Conversation 624-013

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Basically, I'm not sure you agree with me.

He has bargains to be short-circuited.

He doesn't have the ability to advise the patient.

I explain.

I had heard of the questions on taxing and spending.

All right.

It's time.

I'll work it out.

We announced it.

We decided to announce it today.

We should have prepared it.

Frankly, the story felt funny enough at the end.

I didn't believe it.

I thought it was a firecracker.

I don't want to have it.

I told Simon, I came in, I said, I want you to know that you were the first choice to send me a copy.

The first choice was to sell it to Schultz.

And it's the first time I've ever accomplished this.

It's the second time I've ever accomplished it.

I want you to know that we take my attention because you're a fighter.

And I want you to get out next week.

There's some positive strong states.

Also, I'd like you to give our requirements and the rest of the requirements are strong.

I also told him this, that I wanted him to just hear it over and hear it again.

It's very close to the country that you're calling from.

And so I wanted him to hear it again.

So I think we've got it well positioned.

So George, as you also mentioned to him,

I'll put it this way.

He will play ball.

He knows what we have to do.

I want him to clearly understand what the change is.

He's got it.

Well, how do you want to start this meeting, John?

I've heard asking questions in the last half hour or so, based on

what I think are some of the political issues that we've got in connection with the budget.

And I don't know that this is my complete checklist, but I think there's some subjects that we ought to be talking about.

Number one, I do have a real estate tax package that the Secretary of State will be taking.

So that's...

But...

I've listened to some of the subjects.

What's that?

What about the second one?

Well, he'll be ready to talk about the value-added real estate tax package this afternoon.

He hasn't had a chance to get into it.

Well, I can say to the member of the Senate that we don't need to talk about it.

He could be all we talk about now.

I'm sure he'll be able to talk about it very closely.

I don't think that's what I've got to say.

Yes, sir.

That's right.

Well, if you want to do a second, I'll stay here.

No, I don't think so.

Well, in our... John and I have talked about it ourselves.

All right.

So I think we ought to discuss it a little here now and get some views on it.

All right.

And then finally come down to a decision.

All right.

All right, well, that would be the first item of business with the Ferro-Keewell School Lane County Tax Credit.

There's another question there.

uh and to generate the kind of uh budget style that you want to hit the question of how we treat revenue sharing what what assumptions we're going to show and then here are a lot of issues that i just listed that that haven't approached them in the past or seem to relate to uh top political issues in here coming under number five and uh that number six is a

a rough jump at some possible initiatives.

And the press heads that are now being roughly associated with those, those are very, very rough figures at this point.

Yeah, but the difference between out of way and authorization at this point, these are such rough numbers.

but that's really a distinction from this one.

I was trying to give some sort of order back to you, but I don't see it.

Why don't we start with these functions?

I'd like to come to evaluate it at the end of this project.

I think that will, as we go through these other functions, we'll see if we can do that again.

It seems to me that our, we have two problems.

Second, we have, regardless of the effect of the economy, what do we need in terms of rhetoric, issues, etc.

There are very several questions.

I mean, what may be good for the economy may not be good for them.

Sometimes the two are together, but also...

that may not be responsible.

And I just told you that, you know, after two weeks, John, after a week, John, I talked to him yesterday.

So, having those things in mind, we, uh, we talked with the guy who was on the letter, who was in charge of the responsibility.

Our responsibility is not to be, and also, it's political, but...

Now, if you come down to the back of the budget, the expansion, the austere or even budget there is whether, as it relates to the value added, you can opt to try on the value added by our person, or we go over the value added.

Put in a percent that would allow us to come out, not just with the

well, budget is balanced in the national terms.

Now, the point can be made, in order to make a choice, that that's not credible, because everybody's there, and I'm asking.

And so when you say that, the question is whether it's credible or not.

I'm not sure, but what if he shows the intentions in the right direction?

Now, before I do that, let me say,

The case for Dewey moving in that direction can be greatly altered by the time we will come out with one.

The Congress will act so totally responsibly and bust it.

And so we say, well, because the Congress has done this, we cannot, therefore, go forward

So therefore, we're going to evaluate it, and first evaluate it, and then continue.

We're going for the purpose of providing property tax relief, et cetera, to hold for the catchers.

And we rest.

Now, that's the position of the small law.

We called a little on this in that domestic council poll that we took.

And I'm just showing the secretary the conclusions on that.

People care a great deal more about taxes than they do about spending by the white markets.

And so they would want taxes increased.

They would eventually get taxes being decreased.

They give the administration very low ratings on holding taxes down.

Our accomplishments or our performance on holding taxes down is the lowest rating of any rating we get.

So that's an area where obviously we have to do a lot more work on spending.

We get fairly good marks and get credit for trying to hold spending down.

But only 6-9% of the people care about spending.

upwards of 30% are very strong in saying that taxes are an important national issue and that taxation is rated as the second most important national issue next to the economy, when you put it on a personal basis.

The way people tend to get at this question in a more direct way

You might come up with such a strongly-naming thing that it's just as believable.

That's what I think.

So I think that's where we start.

Well, you have to see if we can approach it.

You've already had taxes on it.

It's just a substitute.

Oh, yes.

It's a substitute for a property tax.

Yeah, but what I have suggested is to take the value added tax to go beyond that value added tax percentage for the purpose of, in order to balance the budget.

But I think that, I think the added 1% or whatever should be lost in the...

In the sale?

In the sale, yeah, the whole budget.

I could guess, based on our domestic counsel poll, how this poll would come out.

And it would be this.

People would say, no, they don't favor increasing taxes for these reasons.

And the reason is that both national defense and balancing the budget score very low.

People don't care about it.

On their list of priorities.

Did I pass out some numbers that I think are relevant to this?

The first column is our estimate of fiscal 1972 as of the moment.

The $75 billion and $139 billion are both larger than they will naturally come in at because what they're showing is an effort to shift expenses

I'm down 73 in the interest of being able to show and have a picture of the .

The $3 billion we're carrying in there still is the general revenue here, which I think is not likely to pass, but .

So the total outlays for 72

If we didn't have the general revenue sharing, if we didn't engage in the outing, that would be about $2.30.

That was just about what you set up as your original budget.

Revenue estimates show the full price of revenue, and that, roughly, if the Senate bill were to prevail, if the House bill were to prevail, if there were no change,

The same on down the line.

You can see how those numbers come out.

So that's the 72 here.

And we'll have a sizable pool of funds there under these circumstances.

So we'll have, by any definition, anybody wants to make this, this is going to be too expensive.

But if the $3 billion drops out, well, we have roughly $8 billion.

Well, yeah, I mean, it's $8 billion.

I was looking at the date.

We can take the $3 billion opportunity short before the water comes down to $8 billion.

And the expectant comes down to about $27 billion.

That's right.

Yeah, but I've got to ask, though, I have to go to the Senate House.

I should go out and give them to say that if

If the Senate bill were to prevail, 11 would become 13.

