize that if we go to send those reports,

There will be some adverse fallout in terms of the general picture.

That is, it will be interpreted as evidence that the inflationary expectations are adding a further premium to it.

It is true that the rise in the FHA rate does go into the CPI .

As it happens, it seems to make a slightly smaller

difference than I had expected.

Apparently, it will be in the paper at one tenth of a percent when an employee affected comes in, I think, over two.

But we can certainly keep that in mind.

I, by the way, reluctantly concluded that going to the seventh or fourth percent is where the net weight of the evidence is, as far as I'm concerned.

But I don't deny that there are these other aspects

The additional cost is $900 million.

That's over a year and a half.

The outplaced come largely in 73, 74.

They don't come in 72.

The additional cost is $600 million now.

It's not going to be shaving furnaces out of the market, is that right?

That's what he wants.

That's why he wants to do the TANF.

He wants to do the TANF plan because he'd be supporting, he'd be subsidizing the unions.

And the government piece of the story, you know, is going to be subsidized.

No matter what they have to do.

He doesn't care if they have to plan now.

That's right.

Now we have a TANF plan to subsidize unions.

This project is going to cost us much more than half a million dollars.

I think right now, what I'm talking about is $680,000 more than a fine subsidy in the United States.

So the net increase is usually about a whole 7%.

And the production is $900,000.

Now, George, the outlay

1774 are primarily special 300 million in addition for the Federal Home Loan Bank in Section 243.

Do you have any appropriation?

You have to get appropriation.

But you haven't got the full appropriation on the Home Loan Bank for it yet.

We have an increase in that.

And you don't have any appropriation for 243, so we haven't ever get that.

So that's why I can't take a fact that we'll get that.

The tandem plan you're taking is a fact.

But if you want the 7%, you've got to move those two things promptly as part of the program.

Yeah.

Let's come back to this.

Let's just look at the cost.

So you can get the cost of over the seven.

You can keep the housing starts up higher than if you raise it to seven, three, four, or something like that.

I guess that's what you're saying.

Well, the key consideration there, as far as I can see, is the extent to which you tend to attract the money out of the housing market, the subsidy.

And the question of the extent to which

the market for housing.

I am inclined personally to think that you have a higher level of housing starts with the settlement, the program at the top, a somewhat higher level starts.

Oh, I do think your annual level of subsidization is heavy now and it would be that much heavier

And there could be some interpretation of it as an inflationary move and a move that is fairly done for political reasons.

On the other hand, it is appropriate that Congress is most certainly in accord with subsidized housing.

It is one that can be directly related to employment.

That's right.

It means employment.

That's right.

Well, it's just that you...

Do you agree that Iowa had a key point as to the number of housing starts that are involved?

Are you going to have more of the 7% plus the 10% additional congressional subsidization in your opinion involved?

Or are you going to have less?

And for which kind of key housing starts?

In my judgment, we had a better chance with seven and three quarters.

And in that time, it was 10,000.

But we have to recognize that there is more to not taking care of the community.

It's a question of time.

And by the time it's time to explain it, you're going to lose it.

You're going to lose it.

He said that the government was going to build on that and give it away to anybody who wanted to have it.

housing starts and the question is how deeply did it go?

It's interesting that the National Association of Real Estate Boards is one of the things that would also be interested in building houses.

The record has been on the seven of three boards.

Yeah, the home board is the only group that are really encouraging us to continue with the service.

It's the only industry.

As I understand it, Secretary,

If the subsidy asset at the 7% level is only assets that sell up to the $23,000 level, that's why the reasonable number of assets is at that level.

Well, that's not quite right to say.

As soon as 2 to 10 takes up that high of a fee, 243 takes up at $30,000.

And that brings in how many units of the federal budget?

Once you get the legislation.

Yeah.

Once you get the legislation.

Yeah.

I think of the third one.

The main judge says that he thinks he'd get $150,000 more, $100,000, $200,000 more.

In fact, they can't have such a fast as .

That's right.

Paul doesn't agree with that.

I don't agree with that, sir.

Well, it kind of seems to me to have a very strong, very indicator that you have a thing.

I hope it starts to weigh up.

Yeah.

Well, the reason is for the rise, I mean, of course, I think it's a question of mother's name of the new plant.

The question is, what's going on?

The interest rate increased.

And I think that's a different situation when these sorts of alternative uses of money are the reason for the rise.

So I guess I would be

in the, uh, one of the lines that Peter suggested, the seven and three-fourths, and to hold the ten of the things, be ready to do that, it looks, it looks necessary, but don't reflect in with it.

