Conversation 647-010

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Do you remember Lou Langdon and Roy Morris?

All right.

It's a very lively problem here.

How are you?

Well, tell me, uh, what's, uh, where do you stand when it's time for your report to be in March?

Uh, we expect to be, uh, on time with the, uh, the duration of the meeting, which is later in the year, the month of, uh, January 1st.

And that's, uh, what we've scheduled for next weekend, the necessary amount for the weekend of, uh, of January.

for the purpose, really, of hamming out some decisions, which, you know, have at least the majority of people not to matter, which hasn't been any evidence of any major minority dissent.

But we probably have the one that's all sure to have some dissent still to come, which is the outlaw school.

This is really just about as a starting problem, I think, as we've encountered in all of the time.

We have certain tribes, as you well know, by two different stations that we've taken to New York.

And we have used what we know as good legal advice as we can get.

Paul Trine, for example, was one of those.

By the way, on the report of law school, we had come in to team up with him so that we would have the Catholic people under his command.

And the dean of the department of history very much asked him to be with him.

And the matter of what I'm saying is that the only thing really that's of interest to me is that the possibilities like tax benefits or tuition grants are regarded by trying, for example, as parents could be admitted to,

to make you a school parent, but also to be made a very important public school parent, which means that you're paying a hell of a lot of money, in a questionable way, to accomplish what is a doubtful result, even if actually accomplished, and without wanting to be unfair to Mrs. Bass, who is the most active pusher for this within our commission.

She is the head of

They broke the school system in the United States, to be honest with you.

And I don't think that we know the answer to that question.

And I have nothing about my relationship with him in this, which even though it disagrees with the way he's pushing for these national helps, which is other than a permanent one, as far as that's concerned.

But even though Matt has said that this is the best thing that we

but it's not very good, so that's where we are.

I don't think our commission is likely to go over something that's not very good.

It simply is to do something in this area.

But let's not spend any more time on that.

I just have to tell you, we want to have a decision, but it will be one which is not going to be a great big solution to the problem.

I think you'd like to help solve, and so would we.

I'm just coming from New York, and that was the property that I just was struck down on.

Here's my issue, a red tree.

The thing that we have done appropriately was, first of all, in the determination of the decision that the

And this is nothing new, but nevertheless, it seems to me to be a beginning that these states are to be regarded as the government industry which has the responsibility for determining and rating and distributing the money for elementary and secondary school education.

and I'll go to that, obviously, is that the funding needs to

than to be a state budget rather than a local budget.

So the funds can be raised statewide, and then having been raised statewide, can be allocated on a straight direction.

And this, of course, also leads to what seems to be clear indications of a kind of national move to

to outlaw the local national education with all the disparities that this permits in the funding by pupil numbers.

We do not take a position as to whether the states should raise that money with income tax, or sales tax, or a poverty tax.

We felt that that should be left to the state because the state themselves will probably have a different viewpoints on this.

As far as we're concerned, it doesn't make any difference to us which way it goes, so long as it's raised on a statewide basis.

We have one or two for this state raising the funds, and I'm probably going to raise the non-federal funds.

One is that we would like to see the local council, if we can, and we are pretending as they proposed,

while the state raises the funds and distributes the funds, but they're being prevented, at least.

They've been determined by a local school district of expenditure in the district to still further enhance the quality of the education that the district's given them.

To the extent of 10% of the funds expended on the state treasury.

Um, the reason for putting a 10% is that if you, uh, if you put something in there, we don't even know whether the 10% would be addressable under the traditional, uh, restraints.

But at least we, uh, they, uh, they support that.

We won't make it.

But the, uh, at least we are hopeful, which is very significant.

Uh, we can make some more.

But I think one of the things we can do more should be everything at all.

Sure.

Two questions.

I think the second question I would be having is, in the process, the states will find it rather difficult to move rapidly towards state funding.

I know we

of the gaps in between the raising of the money all the way and the raising of the money by the states, we are recommending that the federal government

To those who are current candidates, you have a copy of the committee.

That's right.