If the House bill were to prevail, 11 would become 10.

Right.

But if they had not, if all the people could be 11.

What's the last?

And no change.

Suppose that you were to keep the bill and nothing happened.

Why?

There's no change.

Then you come to the two bills that were rolled in the House.

about $5,000,000 of money that's between these budgets to buy this little shuttle.

We don't know how many minutes or so we can make the pieces look different depending on how to come up with that.

But we have an investment here in the year of 76.5.

That represents 78.5 of sort of actual content for the year.

and it represents a budget authority of about 82,000.

Now that is what Henry and I have worked out following the last conversation we had with you where you wanted to have the new submarines put in and various other things that have beefed up the content of this budget, particularly as you looked at the budget authority.

Now, that will represent a very substantial step up in the defense.

We figured that the defense outpatient will come in this year and just do anything about messing around with them at about $74 million.

So you can see this is really, there's no doubt about the fact that this is a genuine deal on the defense budget.

So that is the way this could be carried, however.

Skipping down to the, as I recognize that's a decision that you made, how do you want to do that?

Skipping down to the next one.

These should be called the uncontrolled lives.

See, that represents a program of about $148 million.

We have $2 billion of outlay, actually, which, as I said, is loading $1 billion, a little over $1 billion into 72.

And I'm anticipating we're going to have to bubble a little bit into fiscal 74, or keep this number down.

But we can, we can deal with that.

The out of that, presidential initiatives,

And this we've taken way down.

In other words, that's off the earlier discussion we had in answering one of John's questions.

This presumes that we're not going to have general revenue sharing in the budget, and that you're going to be able to handle it in the way that we discussed in the second report.

And the Congress hasn't passed it, and he wanted to associate it together, but there's no point.

And so on.

You see that we can get it down if we think

to 44.5.

That's a real squeak, but that can be done.

Then you can see where you're going to go with the revenues.

With the various assumptions about tax changes, and I think the best experience, unless there's a full Senate treatment, we're in pretty good shape.

And that seems...

You all start to see that we would be coming in with...

And it's also one of our assumptions that we, there's a lot of elasticity to what assumptions we want to make about the GNC and about the tax yield from it and so forth.

I think the strength of the proper work of the Treasury estimating the souls we have, we can make that number a little bit smaller.

But anyway, we're going to build a range.

So, with the assumption of the way that we've discussed before, with the assumption that is not carried in the budget, that's a little over $5 billion, and with this fairly large but perfectly doable

we can bring in a budget that does have a large, however actual, deficit in, and the average deficit has the implications I've talked about for a business that we do.

That doesn't allow anything to be submitted to John on page two, does it?

Well, yes, sir.

What is it?

It has, it has, uh, well, actually, that's a,

And if we were to get something approaching the house bill, then the difference between 244.5 and 47.5 does give you more to play around with.

In other words, what we have tried to do in our regular budget is to

You work hard to keep things in your mind.

John and I and Kat are going over this, trying not to do dumb things politically in here.

But keep that under control.

And then if you decide you want a lot of work, you decide you want some initiative,

So what you're facing up here is coming in with an actual $30,000-ish a year, $25,000 a year.

I think we can fix it so that the actual for fiscal 72 is less than $30,000.

Suppose it is $29,000, $30,000, I don't know.

The other point is that in terms, is that we have a lot of those.

And everybody says it's the budget expansion.

And there he is.

Mr. Curry is expanding in directions and opening up on the problem.

Well, you mean in terms of getting us bent and focused?

We're trying and we're fighting all these projects and speeding them up.

We put in a supplemental visit recently to keep all the projects going in full thrust.

There are lots of issues sort of within this, such as the space question, which had a lot of spending on one of the locations, particularly in California.

So it's advanced.

Better earlier, better later.

I had to call this woman, Jennifer Pearson, three, four, five, four, five, four, five, five, five, five, five, five, five, five, five, five, five.

.

Okay.

Well, the budget picture is the word of the day.

That's what I always say about that.

It never ends.

The more we spend, the less we get.

But, yeah.

I always say that our terrific friends spend more and more.

We spend more and more and enjoy it less.

We know it's wrong.

We take it and give it to them.

Right?

I think the budget picture is such that we have felt that we might be in an impossible kind of situation where there just wasn't any way that we could get these numbers.

What is the full-fledged revenue?

And I think what this shows is that if we're willing to do these different things, we can get there.

On the other hand, if we show full general revenue sharing, if we...

If we have, if we show how to make it to the fence, the vicinity of 8 billion or something like that.

If we just can't get there, then we have to do something else ourselves.

But we can't get there doing these things this way.

General Reverend Sheridan, first and last, we just, uh, we'll sign something on the House of Representatives.

Right, yeah.

We'll get some kind of reference from Sheridan before.

Oh, the Secretary's going to have another bill.

Yeah.

over and over and over again taking all the heat for it and so it is we thought the last budget was expansionary wasn't it we didn't get that with the sharing right but all you do is

I would not show it.

I should just say, who knows the difference?

You can come out strong and forcefully for a revenue share and charge one mayor or Governor Keener for an LGBTQ budget.

Just a few people would write an economic column saying, oh, this is a dishonest budget and so forth.

And that's a one-way story.

That's what's for back.

Nobody cares.

But I would feel that I have a...

I think that's perfect.

I was full of love, but 30 days later, you want to start adding to it and so on.

So they started adding to it.

It was a copy system.

And what you need is an initial impact that you have a valid study.

That's all you gotta do.

And also their tax bill.

Who's criticizing for that?

The tax thing, interestingly enough, is heavily local taxes.

This is the latest word we've been talking about.

Oh, it's totally irresponsible.

They haven't seen it ever, ever, ever, ever.

Not a thing out of them.

And it's no $7 million or $6 million.

And we didn't miss it.

That's right.

And it's a house of evil.

I know.

And it's a head of that blood.

That blood.

Because it's for good things.

It's for good things.

I get paid, Senators.

That's right.

A lot of other things.

I think spending is my hazard.

But the only thing about spending we aren't really concerned about is we've got to be concerned about the one way it does.

In that case, we've got to be responsible.

You don't want to just, just because, betting is, you can't just do what the stupidest people in this country, and that's what you're supposed to do.

This is what the mediocrity is, and the uninformed, and that's the way to run an anchor.

The other thing you have to have in mind is, betting, if it is too irresponsible, may have

And this is partially answered by John.

But it could have an effect on the business community in terms of their thinking, well, are they going to be inflationary and so forth.

And it could have an effect on, well, if it's on our, you have references who say, well, because of this pandemic, I've got to say that I'm

So that's why I think the board of whiteness thing should come in.

I think we've got to get to the board of whiteness thing.

And so what does that do here?

They should be trying to take them all off.

Is that what you want to say?

Well, that's a hard part.

A lot of those are basically authorization.

Those are essentially what we're addressing.

And we can't do a question.