And I've also wondered, one of the lines of the problem I think that John must be worrying about, there isn't some way to take

to get into smaller bites here.

From seven to seven and three quarters is a very large movement this year.

What's the matter with taking two bites?

And perhaps even getting into the habit of moving by, more frequently, by snoring.

We don't seem to have such a big movement all the time.

Also, I would say in 243 months,

Go to the very core.

Let me say a word about the subsidy problem so that we can.

to set up 150,000 half-assed jobs rated leaves.

We're willing to do that because we're interested in employment.

Now, let's suppose you increase housing starts by moving to seven tree floors, or you start either way by 90,000.

That's a hell of a lot more than 150,000 jobs.

that it's repercussions and so forth, and this jackass still.

So my view is this.

I don't give a damn if the subsidy's a billion dollars.

If our purpose is to keep the economy up, we're going to subsidize it.

My God, what else?

If we're subsidizing everything else, Congress is going to want us to spend more.

We're going to make some foolish tax cuts, and I'm sure you know, by reducing personal exemption or something like that, they'll force on us rather than investing in taxes.

So, let's get to the dialogue on this proper thing.

I'm sure you're going to worry about a bunch of questions.

What's realistic?

What's the politics?

The only politics involved here is jobs.

And that means that if the conclusion is that holding it at seven and with more subsidy has a better chance to produce more jobs and more housing starts, that's what we're going to do.

What do you mean?

It'll come in other ways.

If, on the other hand, it doesn't make any difference if you go to 7-3-4s, then there's also psychological factors to be involved here.

Psychological impact of an increase in 7-3-4s here on other people going out to borrow money and so forth and pushing their situation.

And when that gets to the size of the jump, it's over.

But...

My inclination at this point is an increase, psychologically is, in terms of timing.

I don't know if you can hear the suggestion.

I heard it many times, personally.

I think I was going to say that.

But in terms of timing, it may have jumped from seven to seven.

And I'm afraid

Well, all this talk about places in prime rating, and if we write the places and move to 7 and 3 quarters, it might indicate to the banking community, well, we're just accepting, we're going to follow whatever the actual rates are without really resisting that for the only reason I spoke at the 7th half, and try to keep it below what we thought was a realistic figure.

And the 7 and 3 quarters is not a generous figure by any manner.

With AAA bonds, they, uh, IT&T or 820, uh, said three quarters of a month.

They say normally, normally mortgage rates are probably over $100,000.

Yeah, I see.

So then, of course, that's an aspect of this that has to be learned through 72.

Some of you are more familiar with the financial markets than I am.

And evaluate what the picture would be with 7% in terms of continuing to track the savings in the savings loan association.

That's what you primarily have to depend on.

In place of what you may have to do with the charge, how long is it 30 days for you to do that?

Now, when I say how long is it 30 days, I'm going forward on the assumption that you're going to hold it at 7.

I mean, I'm just thinking about it.

Could we couple that with the Tandem Plan?

Yes.

All right.

Could we couple that with an extension of the Tandem Plan to include the battalion fans?

Yes, sir.

That's great.

It just takes a second to assign a letter by you to give us a party where they send the Tandem.

That's what I would need.

I don't want to trigger anything that is that negative.

It's going to be negative.

And I'd like to take a tangible plan.

I think that in light of the fact that you may at that time want to be in a position so that you can continue or you can move interest rate-wise, that would be what would be well with you.

to get this legislative action with respect to your home on Bank 4-2-4-3.

Now, George doesn't try to, right?

But we have to move to another subset.

One of the problems with this whole housing situation is that what we're really doing is subsidizing new homes for the poorest families.

And if we tried to provide other products on that basis where we provide the new product for the tourist people instead of the existing product or the used product, why, we'd be in real difficulty.

We need to get the finished subsidies.

And I think that getting that 243 would be helpful for us in beginning to move in that direction.

And also the home and bank board.

But we do those two things.

In my opinion, we could take 60 days if necessary, 30 days, 60 days, and see where we are.

But I think 60 makes more sense than 30 if you're going to make up 60 days between the 1st of October.

Or it could be said the 1st of October.

Well, Congress is out here with the president tomorrow.

We can't possibly begin to act on that until the 7th or 8th.

That's right.

Then we'll give you three weeks until the 1st of October to get some action from the 243.

Well, I'm too worthy, but I'm speaking now.

I'm holding it in seven.

That's right.

You're going to need that for either way.