I'd like you to move in that area to the full state property.

I say property, property.

That's over there.

That's over here.

This would be a big project.

This is, uh, you know, one of the, sort of, out-of-the-counter bombs, sir.

Yes.

If it's appropriate, sir, we'll have you indicated.

You're five and a half over the five-year-old?

Yes, it could be, of course, sir.

It could be.

Uh, talk me out of your ground, sir.

Now, the only other idea that we have, or that I have, would be if all that we have is in respect to the current tools that we have found in areas of the earth, in the city,

And here, we concluded in notice, we would not submit evidence that the leaders might, and these are researches, to determine if any program across the board in the city, if the city program, could be recommended and urged so that as far as we can go, to recommend that the federal government be a source of funds to finance

uh... uh... uh... uh... uh...

The urban heritage continues to deteriorate.

All of this is getting passed on to a certain person who can't do anything about it.

I mean, the problem is it's very, very basic.

And urban heritage is where, as we know, people are moving out and so forth.

Can I ask a couple of questions?

I don't want to introduce you to people who care.

First, having considered the impact of the California detention decisions with regard to the property tax and, you know, with regard to the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, basically required there, uh,

that you cannot have a district like San Marino, California, where you get $3,000, perhaps, for 2,500 per cubicle, not 200 watts for the...

Well, it would be better than that.

Washington, for example, would take a little ballot where they could get $13,000 for the first time.

Correct.

And that, therefore, the state, that's how it was.

The general attorney would be inaccurate.

The Senate just gives us the same.

All right, we have one now.

So, therefore, the law is now beginning to toss, as I understand it.

that, and this of course applies to states and not us, but people out in the exterior, that we've got to find a way to get the state to show them whether they go up to the Capitol or whether they have to go up to the richest sucker in the world, Santa Maria.

It used to be the richest in the bunch of buildings in the country.

But anyway, that they've got to have the same educated block of energy, correct?

Is that basically what they have to say to the local educated people?

They have to live in the states.

Correct.

Live in the states.

In the states.

Right, right, right.

Yeah, who knows when we'll be spending money.

Have you considered that?

Yeah.

We've had it for seven years.

I guess it's just as far as what it puts us to this.

I mean, it's a great way to save money.

If you had to buy it, you'd have to save money, right?

No.

No, it's a great way to save money.

It wasn't the federal government who took the money.

Yeah.

We're going to have to go through anyway.

And if they get the same rate of the money and the same rate of the money, that means that if the bond you're raising is bad, because, why?

In other words, you, you're saying that all education should be funded on a statewide basis, rather than on a regular basis.

The bond needs to be raided, and the money needs to be distributed.

You're going to make a difference to the nation.

I do think that the term full-state funding, as Neil has used, however, is coming into our dialogue, or has been, as the Board of Education has used this issue now increasingly for the past five years.

So it would not be a sudden surprise.

It would be the culmination of a trend clearly labeled in the Toronto case perspective in California.

The President's point is that there's a lot of apparent control at the local level.

In other words, let us suppose that some day your first half of the block tells you that you can take him to San Francisco at a library.

I think that the difference in control of money raising and revenue distribution

It does not have as large of a philosophical impact as my PCI personally.

Because of that, I've traditionally been delegated as the first person letters to Jim Hazen around the time.

I'm sure it's been changed a little in the distance for some of your letters.

This is kind of the reason why I'm the first person letter.

I meet you every once in a while.

In fact, I've been boarded by Jim Hazen every once in a while.

They do vary a lot, but they do the same.

That's why, of course, the state has been delegated as the first person letter.

I'm sure that the panel will continue.

But I take it from what you said, Neil, that either this consideration underlay your proposal to have the domestic community to raise on its own tax base and allow the government to 10% of the expenditures determined by the state.

But in a way, it's preserving some degree of the practical representation of what art is, and what art is, and what art is.

to Brunswick where they had just gone to full funding by the original government and try to see how in need you could and they had better maintain the local control even though it was fully financed by the state government.