We need one of those.

What kind of...

So you have a kind of blue record legislative trust you want to have.

That's right.

And, you know, it's one of those, and probably the subjects you want to watch, is this narcotics task force thing, which doesn't cost anyone to speak of it.

We just charge some dollars for it.

And it's going to be, I think, a very strong...

Uh, yeah, a very strong thing.

But, uh, uh, research and development, there's something that we can kind of turn around.

We can just grab some money here and put that, put something together.

We can put that in terms of the fact that we need jobs.

Research and development, we're in a foreign competition.

I mean, it, it, it constitutes a very different place, and we're processing going through that now.

The main thing, John, that I'd like to get your appeal of, is that this sort of repeating is not in angles and times and so forth.

We can all ask that.

And that's just a judgment on everything.

Here's my reaction about the political posture we ought to be in in terms of this question.

One, do I understand you feel that we ought to try to report what you suggested?

All right.

I'm not listening.

Oh, boy.

That's right.

And then second, you would not include your own responsibility.

Third, what about anything else that you don't think you're going to get?

Yeah.

On the other hand, I'm pretty surprised about their names.

on the action growth policy.

Let's see, let's talk about those first.

What's the section deal about?

Well, I know, I know, I know, I know.

We've been, again, coming out of this poll and some other polls that we've gone on, there's a very strong national malady in some sectors of the country, wherever we are.

where we're going, and period.

Seventy percent of the people said no one in the direction of the country is going.

That's right.

And the Potomac Associates said in our poll also showed this.

Our response to that is to suggest to you that we think in terms of some goals for the country, because there's a lot of backing right now in terms of action goals.

You're coming out of a war.

You're going to declare peace.

What direction is this country going in?

How does this country grow?

So we think that's an important part of this particular New Year presentation.

This national growth policy effort is the one that we've had going on since we got here.

It's a question of how the country should develop, where we should have new cities, how we're going to accommodate our new populations, and all that kind of stuff.

The new cities thing we think is sexy.

We think that this urbain idea of a fund of language can be used to acquire land for a whole new city.

so that the acre of the property doesn't go to the speculator.

It comes back into the air bank.

In fact, we have a way of putting the land together, getting the loan, getting the permits, and then selling it off to the open users and the property being held in a pool to do the job again in another place.

Now, that's the general idea that a lot of us are still working on.

That's the general concept.

That's one aspect of it.

I've heard there is a much more intensive development of the Midwest in terms of economic base, in terms of moving industry there, moving federal facilities there, and that kind of thing.

That's generally starting.

But the main thing for you would be a statement of national goal and national purpose.

Now, the education effect ties to that.

And educational education ties to that.

We talk about kind of the kind of economy we want in 20 years to get our young people ready to do any PhDs, skilled people in technologies and this kind of thing.

And we want a nation of people able to do the kinds of jobs that are going to be there 20 years from now for our young people for this next generation to make peace and so forth.

So that's generally what that is.

It's very rough at the moment.

The $2,000 there is this revolving fund.

It's very much like the Inter-American Bank over here or the World Bank, those kinds of funds where loans are made and where there's rebate.

I don't know how you handle that in the budget.

It has to be in the budget or it can be outside.

That's what that number is.

The environmental pollution thing is simply more than the same.

Well, we've got a water quality bill, and that's a big-ticket number.

That's $12 million.

You're probably going to sign that.

You're probably going to hash sign it.

Yes, sir.

I just don't see any way around it.

No matter what the number is, do you agree with me?

I just think, politically,

We would be handing your head down a plaque to veto that.

Because it positions you- 86 to nothing in the Senate.

86 to nothing in the Senate.

Virtually every governor is for it.

I had the House Committee down here.

I would have voted for this before the end of the year.

Well, I guess we could put something in the first six months.

We're going to have a big pickup in the waste treatment.

You just can't put the election above everything else.

If it's that bad, the hell with it.

Well, I had that feeling.

Perhaps if it was the director of the country, so be it.

But the goddamn departmentalists run the country.

And so I have to keep doing a lot of other things and let it take over.

That's just great.

Well, that one just killed me.

I don't know if we have a chance to look at those questions.

We loaded into that phone area, and we tried to load them any which way we could to smoke out any weakness in this popular segment on this subject, and there just isn't any.

God, it's just devastating.

that the House of Publicans came after, the House of Public Works Committee, and we talked to them like that reference about this, about the loss of jobs, about the industry going offshore, and all this kind of thing.

And afterward, two or three of them came up to me and said, well, you know, you're right, but I can't do that.

I just can't.

We're in one of those situations where whatever we do here on this island, I'm afraid, is that if I had any choice,

We have taken a tremendous amount of political questions in the newspapers because of our opposition to this bill.

And we've done everything we can to get our side of the story out there.

And we feel a bit hurt by the editorial writers who just say, the bastards are against clean water.

And that's a kind of oversimplified emotional response to get to this kind of thing.

Now, our common pollution stuff is a continuation of the previous two years of legislation, basically.

And it's fairly low-tech.

Uh, research and development.

I'm not prepared to talk to you very intelligently about the moment.

We've shared general record there, John, before that.

Yes, research and development.

But the only thing I can say is that we just can't go about it.

As far as what is straight to the head, you can't afford to be doing that for us either.

But now that we've come to the other, the other, what's your, what's your reaction to the actual rule?

The national growth of the national growth policy is described here.

Well, basically, it's good provided that we get to give out what we say.

There's a couple of problems.

The thing I like about it is, frankly, is in terms of getting people the hell out of the two coasts, which are rock, and getting them to the middle of the country, which is more healthy.

That's what I like about it.

I don't know if anybody's going to move, but I think they are.

They're jobs.

Oh, yeah, they are jobs.

And there are a lot of things you could do to save money jobs.

If you control land, if you control development, if you go into the industry and say, here's a site that's on a railroad, a highway, an airport, and it doesn't cost you as much, then there's going to be a labor market.

And that's all part of this scheme.

Now, it's never been done.

But it's the sort of thing that has a great deal of overlap in many different areas.

First place is population, second place is building new industries, new cities.

It had overtones in the environment.

You moved the people out of the congested areas

put it back where it is between there and pure water.

And you're not doing it in government.

This would be a quasi-private corporation that would operate this stuff.

And you'd set it up with a board of directors and a businessman running it.

And they would make business decisions on the assembly of this land and the construction of these cities.

And not that I'm a bureaucrat, so I think it has a fair chance of working.

Uh, but I'm still, frankly, it's a good thing to be four.

It's a good thing to be four.

Take some oil there and tend to the west and see if you can grow it.

And then you let them expand.

That's the person that's lost me.

That's this growth center thing that we've been working on.

I had the idea of going out and building a farm and building a city.

Well, it's not economic.

You take the place that's got a school, that's got a city hall, and you expand the growth center problem very quickly.

Well...

That's that.