We thought that that would be stand-by action that might be taken.

We were not recommending it as part of 63-4.

We were starting to have it in 97-3-4.

We were starting to have it with the rhetoric.

But if we're going to settle it, we ought to have it.

And to make this announcement, we ought to indicate it.

That's what we're asking for.

So I guess I'm hanging out now.

I realize the risks and the arguments and so forth and so on and so on.

Because who knows, who knows who's right and who's wrong.

My guess is, my guess is that the psychological and other factors that are here are likely to be more impressive than our housing market.

We're going to sell it to people who are seeing what they're doing.

And the other way around,

I know, I know, I know the situation, I know the situation.

How are you going to get money into housing unless it's attracting?

And it's having to do with where it's going to get aid for.

It's having to do with housing, which is not an area that's secure.

It's going to have to do with corporate bonds.

Why the hell is anybody going to do it?

Well, then you've got to subsidize it.

But if there's anyone that's going to want to subsidize it, you've got to subsidize it.

I think it's worth subsidizing in terms of production of jobs.

Nothing I know of is better than housing at this point.

Do you know anything, John?

I'm sure, but we're going to subsidize something.

I mean, that's a hell of a lot better than putting people out to rake leaves.

No question about it.

They should build something.

Right.

That's right.

Housing is needed.

And hopefully that increases the moves on the inflationary.

Right.

I know what you're talking about.

Let me just add one comment.

Yeah, sure.

I think that this is what you indicated yesterday, which I think is already yes, plus the impact.

If there could be some additional short-range action.

the 16th and a couple of the long ranges.

Now the basic problem is the market and the power.

And I think that Paul McGregor and McLaren have come up with the soundest approach in that area that I've heard of and that I think it would be conceived of, and that is to come up with a principle that could be applied

deal with the situation on the basis of the abuse of power.

Because when you get these excessive white settlements, and when you get these excessive price sections, it represents an abuse of power in most cases.

And putting it, and establishing this principle, this is the competitive principle of establishing antitrust laws,

And then the interpretation subject to judicial determination and so on.

See, to me, in fact, it makes a lot of sense in passing Congress to deal with this problem in a fundamental way, where the descendant and the man-in-chief deal with this question of peace of power.

The decision makers know he's down to the heart of the problem.

And not only that, I think it can be navigated.

And if he gets a monkey on the back of Congress, because I think this enforcement

Monkey, you've got to get on their side before the election.

You know, I may need a better way to deal with this, but after all the way I spent a lot of time on it, I thought I was going to be abiding 57 on this.

But they were too complicated and specific.

But this is an application of a general principle that just makes a lot of sense.

Because it didn't.

No one in the American economy should be promoted to use power in an abusive way.

It is clearly contrary to the public interest, and that's what's involved here.

All right.

Well, let's have awareness of this.

Let's do this now.

This is a 60-day full sign.

And, of course, we can all change our minds.

I don't want to take your mind any time in 60 days, but your plan's only 60 days.

All right.

Go on the 10th thing.

Put in the legislation and answer that, whatever's required there, because we need that.

Because if there's one bad thing for sure, we're not going to let hell go down if we can't help it.

No.

Now, it may even cut the rate, but we may find it to raise the interest rates.

That's right.

The whole money, exactly right.

The money may not be attracted to the market at seven, three quarters, but with the 10th plan and so forth, maybe it is.

Let's get some credit this fall for it.

That's good.

Stay after all.

So, they've been pleading for this, so you're entirely right

First on that night, get the house and start starting to keep going up.

Good.

Uh, uh, uh, Senator, you're on time.

John, you're on time.

George, where'd you go?

I met you with the two of your colleagues.

Anybody else talk to you?

I don't know anybody.

Did you talk to Tom?

I didn't talk to him, no.

Yeah, I'm very confident in that.

Oh, hey, first of all, here's Larry Kaufman.

Larry Kaufman, there's Larry Kaufman.

You know, he's their writer.

He's the time correspondent in Washington.

Forty copies of my book.

Very good.

Well, I'm very confident in that.

I think it's a huge site.

He's there.

He's the one.

Janet Johnson is all right with mine.

Now, yes, I have a chance of doing a story that I knew they were going to want.

How many stories are you going to write?

I'll get some of the best things.

Everybody else is studying the budget of 1973, right?

I think when you get up there, Charles, you should talk to them as much as you can.

I think it's as well as you can just lay out the facts.

Here is the cold turkey boys, here's the bad, here's the good, and so forth.

And you'll follow that one very good in the end.