And of course we have certain states now that fully fund Hawaii for example

I think Hawaii is the only one.

Well now that you've talked about that,

I thought it would be great if you would just, at this point, John, I want to check with you, because you talked to Neil about some of these other problems, and I agree with you about the visitors.

Well, Lou, who I know here, has been working with him right along on our sort of parallel inward, and I think he's fully aware of the fact that we had a tax approach, and the sort of hypothesis we've been working with as a federal participation, and aware of the fact that we're

We've moved in that direction for a long period of time.

Yes, we did.

And you had an opportunity to discuss that with your group.

Well, we haven't done it.

We haven't had any information.

Why?

The purpose of our meeting here is this.

Let me say first, we have made no decision.

I had a long talk with John Connolly, and we talked about that.

And we're studying a number of proposals in active form.

And this educational aspect of it is a very important part of it, but not the major reason for it.

It is a major reason.

There may be another more major reason, but be that as it may.

Where the case might be, uh, if you don't know the personal history of the person who brought the property back to the police department, most of the state, the state general back to some sort.

Uh, second, of course, I understand what the actual rule is regarding the property back to the police department.

Even since then, I imagine we have, we have, I tried, the California Institute of Paramedics,

So we might come down to the point

You could make a pretty good case on putting it in its best when I'm sure it's going to buy it.

But the fact that you should have a substitute for that, at least a substitute for it in part or some way to stop the escalation of the car contract, I think we would have tremendous school responsibilities.

And you can't stop the escalation unless there's a massive federal assistance.

We're the only people who have national authority on that.

Or you're going to get the money.

You can't check out the general funds.

We don't have it.

We're going to have about 30 million dollars of it anyway.

So what you have to do is to find a substitute for that.

A substitute for that.

I think it's just that you have a responsibility that you have to support.

You have to correspond.

The main point is this.

And I think as I listen to you, I just wonder if any of your groups is going to have to reach some sort of conclusion.

I'd like to put it this way.

I'd like you to, you, without indicating that this was an improvement, we're going to talk about a prototype program.

or essential services.

But when you talk about the value they have to have both sides behind, when you talk about the problems of education generally,

I have gathered, underlying all of your assumptions, is that there may have to be something far more revolutionary if we had lived with the decisions that are coming out and the cost rise and so forth and so on.

So, it seems to me that it would be useful to have people in your group

The reason is Bob this year is that he has been, his commission has been studying this subject in general.

They're concerned that we not muddy the regulatory waters by getting too far out in front of them.

That's what we're not doing now.

But, same idea, not all.

The Advisory Commission has done a lot of state work in the area of federal support for education.

Isn't that correct?

Well, we did a part of it with the Stafford-Rios Commission on the Clemson side.

The Advisory Commission has, for a long time, been pushing this idea of substantial state involvement.

That was your commission that we were in charge of.

The problem, Mr. President, is this is one that's very focused on is how you get from here to there.

And to get from here to there,

Our staff came up with an idea of a federal incentive program for the long-lasting year now, and said if you were to leave, this would be a $5 million figure, if it's not for a pot-drying program.

We brought that up in the Senate meeting, and the commissioners said, if I can have this,

uh, reform, so that, uh,

We're in a position of saying the state should take a much greater share of the cost of financing, but without the answer to the question of how to do it, which is not a very good position to be in, in the sense of responsibility.

We have talked about it, and we've talked through the rules, pointing to the rules, the possibility of providing information,

I've lived with these problems in three levels of government.

First of all, I was in charge of the county government.

We did all the city finance in general.

We had to raise all the money for all the county schools.

It was pretty good.

A lot of people was there.

I had many people.

Second, as a governor, I went through a tax reform that equalized educational money by sending large amounts to areas such as the President mentioned, where the ability to raise money was very small.

And I've been involved in the ACIR on the federal level now.

We are looking, in my judgment,

It was one of the most complex problems that exists in government today.

If we confuse by an oversimplification of the application of a new broad-based tax such as value-adding

These intergovernmental relationships, we're going to find not only that we're going to have a chaotic result, but we'll jeopardize revenue sharing.