Let me just tell you how our thinking has come, and George has been in on this, and Pete Peterson, and a lot of people, Pete Langdon, and others that are sort of a routine group.

The bureaucracy has come up with a great long list, as we can do.

95% of which is crap, and about 5% of which is pretty sexy, some pretty interesting things.

And that's not a list of maybe 200 different possible projects that are good or not good.

Right.

But it's caused us to think, what is this all about?

And really, it's about three different things.

It's about some strategic industries that are in trouble.

Aerospace, airlines, railroads, several of those.

It is about international competition, which is a separate subject.

It is about how to organize the federal government to attack this problem.

And that's about some specific projects that we could do.

And we're trying to sort out these four different subjects now and figure out how to deal with the problems in each one of those four areas.

How the aerospace and airlines and railroads might be able to get a subsidy.

We're probably looking at a brand new federal approach based on the fact that this country needs those industries.

And that we can't afford to have them slip down.

That slots over in the international competition.

And we'll have the international competition for those industries.

We're looking at a different subject on international competition, antitrust, changing the tax laws, some things of that kind, in addition to intelligent research and development strategy, to career education, vocational education, to help us on the international competition side.

That's getting most of it.

Now, the domestic NASA...

How to manage this thing in the federal government is something we're working on right now.

We haven't arrived at any conclusions, but what we're planning toward is probably the abolition of the Office of Science and Technology and Science Advisor.

And a different kind of a structure, probably in the Office of Management and Budget, on the budget management side, and then a pure advisor.

You're a science advisor who doesn't have any life responsibilities, but you're out here in case you have a question that you want to ask on the subject of science.

And then this OAB entity, with the clout, with the money, and the access to you, tell the departments that they've got to have a plan for our team, that they're pissed for only $16 million a year, and that we've got to have some better application of that money.

According to the plan, would you approve your plan?

Now, that's sort of the way it stands for me.

But then for Wintercrest, in the state of the Asian, two or three very sexy R&D projects that you can light up there and say, this is R&D-ish.

You're not going away with any ideas.

Well, yes, part of it.

Part of it.

NASA will be very important.

You know what the boys would say to the Department of Transportation?

Okay, we've got to cut community time in half.

That's what it's going to cost us all.

NASA is going to be successful around this.

We've got to have somebody in the office of the President who can bring those two together and force them.

If you simply make a domestic asset out of an asset, then they're adhered to the Department of Transportation.

And there's many ways of forcing that together on the project, except in the White House.

It's a practical matter.

So we keep coming back to the necessity of having some better device here for running this whole thing.

And OMB is a much better place to put it than to have a separate thing.

I mean, it's like a divider.

It's also science and technology, and science is a disaster.

In other words, we just have to go with any of that.

Because, you know, we just have these creatures down here, and they don't know anything.

Just get in our hair.

I mean, this finally turned science into basically the uses of man, rather than the uses of ideology.

Well, I think the problem is that

Well, I'm just giving you my thinking.

I'm still on the going.

The way I see it is small.

The scientists all have in their minds the image of Einstein, which tells them to be tracking down the atom bomb.

And he tracked down that because he doesn't know science.

That, I think, was the...

And they still have that image.

But it's an unreal image.

It shows them the way things have developed.

Science has not been done like the world as it was thought right after the atom bomb was dropped.

What has happened is there's a big science effort now.

The OSCE and science advisors have turned into a built-in lobby within the executive office of the president for spending money on science.

So they get discredited because they're just an advocate.

And while we are budgetaries, we do a lot of work on the research.

We have some people from the Office of Science and Technology that come into the year and are genuinely useful and helpful and bring information about the technology.

So most of them

George, the same thing applies, and this is something I've watched, the same thing applies to any time, but operational.

You just can't have, you just cannot have an operational mechanism given.

So I would think that somehow, if we continue to think on this, the location of some special operational thing in NASA, in ADC, which is very good, especially here,

They're doing well with that, it really is.

And I continue to be impressed with the National Bureau of Standards and what the FBI control has to do with relationships with the private sector.

And we ought to start to figure out how to make them deeper operational.

This is an archivist enforcement thing.

uh, came out of Treasury.

Uh, Roses and Martin Palmer were there to come up with an idea, which I'm now staffing down through Mitchell before I send it to you.

But it's a very attractive idea for strike forces to, uh, go out and arrest and jail the street pusher.

And we've got to have a low level of the distribution effort in, uh, our college.

and to massively move on this through strike forces that will be headed by Miles Ambrose.

And I think it has a lot of political facts to be able to show, a lot of activity, a lot of cases being filed, a lot of connections.

And why haven't we done it before?

Well, we, of course, had the initiative over at the NBA, and they just haven't shown the scene.

And I think we just have to change teams.

Makes sense.

Yes, I think that they talk to you, you see.

Yes.

You have to understand that this is a hell of a fight.

It's a blood war.

And I don't think they can do anything.

Well, that's right.

And frankly, of course, I'm prejudiced.

I'm not objecting about it.

But I just think my man, Roger, Gene, was sitting just as damn much smarter than Jackie and Michelle.

They're nothing but the same.

And just all stupid.

So, yeah, it's just right.

I mean, those briefings that I told you, John, whoever put in that briefing with me, you haven't seen him since.

That's right.

But he just, he does, well, we just, John, this will not be the day that we're going to meet again because it just, well, let's see what we can call it or what.

Well, let me say that there's going to be other ways to handle it.

I don't want you or any other way to try to get any of this.

I have ideas about what ought to be done about this, and we're going to do it.

And that being, what is it, zero?

That's the justice system.

Well, God, we're going to have to get them out.

I think we've got to grab that, and I think this is putting these two back organizations fighting each other to stop.

They ought to come back, really, or they ought to all be in place.

They were rich, but they were in Treasury.

Treasury's booted up under this guy, whatever his name was.

He was the director of the whole time.

And so in order to get some action, they took the BNB and turned it out of there.

But Cousins and BNB, that general work, all of you get it.

Well, John, I did.

University.

Yeah, but this idea gives us any strats on this.

Because it's going to be a joint strategy for us.

That's right.

Well, if you don't scramble, I'm afraid you can go shed a lot of blood.

And I just think this is a practical way of showing some movement in the election year.

And it's going to suffer from the fact that it has no department of justice on this.

Let's go on down these things.

We've sort of got a field almost.

Now, about counter-revenue sharing.

Let me say I just...

Do not include a pair of gloves, that's for sure, on my welfare report.

Well, the only thing I have is a mask.

But anyway, I don't want to be too much for it anyway.

I mean, I just want to, you know, you know, I had to do something, sure.

Space, what's the problem there?

What do you want?

We have a problem there, so we go ahead with the next two stops.

Oh, uh, if we don't, no shots before the auction.

Then, uh, what do we do with all those employees?

Uh, no jobs.

Yes, sir.

How many?

How many, George?

17,500?

I don't know about that.