That's one thing that really affects politicians, pollsters, and magazine editors.

They want to look good.

And it also affects economists.

They always want to prove that they're tired

are right, or that they're good predictions are right.

Usually they're predicted dire, so it's just more fun to be that way.

Now, I would, I think it's important to hit that, I don't know if it's really going to be good.

The second thing is, you've got to expect it on this side, the fact that there's, as Paul made a, as you said, sort of in Charlebert, he said that that kind of backbiting crap is something they're going to make up.

any time they want you know what they do these guys are very lucky you've been around this time that doesn't bother me as much but I'm glad you called on them because after all you went up to see these people you gave them your time and found out if they want to have this kind of cooperation they had better be reasonable you don't get it if they don't cooperate in the future you don't see them again I'm too great not sure but it does infuriate me

Now, then if I say something about it, then I think I'm held accountable for it.

But when they don't quote me, they quote somebody quoting me.

Now, this offends me.

Now, I don't want people putting words in my mouth.

I'm scared of the days.

How do you know about the job?

How do we know the content of the story?

Well, we don't.

I'm going to try to find out.

I'm going to leave him there now.

In fact, I'll talk to him.

No, no, I see.

He's been trying to see me for two days now.

And part of this is Mike.

What happened?

Is it that Mike?

Mike, what did you say?

You were not going to say anything.

I said, look, I've got to write this because I've got a story that I want to write about.

He's going to say nothing.

He leave me now.

He said it.

Yeah.

That's right.

He had picked this up in one person.

And he checked it a couple of places.

But he didn't spread it.

He picked it up in one place and he started spreading it.

So it came to me from Keith Edwards, who was a congressman in the lower week.

He's smart and bright as hell.

And he called us those young kids.

That's right.

And then he called me.

And he'd be thinking, and he'd be in the midst of the mills, and the mills had told Heath that they had a bad hope that they were going to do a real hash job.

And so it came to the resources, but both of them were fresh resources.

So somebody planted it, and I don't know where it came from, but it's not material, but I just wanted to edit it out a little bit.

And I was just learning how to do it.

But I didn't say it.

I didn't animate it.

It was better than you should probably have heard it last time.

He makes a big speech on the side of the Senate.

He says he thinks I ought to be your vice president because I'm part of the Democratic Party.

What's he going to say on the Senate floor?

What's wrong with the president?

It's nice.

It takes a long time.

Why does the Secretary of State take him to hell all the time?

The other point is that how can you make a jury try to handle this deal with

Now let me, let me just lay it on the line for you right at the timeline ground.

First, Peck of Kissinger had a tall and profitable site.

He studied a good piece about the China thing.

I mean, well, he came in at Paxford's and told Kissinger, and wrote a note to me, in fact, that his editors had edited the piece to make it appear that he, Kissinger, was an architect.

And he brought the letter in to me.

He showed it to me.

rather than the president, in a policy which, of course, Henry had not said, which was totally, and of course, was not true.

This was one of my questions.

And Henry asked him why.

And Said, he said, well, the problem is this.

He said, this did not mean, you know, Said used to be not particularly our friend for our argument.

He's just a sort of idealistic kind of an emotional fellow who, in this case, was quite moved.

And he said that his editors, in time, had lied to the editorial board, were sitting out burning, and I was totally frustrated because they thought they had the president on Vietnam.

They thought they had him before the policy general.

Now they are afraid, desperately afraid, because they know that I know the bastards, that Mr. West may have the future, and also that they know the Pentagon paper name has been beaten within the Democratic race.

and they met each other and they kept each other coming out, you know, and all that sort of thing.

And at the time, frankly, and this is straight from sighting, you know what I mean, are out to cut our balls off.

Now that's the kind of arrest that you're going to walk into.

You've got to know it.

You know it too.

Now, that's fine.

Don't ever show it.

Naturally.

But just recognize that what they're after is to do that.

Now the reason for that is just nothing to do with personalities.

I think what happens is that

They sort of made this sort of a decision at the top.

It involves a government who's... That's the Los Angeles Times.

I can't think of the guy's name.

Well, take it to the wrong one.

The managing editor of Times is the key guy in it.

It's the Jewish government.

Brunel.

Henry Brunel is probably supposed to...

Totally pedagogical.

He's a left-wing socialist son of a bitch.

Has been for years.

Bright as hell.

Totally untrustworthy.

Totally your enemy.

Remember.

Now, the little boys that work for him down here, the guy you're going to see, they do exactly what they're told.

And if they don't write it, they write it.