We will bring about some inequalities that will be almost impossible to rectify.

For example, Neil, you said the 10% of what I do.

My personal judgment, based on my experience, would be that it would not be enough just to stem a rather large egress to the private schools and the wealthy or some of the agents.

I think that the approach that we ought to be looking at is this.

We have special revenue sharing for education on the firm.

And this is really nothing more than special revenue sharing for education.

That's what we're talking about.

We're talking about making a whole new subject out of a subject we have conceived and placed before the Congress.

I think that's great.

Now, as far as our public relations is concerned,

I think the way we ought to do this is through these studies, through your commission and through the CIBAR, determine whether the Value Added Tax is a feasible device for channeling additional special revenue sharing monies earmarked for education with the specific purpose of relieving the property tax.

Now the reason I say it's sort of complex

is that property taxes are really historical creatures.

They'll stand a property tax of $13 or $100 up in Boston, but in California they'll call it confiscatory.

A lot of it depends on how they're assessing.

Are they assessing 100% of actual value or 60% or even 25%?

When I say $5 in California is considered confiscatory, it's based on the fact that they assess it 25%, whereas in the city of Newark, they have a tax rate of $13 or $12 assessed at $100.

Interplay is caused by all of the other nuisance taxes, the degree of the state taxes on sales, the type of tax they have, and what steps have been made to make that less regressive, and how that applies.

Interrelationships of state income taxes, whether they're graduated or not graduated, and what the purposes of the income taxes are, whether they're channeled into specific causes such as education.

All of this creates a meld that cannot be simply relieved by giving a state with a high property tax relief from a high property tax.

Maybe they have a high property tax and maybe they have a very low income tax to compensate for.

And if you give them the relief, you may not be relieving a state that's making a bigger effort at income taxing.

So it seems to me that to simplify our approach, we ought to look at the value-added proposition as hardly a special revenue-sharing proposition, maybe some other general revenue-sharing.

moving toward your objective to encourage the states to a greater equalization of education costs, an immediate type of overall responsibility, but certainly equalizing the lack of ability of some school districts in some poor areas to provide quality education.

In that way, we're not going to get all of the local school boards in an uproar.

We're not going to get the local governments in an uproar.

We are not going to

But our opponents in the Congress say, well, you know, it's going to put in special revenue sharing for education, and they come up with some other scheme.

Now, what do they want?

Do they want this value-added degree, or do they want special revenue sharing for education?

I just think we're going down a long trail, isn't it?

We've got to stick with what we've got on the burner.

And we've got something pretty good on the burner.

It's widely accepted.

And I'm scared to death of publicizing the use of these funds as a new gimmick to capture and captivate the education market in the United States, because I think it will alienate a lot of other people, of course.

Well, let's suggest this, that we have made no decisions on protests and tried to get some people around, not many others.

I think it's important for us that you ought to consider everything and let us know what you think about it.

So let me do that.

Let me just say that as a principal and to Mr. President, we have not, up to this point, felt that we were

to look at the total tax picture of the United States government.

I mean, they have the wisdom to make proposals in various contexts.

And I do question whether we have any kind of confidence just that you've got to try to look at the total tax picture of the United States government.

to indicate what the total federal budgeting has to be and not just in terms of any over time.

that you might ask

Neal's Commission and the ACIR concurrently to address this problem in, from two different perspectives.

In essentially the way that it has been explored up to now, contending they could branch on the treasury side and not the domestic council, staff, H-17 side.

But that is that the

McElroy could be asked to make some assumptions about the yield of a national revenue source, and perhaps several orders of magnitude, and some statistical sources to get his thoughts, and to consider such questions as the glyphs that have been raised, including, for example,

Is it desirable, in addition to achieving a greater degree of equalization among school districts, to achieve a greater degree of equalization among states?

Assuming that you are dealing only within the state,

What are the ways of distributing the money that are most equitable?

One way to do it is on a straight, which was brought about as well, as Professor said, on a straight, per-pupil basis.