The order, uh, I think the problem is that, uh, unless the whole thing is canceled and you dismiss the employees, you wind up keeping the employees.

And then, then...

It costs you the same whether you have a shot or not.

It's a practical mistake.

Plus the fact that if there's a long, long period between any activity, they go stale in the job.

And the safety factor of the shots tends to become worse.

I don't like the feeling of... ...spinning shots between all the options.

But I...

Well, for years, you're right.

American people really are not too impressed with any more space shots.

I can see it was an incredible thing.

It's wonderful.

The scientific community had their tongue out a lot for these next few shots.

They just say, yeah, they're going to find out everything about them.

And American people say, yeah, so what?

So what?

That is the fun way to get adapted.

But thinking of the same, in just pure job terms, it is a hell of a job.

In parts of the country, Texas and California in particular, we didn't report it to us.

In how strong do you go ahead with these space shuttles?

And, uh, with these things that fall on the shots, the shots are not... We're $70,000 to be transferred to those things.

Now, there's a debt because of the start.

They tend to be at the, uh, at Houston and, uh, at Kennedy and so forth.

That's the stigma of the production apparatus.

I owe it to you.

I could waste the money.

Keep the people off.

I don't make the shots.

What about the shots?

I just don't feel the shots.

are, uh, I just don't feel that they are a good deal at this time.

And the scientific community will come to hell.

They're always wrong.

They're wrong on that G. They're probably wrong on this.

Uh, I could listen to them on this for sure.

Well, could I try out another possibility?

I mean, the, uh, the last shot is the one in which they unloaded, uh, a great amount of their scientific kind of stuff.

from the ones that have been canceled before.

That is scheduled after the election.

I wouldn't, that I wouldn't follow.

One after the election.

This is going to be an education team vote, but I don't.

You see, Tom, it's also the risk you could have another Apollo 13 and have somebody go off into space.

It would be the worst of anything we could have.

We just aren't going to do it, so there's not going to be any doubt about me now in the election, period.

The last shot, fine.

Okay, because another country will do the last shot.

Well, the last one, the date of the last one has been announced.

So that's established.

All I can say is, well, there's going to be one more of these things.

That's right.

And we'll get as much of a thing as we can.

I'm going to cancel the thing.

I'll keep the people on it, but I'm not sure.

I don't care.

I got it.

Oh, yes.

The fact that Mitch is making $70,000, I don't think I'll agree with you.

It's $75,000.

Let's go forward to the last shot.

That's fair enough, John.

Now, mass rapid transit.

Now, what's the help with that?

Just a second on the question of the shuttle and the ongoing programs.

There is already a question there as to what the ongoing programs are going to be.

The Southern California people have a mighty press on for the space shuttle to be located in Southern California.

And it's a highly visitor-impacted thing.

Now, if we were to announce that the State of the Union at some time is going to head to a space shuttle, that's a big statement.

It's not very much out there.

I wouldn't say that would be made.

It isn't even the State of the Union thing that's particularly interesting.

Why don't you put it out in California, where you're going to put jobs, great jobs.

I don't think so.

I think people get one damn lot of space show.

Well, they do the first jobs and that's it.

That's right.

Sure.

So what are the great jobs out there?

Yeah.

It's California.

Well, there are three competitors for it right now, as I recall.

California is good.

California was, uh, California is the place for it.

You don't want to be in California.

You don't want to be there for it.

And that is California.

That would be closer.

We've got a good governor out there.

But not this.

He comes in on mass press.

That's right.

Within the shuttle, would we be able to move around?

How strong do you go forward?

Sure.

questions about their NASA's field program.

There are some options that are a little more modest that will probably take more modest options and that we'll take a look later to see.

I don't know, don't get too, this kind of frequency can take 14 months rather than nine.

It's the simple way.

Instead, we'll do it.

We're going to go forward.

We're going to be positive on space because it's right and so forth.

Because while the country, look, nobody's going to be against us because we go for space.

And a few might be for us because we do that.

And that's not the way to look at this.

We can say, well, the majority of the people, for example, aren't for any kind of a program.

Well, that's true.

Like agriculture.

I think 5% of the people believe we should have, should have farm price reports.

Aren't we getting rid of them?

But there are 15% that believe we should have them.

They'd vote you the hell out of office in those states.

Right, John?

So what you're looking at here is the control of the aerospace industry.

Yep.

If you say that we're going to hit the space shuttle, that helps right now.

Everybody's chin goes up.

Right, John?

Right, John.

But I think also here, well, the shuttle and the skyline keep man and space to a degree.

Yep.

The direction of this program has shifted, and I think it ought to shift, particularly your instinct on canceling Apollo 16 in the region, away from manned spaces and toward doing most of these things on a non-manned basis.

I think which can be done, and I think you can sort of make that point.

Well, they can't do it on a non-manned basis.

Most of the things apparently can be done.

And, uh, when you put that in, it becomes a stunt after a while.

I think we still, I feel like you put that into things like, you know, the usefulness of being spit on in this program.

Things like your intelligence satellites and stuff like that, that's all on man.

And you never have to maneuver those things.

So, uh, it is your right for that purpose on a non-man basis.

Okay.

The reason I brought up transit here is that it's a question of emphasis.

I think, uh, CAP was inclined toward putting back on some of this, oh, he's got an experiment going and, and, uh, we've got some stuff, uh, subsidy of the eastern seaboard and that kind of thing.

Uh, this, this is an apparent issue.

I'm not so sure it's a real issue.

And I think, uh,

We owe it to you to at least call to your attention going by that the incline is to deny the census.

And I don't know whether that's right or not.

I have a feeling on projects like this, Mr. President, the children, not only the demons, but completely abolish them, or really highlight them on the

and support where it becomes a matter of national interest.

Nobody knows what you're doing on that transit.

I sure don't know.

Nobody knows.

I'm wishing to have all the money on it, I'm sure.

And I guess it's good.

But I have no great interest there.

But you spend the money, what do you get for it?

You don't even get the attention of the people.

This is my reaction to things of this kind.

Because of it, the label of the pilot plant operation highlights, say, we're going to spend $100 or $200 million.

Really, we're trying to bring in folks out of that kind of event.

And that's true of most of these projects of this type.

Now, Bogey would scream if you shut it.

Maybe you can't shut it, but I'm just saying shut it.

Well, I'll make my way to the church.

I think the problem with this is

It's thought of as a transportation thing.

It really needs to be thought of in terms of how you make cities work.

It's a community development operation.

And so that it's a transportation move.

It's sort of tactical.

Well, it doesn't have a deal.

If you can make it another aspect of this story, and that is it is largesse for a congressional district for a city.

It's construction work, it's jobs, and that really is worth paying on top.

Some of this time around, some of it really is competing, and it's going.

We've got some subway projects going, for instance, around the country, different cities and so on.

But I think the Secretary is right.

We know we've been in credit for it.

We've never been in credit for it.