Signing who is the top white horseman.

And it's very interesting.

They love him.

So if he writes a letter of apology and citizenship, I've got the letter.

And that's what you have to guess.

Now, having said all that, this doesn't mean that at this point you don't go see him.

You should see him.

But I think what we have to realize is this is their chance to be reasonable.

We don't want to be lost over the facts.

Goddamn.

They've got to write us.

They don't think we know anything about it.

They think our policy is wrong.

They think we should have a wage-price policy.

They think we should have controls.

They should see it from the other end.

They cannot, of course, and should not, as a responsible publication, distort or lie or misrepresent the facts.

And that's why, George, I think you've got a very good opportunity here.

to go up there and sit and just talk very strongly, very firmly, very quietly, as you can effectively do, and just lay around.

Here's what we're doing.

Here's what we've accomplished.

Some of the people are going overboard and just say, I just want to repeat what the President said yesterday.

I think a lot of you six months from now are going to appear like very bad prophets.

Sounds very right.

I think that's our line.

Be confident.

six months from now, you're going to be a bad promise.

This economy is going to move.

It is moving.

First, it is moving.

It's going to continue to move.

We still have problems in inflation.

We have problems in employment.

And don't ever underestimate what this administration will do to deal with it.

I don't think it's going to work for them.

And that is the price we push for the problem.

That's right.

And I didn't go separate.

I just said we should count the salaries so that they don't make a pure policy or burn a policy or they're going to make mine in California and here and so forth.

We're talking about the budget, we're talking about the economy and so forth and so on, hour after hour after hour.

As a matter of fact, you can say that I spent more time on the whole cabinet with John Conlon than any other man.

As the whole of Canada, that's true.

We've been talking about it.

We have, which is true because basically the border policy, since we finished in Canada, I haven't had to spend much time with where, but I'll be in that security house in three weeks.

We've had a hell of a lot of meetings about the economy.

We're sure that we're going to have some more.

And that we spent time on the budget, the budget, the economy, and all the ratifications there and so forth and so on.

We had interest in understanding and so forth.

I think that we really must remember two different things.

They are not interested in the factors.

Except that if you put it out there and then they lie about it, you're in a position and take them on and take them on hard.

And then cut the bastards off right at the head.

I mean, they don't get in again.

That's the way I treat them.

They don't get in the office again.

You can't let them in.

They lie about you, John.

You cannot let them in.

They tell the truth.

Even if the truth is bad, that's not awesome.

I never suck up to people after they hate me once.

Now the other guy that night, I think you have to remember that what you have here is a pathological determination to do a sin on some issue.

I mean, a few months ago, Fortune was running pretty good, right?

And they still do that, of course, in January.

But I don't know what they did this month.

They learned tactics against it.

We're going to her too.

Look, you can say this.

Everything that Burns has recommended, we're doing ourselves.

The form, which he himself is not satisfied with.

Are there burdens you have to come up to the witch price board?

Right?

Correct.

Have you seen anything on paper, Dr. George?

Yes, I have.

His letter again is $4,900.

The last suggestion I know, was it, did it meet the cabinet committee on the head on the policy?

Yeah, this was passed.

Okay, they had that proposal that he's made, and the cabinet committee on the economic policy is meeting.

We're dealing with these things on an individual basis at the highest level, but he has to have to make one because he opposes mandatory controls, and he opposes criminal punishments, and there ain't no way it'll work without them.

Arden says that, doesn't he?

That's correct.

He said, oh, no, I'm not for that.

You know, when you play nuts, you better, you want to have a weapon, you want to urge them.

Well, we've been urging them.

And so they, Spiegel raises his prices 8%.

And you know, what the hell can they do with 2.5%?

Probably not.

Well, they're more than wanted to play this game.

And when he started playing it, we're going to play with them hard.

Because I don't play with horses around.

And that was the main devil of that.

Right.

I agree.

And then it got to get him right in the nuts.

Now, with regard to other things, because this is the last chance we're going to talk before John takes off.

Just so we have our, we have all of our talks to go, you've got what you're going to do.

You are, you are, you will most, you also are in the whole control.

So, you and John, you're going to be in there.

How long are you going to be in there?

Three weeks.

Well, no, you're going to be three weeks there.

You're going to stay there.

Because I lied about it.

He's going to be gone two weeks in Texas and probably another week in Seattle.

Correct.

As much as I can.

You just made a hell of a handle on the Texas situation.

I hope that what I did is, what I did is just say, this is a good time to do some thinking and some working and so forth.