Then you remember the question we touched on earlier.

If the state, if a combination of federal and state responses made the principal source for support of an adequate standard of curfew for expenditure,

Should the community be prevented in addition to draw eye contact with the person who already addressed?

If so, what are the ways of doing this?

Should there be such a thing as an equalization factor in the scale of the tax base on which they draw?

Or some supposing suggestion that if you have a higher third-people tax base than in Beverly Hills, for example, that you may raise more money, but a fraction of it must go into state funds

And these are all questions which seem appropriate for you specifically to be asked to consider, in addition to those the consideration you've already given to questions which you still don't understand.

Well, we have considered questions that you have mentioned, like the equalization of all states.

And we are talking at this point very kindly that that be done.

We think that this is not required by the traditional interpretation that we take.

This is something that everything doesn't have to be exactly equal for us to have equal educational opportunities.

We think this is our position on that topic.

One of the first things that has to be done before you can think about deleting property taxes is that the property taxes have to be equal.

There are all different kinds of property taxes.

the assessment factor, it makes them totally different.

Well, I believe that the first person should never do that.

Well, I think if you like, it's a natural requirement to the reception of any value-added money, and they're legal, I think.

Yes, but if you use a pot of money, whether it's raised at the state level or at the national level, or a combination,

for the support of a given service, like education, and say that, if you go all the way and say, as a condition to receiving this money, you may not raise your money on a local property tax base for the support of this service, then it would make a difference what the local property tax rate is, because everybody is treated the same as far as interest for that.

One of the things that I thought was the direction of this administration was to return and control governmental functions as early as possible to the elected officials of the states and the local governments.

This is where they moved contrary to that direction.

If education is unasked at the state level through appointed state boards of education, which exist in the United States, it becomes taken, it's clearly taken the decision-making capability leading to local people in the area.

I don't think that that's what the President desires in the way of the direction for the country.

Now, I question the reason for this.

I also question the wisdom of using a tax as broadly based as this tax is with the revenue-reducing potential and designating it to any special purpose.

whether it be education, health, or anything else at this time, because I think that these decisions about the use of large tax bases need to remain flexibly in the hands of the elected officials.

We know what we're going to face in the way of crises and various levels of government in the future, and if you lock

Lock in a large producer into one area of your organization.

We have not yet received an HLU formulation.

I think, in any way, a dedicated source to present would be a source of general evidence of other things there would be as part of an applicable verification.

Well, let us leave it this way here, sir.

We can't do much right now to show some of the intricacies of this problem.

Now, you're going to have to deal with how you perform in the tax system.

that picks up directly to these problems, not just being temporary.

If you were, as if you were trying to, to start at the beginning, you know, recognizing that there are practical problems that you're going to be able to go this far, that if you had your choice, you might want to go in another direction.

Don't, don't think you'll do that.

See what I mean?

I walk right here to make you consider that sort of thing.

We need to look down the road and see what the courts are going to do and what the trends are going to be.

In other words, how will we meet this problem?

And if it can't be met out of the revenue system, just be present and say so.

If it can be, say so.

That's what I think we need to hear from them.

Well, we will do that.

But I'm very confused as to the obligation to consider what storage to additional tax funds might be taxed.

I just don't believe that this is something we are going to have to advise them.

I mean, it's the kind of thing we have to go beyond that.

All right.

I have suggested to the ACI arms president to really look into what needs to be done if the property taxes are going to be relieved equitably in the country in any case.

This is a very complex question in itself, as you know.

We are now looking, as one of the current studies we're doing, is trying to see what uncapped sources of state and local weather there may just be.

And one of the things we're looking at in that regard, frankly, is the value-added tax that we're looking at from the state and local dollars.

We thought that we could discuss this earlier this morning.

very readily expand that study in most of the cases that I've said it would be a longer range.

I'm sure you've only had that section then.

Okay, I'm going to read it to you.

that picks up directly through these problems, not just temporarily.

If you were, as if you were trying to start at the beginning, you know, recognizing that there are practical problems that you're going to be able to go this far, that if you had your choice, you might want to go in another direction.