The only way to get credit for it, as I know, is for Volpe or somebody in the administration actually to go there and stand there and get his picture taken and yell and holler about it.

But Volpe does.

And, well, I'm not so sure he does.

Well, does he?

He does, yeah.

But he is a robot.

Yeah, he ought to do a hell of a lot more of them, and I think that's where it comes down to.

That really ought to be his job, is to get us credit for the stuff we're doing around here.

But you see...

Well, I was just going to say, Mr. George, please let me know something.

These treaties are for all exchange of technical information.

No, but if you say we're going to have a mass transit, massive study of Washington, Baltimore, Wilmington, New York, Hartford, and so forth, then you've got a leg there.

You've got some piece of it.

All right.

We put out a little flag.

Great message on it and so forth.

Nobody knows what's happening about it.

So I don't know what we can do about it.

I agree with that, Mr. President.

I think you need to imagine, here in New York, the airline president.

We're going to kill ourselves.

It's going to be impossible.

And anything less than 200, but not between these great urban centers, or travel by.

That's what I'm saying.

West, you know, we've mentioned Detroit, Chicago, et cetera, St. Louis, that group, Cincinnati, going through there.

It's true.

But you really need to just highlight whatever, and that's basically all I'm saying.

You need to focus attention on it, because this solves, this helps solve the problem.

This will take automobiles off the streets, cut down on air pollution, and so forth and so on.

Let's go to agricultural programs now.

What do we have there?

What can we do?

That's the first one that hasn't been posted.

I think we're headed for more expense on that than any of the next few.

If Butts is confirmed, he's going to have to make good commitments that he's making around.

And I guess if we're starting to prioritize some of the farm locations to get support,

And my impression is that, in a budget view, that wasn't realistically taken into account, because that's what it hurt or engaged me.

That's really what it's on the list.

I think we've got to, we've got to...

So what, the rate of the car and free support prices?

Yeah, and the 72 levels, because there are 72 levels, and as soon as the levels of expenditure begin in the next fiscal year, I think we're just kidding ourselves on that.

We've got to handle it with some money.

Are we talking about this 72 levels or higher?

What are we talking about?

I don't know.

I don't know what we're talking about.

What are you thinking about?

Well, I don't know what we're going to do.

The cry increases the level of the eye.

I don't think you can decrease the level of the eye.

You should be able to keep your levels.

It's same with me.

You know, there's this enormous pressure from the Clark people.

And they say, why so hard?

Why so big pressure?

What we have done on the Clark, believe it or not, not really much of it.

We will report on this.

is to increase the set-a-size by substantially at 73, which will cost us almost a billion dollars.

So that's why I say I'm pretty sure that 73 budget levels will cost us.

We're at a size where we're low at 72 because of the fear about the blight and what would happen if it was blight spread.

And then we have the normal crop that lost them.

So...

This year we spent a lot and it cost you a lot to buy that.

Well, I think if we just all agree that that's an area that we need a lot of attention to.

Yeah, we're going to be rolling something anyway.

Stockpiles.

Stockpiles are, there's a question of how we display the sale of stockpile lands.

We've been doing, I guess, year after year's assumption.

And

I think we're doing quite a lot of alcohol or something here.

No, I mean, except that you saw these people the other day, and I understood that there were some instances that you might want to make a mental health report to bring up.

We didn't have a message on it.

They didn't have anything.

I mean, it's more to support their goals and so forth and so on.

They didn't raise the money properly.

I know Richardson's going to come out very strong with their work on getting mental health centers.

That's what Johnson did.

It's a Johnson proposal.

The theory was that it was going to be a representation of all communities.

It hasn't worked.

And we are resistant to that.

I'm not for it.

How about the community assistance?

Well, that's one of these sort of all-you-can-do things.

Community action.

You know, can you get a program?

He's going to come out very strong.

So...

That, along with the next one, model cities, is something that we have to anticipate.

We're going to get a lot of pressure to, from Romney, if we get a bunch of people in the whole business, and I'm just glad you're going to buy it.

The budget policy, I know we're going to hold that down.

We're going to hold it down.

Mine is basically, mine is intended to make you want communities, districts, and monitors sold in a lot of cities.

See, we have done a thing in all the cities in this variations thing that's with the Moscow Refugee Share, with a lot of all that to do with federal spending, a lot less federal and federal involvement.

And so it isn't all as horrible as it was in terms of the concept of the program, but we're not going to, this is considered one of the areas where we can cut.

Why couldn't you take it here?

This is more of the area of rehabilitating.

This one is basically model cities for this number.

Model cities really has to do with going into ghettos and, you know, rehabilitating.

It doesn't, it can't be built to rehabilitate.

It was started out, you see, they call it demonstration neighborhoods.

And that's really what it is.

And then they put this better tag on it.

Well, let me just talk about one idea about this.

As I drive through these cities, there's nothing wrong with a great deal of slum areas of America that are weak, terrible, picked up, cleaned up.

Catch you there.

And honey, what about yours?

That's what I mean.

That's very true.

And I bet in terms of you declaring that this is Unify America Week or Clean Up Now or something, it just makes a real effort along in the summer, whether it's good or in the spring, to get the paint manufacturers to give the paint and get the local carpenter unions to agree to devote a day of their time to patch it up and get the carpenter working and so forth and so on.

It just really...

You know, we did part of that here in the district.

And we went through the neighborhoods one by one with trash trucks.

And the kids we hired and picked up all the trash off the empty lots in the streets and in the alleys and all that kind of stuff.

Got an unbelievable amount of stuff.

Tons of them.

Just tons of them.

And if nothing else, they'll call out the National Guard during that week.

And for cleanup, if you do it in the summer, they'll all be in the summer camps.

Let them call it off.

Get a lot of pain.

My God, I grew up through this.

I grew up through this federal housing project.

Five years old.

Forged on the west coast, that's right.

Filthy, that's not believable.

But maybe you can show the people some sense that they themselves can do a lot for their properties.

You know, we've got a housing project in St. Louis that I saw the other day that we're closing.

It consists of about 17 high-rise apartments set side by side and slated.

It must be eight years old.

Yes, sir.

It's ruined.

Just totally ruined.

Because it's black.

You don't see them all, do you?

Well, at least the second housing policy of the housing thing is just a massive failure.

What is the situation with regard to crime ownership units?

Is that failed?

It's very small.

It is working.

Sometimes, you know, or they walk away.

They work best where you have a church group or some organization that has

rehabilitated a block of houses and put people in there because then you've got a pastor or somebody coming around and kind of looking after it.

But if you do it with just a girl who's a hired social worker who comes around and teaches a lady how to use the sink and that kind of stuff, it doesn't seem to work.

A third of the housing is subsidized.

A third of all housing?

Yep.

Well, the trends now are running toward simplifying the attached units.

And that's very good.

You know, you've got a very causal trend on this question.

And you've got a very high level and over to the units here.

That's the last one.

That's the count of the others.

How are you going to do it?