So I'm going to rush my purpose.

And John, another thing that occurred to me on the airport attacks,

You know, like the 10% is 10% of my sheet number.

No, why not 12?

So it could be 1,500.

Oh, it could be 1,500.

Yeah.

What I'm saying is, if we're going to pick up the dough, we've got to get it.

Now, one, let's, so if you think of those terms, all the taxes, there isn't any question that you've got to stop it.

I'm sure, as I say, with that damn personal exception, which is wrong, but I think we should do it.

First of all, plus the other two things that we mentioned, the investment tax business.

The investment tax, I'm trying to think of something.

Maybe there's a new thing to call it, or maybe you want to call it old.

Maybe there's a new thing to call it.

Well, a tax appreciation, a job credit bill.

Or let me suggest that this has a lot more to it, because it's a fixation of the mindset that is suggesting it's not a fixation.

I see no reason.

Well, I see plenty of reason, of course, sir, against deferring the

of the revenue sharing.

But on the other hand, I think if we put it in terms of, well, the Congress is not acting, it's too early to put that in.

I don't know if there are any chances we put it on so far.

What do you think of that?

You know, I don't know.

I don't think it's bad.

Yeah.

Congress hasn't acted.

It won't have acted.

There isn't any chance it's going to act.

Probably in October it makes sure, you know, so they do that.

We've got to remember that on this, too,

For this Senate to go, we've got to be ready to move until Congress comes back.

My guess is, my guess is that Mills might, uh, he might announce something before that as a power, because he won't announce our whole package.

And, uh, we'll see what they say.

We'll have to, we'll have to take that into consideration.

Well, he's announced today that his whole committee is going to Brussels.

The invitations will be repeated.

That's great.

One in November.

Second, third, and fourth.

Anyway, brother, now, the other thing I was gonna say is that we could get on this.

This is obviously a decision that's an immediate by the time that we may have to raise their integration.

I understand that.

But coming to the other thing, that we want to move...

I think it's terribly important.

Now, the one thing I want the two of you to think about, and that's this.

Let us assume that we do not get professional cooperation and reaction.

That could happen.

Now, we therefore have to say what goes in regards to the Congress of the Zionists, and the floating goes in into the strictness of the right, John?

Yes, sir.

How about the import tax?

Does that require congressional action?

Yes, sir.

How about the spelling out of the exam that requires congressional action?

Yes, sir.

And the event of the taxpayer that requires congressional action?

Yes, sir.

The removal of controls and so on?

Yes, sir.

I think there depends on.

Here's what I want.

Here's what I think we've got to figure out.

We have got to figure out.

Let's assume the works of the Congress decide.

What are we not told?

What kind of baggage are we not told?

And the second thing is, let us try to project what we think the congressional action would be.

But you see, the other thing that could happen here if you submit this kind of a thing to Congress, you get all the wild hairs put in in arts,

and the exemptions, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Now, we may get that.

If it happens, we may have to take it.

In order to get what we want, it would be tough.

But although I think that the advantage of investment tax credit and ex-sus tax is that they are solid as a rock.

And the 10-4 thing is those are solid.

And Congress has got to be through that.

And the real thing, John, is that we can live in the woodwork.

And here's where maybe you and I can work together

If you just come and say, look, what we're doing, you get the credit for the damn thing.

I don't care who gets the credit, but we must get it done.

Correct?

Right.

Say the parents talk to us, and we think this is a very pregnant suggestion.

Working together, we're going to do this.

We don't have any cooperation.

Of course, we don't have any kind of cooperation in the Senate.

I don't know what Russell will do to you.

Russell?

Yeah.

If he has to tax credit.

Sure.

We get all the cooperation in the world from Russell and my dad.

That's not a man of credit.

I don't know.

I really don't think there's a man of credit whenever he gets something to want.

And I think if we do it, we probably ought to let Russell have some of the credit, because he feels it's a certain trap.

Another thing, too, Russell will love postponing HR1s.

He feels very strongly about that.

Okay.

If there is a real evaluation, then that can do the job.

If it really works, you do have that.

I'm telling you, there's a chance, even though that's an accurate answer.

About Heather, George, more recently, they had a posting before Texas.

As I understand it, you had lost half the authority to oppose it, and that discretionary authority to remove it.

Isn't that correct?

That's what we'd like to hear.

If the Congress would look.

Absolutely.

That is your discretionary authority to remove it.

But then part of what you want more is farming, so that you can get it.

In fact, you need that one.

Okay, have fun.

All right.