Don't, don't think you'll do that.

See what I mean?

I want the life here to make you consider that sort of thing.

We need to look down the road and see what the courts are going to do and what the trends are going to be in Ottawa.

How will we meet this problem?

And if it can't be met out of the revenue system, as the President can say so, if it can be, say so.

That's what I think we need to hear from them.

Well, we will do that.

But I'm very confused as to the obligation to consider what storage of additional tax funds might be taxed.

I don't believe that this is something that we are going to have to abide by.

I think it's the kind of thing we have to go beyond.

I have suggested to the ACI arms president to really look into what needs to be done if the property taxes are going to be relieved equitably in the country in any case.

This is a very complex question in itself, as you know.

We are now looking, as one of the current studies we're doing, is trying to see what uncapped sources of state and local weather there may just be.

And one of the things we're looking at in that regard, frankly, is the value-added tax that we're looking at from the state and local dollars.

We could, if we could just this morning,

very readily stand in that study, in most of the cases that I've matched, but I'd say it would be a longer range.

I'm sure you've only had that license then.

A few states have adopted what's called a circuit breaker, which is simply

if the federal government were to say, if you were to suggest that the federal government

to stimulate all the states to adopt this circuit breaker for Asian people in property tax payers with a cost of $1.

or a 50% contribution to the states.

In other words, the federal government may have the state's contribution to local tax bodies.

That's how it works.

Making up the difference between what the property owner would have paid as an agent person and as an income-producing person would cost about $30 to $50 million.

And if there's one proposal that could very quickly be fed into the

Miller has a temporary third term.

None of his properties have to leave for a major term.

We look at that as a stopgap, but we opted for a more comprehensive approach.

I wonder if we could, and as Vice President suggests, ask the ACIR to move right in on this.

We can turn over to them a tremendous amount of work that's been done by Treasury and our staff on the federal graduate approach.

And then I guess if you could cite the details of a couple of just official plans for them.

I don't know if that's a better option.

We can use that in hand, but I don't know if that's a good idea.

If we did this, we would need something else either to add to our course.

And that's what we're going to do.

That's it.

But I would like to feel that ACI are going to be right in on this because of the emerging legal requirements.

Texas is on either side.

And it would be a shame to see Texas go off in an independent direction.

if we can get a national scheme in a way that would permit all states to work together.

I think we would be well advised to share this.

What has happened until now is a very secret condition, and you won't know.

There are a few of our friends on the Hill West side of the pier, bypassed by some of the D.I.R.

members, and haven't heard the information.

There are people out there who believe how this would be prevented.

Mr. Busby is a member of the D.I.R., for example.

Yes, but if you want to be able to add it off to any specific request to the CIR, anything that was made for that, it was all due to the chairman making that information.

I think the note I heard earlier, pardon me, but I'll say to the speaker at this point, was that he didn't have ACR come out short of the next February, was there?

I hear from him.

That's right.

Why is that law?

That's the law.

Well, it takes a study to really do the same thing.

And then we've got to circulate the information.

This has to be, has to come down as an extension

of special revenue sharing for education, and not an alternative to it.

And it's the general revenue sharing things that are before the Congress now, because it's so massively complicated that the public can be deceived very quickly into thinking that all we're telling is money around us.

If we could do this, our corporation could do this much better.

I don't think it's even possible.

It's the only new money in the special beneficiary program.

It's about $200 million purely for people to go and have this.

But you could.

They all could.

But the fundamental concept should be very true.

Purpose is the idea of gratitude.

And if this were done in the present time, you could.

I realize that your primary goal, if you take your time, is to reach a local property tax money account.

And the exact very goal is to enhance education funding.

But I think that by giving emphasis to revenue sharing, educational revenue sharing, and by taking advantage of this opportunity and coming down on both sides with equal weight, you have the best of both worlds.

And not too many oil is an unnecessary distinction, and I think that you would gain equally from the revenue sharing process to make education equally on the go on your side as that of reducing the local property tax.