Well, we've got to do it ahead of time.

That's the point.

We've got to patch it together.

Keep going.

Many are here.

I understand.

Both of you heard about this.

This is Reader's Diet Reservation.

They don't have a consult.

That tells you what I mean, but they're the only ones I do it for.

Well, they don't need it.

They're the only ones I do it for.

And I show us the cost.

It costs $200 million a year.

Yes, sir.

They plan it.

We plan it.

I see that they're not really hurt yet because the rate commission hasn't decided what their most rates are going to be.

But they all tell you what the work's on since they were going out to the Congress.

The bill introduced today that wants to close the case, correct?

That's right.

These are all the national records?

Yes, yes.

NMI, NMI, Newsweek.

It's like a whole lot of scanners.

It includes county newspapers, it includes NMIU, it's basically a political problem.

I just think that you're magical.

I don't agree with that.

But I would say this, I don't think you're going to take their figure.

I certainly think we should be negotiating around there.

They're particularly upset, as I understand it, by the precipitous nature of this.

I mean, I think it's really...

Will it cost them more than the total profits of the past year?

Well, see, the cutting of the law requires that the REITs be on a business-like basis and actually pay their allocated share.

Well, they never have paid their allocated share.

It's always been subsidized because of the educational value invested in the area.

And they had to pick up what they're required to pick up.

They don't go broke like Wood and some of the others.

And I've had guys from the post office over and talk to them about this.

And they say, well, that's what the law says.

We're just carrying out the law.

Yeah, of course you are.

I can argue the other side pretty well, too.

I don't know that it would be any great disservice to the American people if both of my kids went out to vote in the future.

Correct.

They could be selective.

They don't have to vote.

Yeah.

Well, which ones can survive?

They're hanging on just by their...

They're locked by their totems right now because of the telecompetition, television, and all that.

And people just buy them off less than they can compare them to.

So, so little goes out there.

It's what Boston used to say.

So light goes out.

So vividly goes out.

Or even time.

Now, these fellows like Andy Donovan and all of our great friends, they've got no influence on their writers.

Try that with it.

You don't have to have a publisher for it.

So that just means you really don't get cut.

Well, I mean, you have to do it.

You have to do it.

There's a newspaper that's right down the road.

But it's going to be clearly labeled as subsidy law.

So what harm would anybody else be in such kind of a mess?

That's right.

Well, he's going to go out and speak to a White House conference on the agent.

And I'm going to see Fleming here in a few minutes and try to make sure that that conference goes without too much bad advantage to us.

But when you talk to them, they've only been going for four days and everything is wrong.

I'll reply to the agent on this kind of thing.

And Arthur and Elliot are urging that we go for some kind of a late-ticket item for the Asians as a political bump.

There are a lot of laws that we can do, and your speech will contain those kinds of things.

You're going to have a director joining as a consultant to the government on those problems, and you're going to have a domestic counsel committee to look after the problems of the agent and all that sort of stuff.

But there are these little boys that wheel these people by purchasing those others.

are listening to those big tech things, and it's like a federal subsidy for prescription drugs.

That's a very sexy word for it, and that kind of thing.

Now, we had a meeting today, and the President probably very properly said, these are all swell that we really like, and it's just really a political gesture.

This is what we want.

I'm going to call on the second half, and I'm going to go speak.

Well, that certainly does well, and I think there's a lot of questions.

I'm going to be ready for that.

It seems to me that if you do decide to go for this real estate tax back,

But that's a very big, I repeat, people have fixed their income in the past few years.

But you can't say that right now.

Of course, after the election, what are you going to say about it?

But there's a general political judgment as to what proportion of the budget ought to be diverted to some of these interest groups like the farmers and the agents.

You're talking about the farmers and the agents and groups of people that are very important to us, right?

That are leaning in our direction.

And that we, it isn't a question.

I mean, it isn't a question like, you talk about the blacks, you're talking about people you're not going to get.

You're talking about the Jews, you're talking about people you're not going to get.

You're talking about the Indians, you're talking about people you have and maybe get a few more.

But you're not going to lose any of them.

And the same true to Parker.

Now that's politics, I mean.

That doesn't hurt in the long run.

It's a lot of money.

Is that a cross-current with the notion of keeping the budget under some kind of control?

But if there's something, I would suggest that as the one, you know, just gets into a program that they're holding, it's probably going to be anyway.

I mean, these are the functions.

water projects for the West.

If you talk about the

All of the talk in that city runs the other direction.

They can't really get their homes.

And a lot of people don't want to keep their homes and that sort of stuff.

But I'll find out about that and see what happens.

There's a certain number of people you have to take care of.

Right.

That's possible.

Well, one of the projects in the west that needs to

like this, the other thing that Roger's particularly interested in, and it's going to be kind of a bunch of thoughts on, uh, federal aid increases in the sport of real estate.

You don't know, I don't know what the effector's quest to post a loan for $600,000 is.

There are moves in both houses to attach to the, uh, Economic Stabilization Act.

Some sort of amendment that, uh,

in the sense of saying federal employees should be treated the same way everybody else does.

Now, the pay board standard is 5.5%, which that's what they put forward as the 1972 standard.

So that is coming along.

It hasn't been so powerful lately, but I was very struck in the last five hours of meetings we've had on the phase two business.

the force that people like George Mayon used in lecturing at me, saying, you know, you can't be too rigid about this, and you can't remember.

You buzzed over the barrel on this.

You get that word to man at some point.

So I think this is very much of a live issue.

What a possibility it would be to say, all right, we'll take the 5.5%,

for the whole calendar year of 1972.

Now that would cost us about $1.3 billion more than is in these figures in fiscal 1972.

It would save us some in fiscal 1973 because we now have the full comparability of pre-schedule for July 1st that we have in the digital.

probably around 4% of the schedule.

That is the status that we can take.

I'd like to say it's all right.

We're trying to accept the treatment.

All right.

That's the way it is.

It's already flowing.

And I say it now.

Yeah, I do it on the affirmative basis.

I travel with the Congress right now.

I'm saying, Chairman, the State Board says operations establishes the criteria.

I think you're right.

Betterment flowing ought to be treated as fair.

You know what I'm saying?

It's too loud.

Let's go.

It's got to be happening.

When we talk politics, let me just tell you, there are federal employees in California that are in the District of Columbia, though.

And it's a hell of an important thing, right John?

There are a lot of Texas, which, well, and that's what they're going to have there.

So it's a very good point.

That's a very good discussion.

And we ought to, I don't think they will go ahead.

I don't want to give the illusion of just kicking out federal employees.

I mean, I'm sure there are a lot of federal employees.

But hold the 5.5 for the full calendar year.

That's right.

I can't point out that it's exactly Georgia, which is exactly what it says.

It couldn't be better.

I don't know.

They may get a different reaction.

Some of these guys are going to say, well, whoops.

The second half of the calendar year would have been better without this, but they're going to

And also, let's face it, they don't like it.

It's too damn bad.

We're going to give you some money now, but we're saying, we're treating you exactly like everybody else did.

It's a good position.

It's a very sound position.

It helps us on our other costs.

John, on the helmet issues that we had to talk about there, what I would like to do this afternoon, John, I'm sorry that you were stood.

I want to talk to you alone, you know, about some things.

But I have to say, at 3.30, let's go on.

Have you had it?

You are, but let's talk a little about how you really hammer away at that.

George, just to discuss, I don't want those other people in there.

Let's cut us in two.

On the, uh, on the special case, I... Yeah.

We should get a record, so I'm positioning our people on that, so that you might announce that out in California.

Is that right?

I'd like to get the jump so that we don't get jumped on.

That's right, sir.

I take our issues all the way.

That's right.

I don't think that's quite fair.

Everybody else has said that we're going to have 5.5% of the year.

Excellent.

I have one other question.

Mr. Captain, you go back to this table.

Yeah.

It's an intense line.

We, I think, together, you know, I swear, if you are, if you decide that you are, then I think it's, uh, we have to, we have to take this to the secretary, because it's incomparable that he is not, he's really not in the picture, in the sense that, uh, it wasn't a little more than our earlier figure, a little less than his figure, or just more than his figure,

on the obligational authority.

And it's a little less, a lot less than... Well, I think you'll have that picture, but there's a lot that we've finished.

After we've finished, as Thomas just announced, we've got our committee.

I want to talk to you about it before we see it.

After we get this evaluated, I'll get you and Kissinger and John and I to talk about what we've done there.

That would be 4 o'clock.

All right.

Very good.

I'm going to put some stuff on the airplane for you.

One question.

This veto, this political contribution thing, that's fantastic.

I think we can turn it up on to us.

Well, the conference will take place Monday, Tuesday.

And you may want to indicate...

two days out in California, or where we are.

But between now and then, you're going to have to decide what you want to do.

And I think that you've told us some questions now as to whether you need to tell us, as to whether we can purchase now.

And I want you to really, well, I want to at least raise the question for you, because we're trying to develop some facts and some figures now as to who would contribute

and just where the damage would result.

And I'm not prepared to say what those are going to show you, but I'm prepared for it.

Well, may I change your mind?

My mind is not... No, I'm trying to get to the... You know, I was trying to get to the other end.

My God, you've got your congressional leaders out there.

Yes, sir.

Brock, sir, you've got to be going on, you know...

uh but you still get back to the very fundamental objective that seems to be that this is

rather than to indulge in people with accrued money, yes.

And that's a fact.

And likewise, they will be free in their party.

That's correct, because it doesn't go to the party, it goes to Canada.

That's correct.

Now also, if you can, John, when analyzing this, analyze the impact, or the lack of impact, of giving contributions.

It makes for a lot of these guys from the Labour and the Postal Society.

which is who gets the most money on his team.

I mean, hell, I understood it, but we leave us a legacy for the political system in this time around.

And you've got to remember that the smartest thing the founders did was to limit the voters in this country out of three and a half to four million people, 200,000 voted.

And that was true for a hell of a long time.

And the Republicans would never have survived if all the times they voted belonged to the intelligent people.

Now we've gone all the way, the other way, and we've had supporting members, we've had people voting down there, we've even got the Literacy Justice now.

So you've got people voting blacks, whites, Mexicans, and the rest that shouldn't have anything to say about government, mainly because they don't have brains, you know.

Now, what you're really doing here, I've been a candidate, and one thing that disowns a candidate is that he has to go out and get people

not simply to say, I'll vote for you, or I'll come for you, but they have to put their money to it.

And you really got to make an argument there.

Now, they say, oh, you think you're going to sell your vote?

That's the way you do it.

You simply demonstrate to those people that you are the kind of responsible person that they want.

And if I got to have people that will contribute money, make decisions as to who will leave this country, that, frankly,

The mom, that's what I'm worried about, you see.

I'm not concerned about your domestic conflict.

I understand.

That's it.

That's the job.

That's the bottom of the question.

Yes.

You have no mistake.

That really wasn't the hardest thing.

Well, this won't go to that.

And we'll have to see what this means.

But, yeah.

Okay.

Thanks.

We'll see.

For third.

I was looking at the problem.

Let's see.

Well, I just take the line that, you know, we're leaving this week.

You're going to be leaving this evening.

If you want from us some catch-up summary of what we think is going to happen, what should happen, just ask each other and just say, well, I'm going to think about it.

And I'll convey some thoughts to you as to why we are leaving.

Well, I think what he's going to do is

Well, I think that, again, you repeat for Henry and for George, at least some of them are going to follow up.

In fact, it's suggested that we do.

Just say they're going to be there.

I don't think they're going to.

Well, all right, temporarily.

But you have to remember that he said he's for giving home the gold and he is for a return to workability.

That's right.

And I just need to tell you this one particular position that we keep talking about gold.

And no one's talking about convertibility.

He takes the position we've got to have some sort of dynamic exchange rate.

And I said, well, how do we do exchange rate?

He said, well, you're talking about floating.

And I said, well, you're talking about floating.

So I just had a hard time with it.

Now, he talked about it.

He reported it.

Here's the question.

This is where our friends are going to lead us again.

The minute we get this realized, you're going to see this huge crowd build up.

But we've got to go back to some long-term partnership.

We've got to go back to some long-term partnership.

He's going to say, well, we're going to get some $700 million in special growing rights in January for the fund.

Why couldn't we use that to help the fund in its operation?

My answer to this, I don't care what the fund operates.

The change is removed.

So I've had a lot of, I've had a tendency, I've had a tendency, I've had a tendency to have some of these things that he says.

I think he's fairly well conditioned.

My husband made the first offer.

We have to have 10 or 11 on the average, regardless of what country it comes from, so that we won't just be sitting there like a bum on a hall and saying, well, you made us an offer, but it isn't good enough.

Offer something else.

I said, we can't be in that position.

We have to be more, I fully agree with that.

So that's about where we are.

Now with regard to what you were pushing along yesterday.

Yesterday I told the team, I know it's very clear, Ray's on the team all the time.

And he got off on Peter's back and said, Ray, he said, Peter, said Peter called on him back and said they're trying to get pressure put on Peter.

And he said, no, they all just called him and tell him.

And he said, and I told Peter about that for me yesterday.

I said, Peter, the thing is, you know, I said, well,

Don't you call that trust?

You call one guy.

If you've got a guy you trust, and then let him call.

But don't you get called?

Call what is it?

I don't know whether it would be your call, but burn it right up.

And he said, well, you're done.

I said, I'm already moving on.

I said, the president moved.

I said, this is five years.

Now, he says, I'm sorry.

That's fine.

I will take over the car.

I'm sorry.

Well, it's because there isn't always an answer.

You ought to be prepared for it.

Well, it's not good.

Why don't you check out and I'll let you know.

All right.