Yeah, I see.

And a 30-year-old commissioner in my office should be encouraging the cities themselves to deal with more equal... Everything involved in the work and our work has a core class, which is to take on a responsibility and a conscious distribution of federal authority.

Or constantly emphasizing that.

control of education is still a neighbor of the state, a neighbor of the history of the matter, and not the federal government.

You know, I had a point on this, Mr. President, that it's extremely important to try to get across them, but obviously the crucial thing to get across, if we were thinkable of this kind, should have been, as I said, the basic philosophy of the administration, the core global responsibility.

And that is the point, that it just doesn't follow that the tax base used to raise money, the level of government that is used, should thereby, and to cause its tax base to be called upon, have the responsibility of deciding how the money is spent.

What we're talking about here is essentially the question of fairness in raising funds

and fairness in spending funds for education costs without having any other service.

And we can't preserve the autonomy we want in local school boards unless we break the idea that there has to be a necessary connection between the level of money in relation to the decisional process and duty.

But didn't we turn to Father Owen Principle to do that?

And in respect to the states that are at the high end of the scale of raising, there's no direct correlation in those states between the amount of money raised at the state level and the reading control exercise by the state board of education versus the local board.

Anyway, I'd like to say one more thing about special revenue sharing.

I think the great advantage, if we ever get that far down the road, would be simply to incorporate in the special revenue sharing bill itself, whatever form it will be used for the allocation of funds.

It is now that Kuczynski and other members of the House Committee are in the process of holding hearings on the special revenue sharing deal because they see it as a deal, although not proposed as a funding measure.

Still, it's easy enough to make one by combining and consolidating my rules.

This is a prime opportunity, Mr. President, to initiate a dramatic process for clearing my sample funding.

Just as great a chance to progress against it.

And a very, very substantial funding that I'm happy for Mr. Cheney to use to study and determine the whole hearings, probably with the decision of Mr. Kennedy.

I don't think anybody would suggest it.

The policy of the mayor is that you've got as many examples as you can of sharing, and you still have open controls.

That's good to ask, not a question.

The people of the city of Chicago don't control any of that.

That's all right.

He's his own man.

I wonder about any of those.

Thank you very much.

Well, I was wondering if you could give us some idea of where the ACR has entertained your request on this in the near run.

If you're talking about the year, in a month or two or three, I would say no.

No, I'm asking for a response from you.

I mean, can you convene and accept the president's charge?

Sure, that's what we want you to do.

Just start talking.

No, no, no.

It's six, seven, eight months.

Who knows?

You bring them together and say, all right, here's some ideas that are kicking around.

Well, I can guess that we, that you can be the executive committee, but, you know, we're, we're some part of that.

I mean, I think that's what I mean, the whole body.

Beautiful.

Well, I suppose I could, but that's the extent of that.

In other words, could you accept on behalf of your commission, the president's charge to undertake that, and then, oh, you're going to do it today, and then, oh, you're planning to keep going?

I cannot do that.

I would have to go back to early on.

That's not so bad.

There's no question that the commission will undertake it, and the president has to do it with my judgment.

Well, the message is that I am now asking you to undertake whatever process you find acceptable and consistent with your own.

But you all

You can say, well, there's something in that matter.

What's, when you, you should inform the members of the commission and just, I've asked the commission to look into the matter.

Could you just say that?

But, but, but as if the planning commission needs, no, it can't.

Okay.

Is that, is that not all right?

Put it that way.

We, we, we can certainly do that, yeah.

Do that on that basis.

That's pretty much the line we're

We're by the ball, and I'm here to tell you about the new and the new work that I'll be doing.

But I totally understand that you can't have some of these incidents before any current service.

But we just understand we're passing it to you, and we've asked, and we'll get to it.

And at the other time, in your request, you have not been responding.

How's that?

All right.

Well, you had to do that for me.

All right.

Yes, I'd like priority attention given because this is a matter under consideration by the McElroy Commission, but then the administration and a number of other things.

We'd like your commission, we'd like to have your input as well.

And I'm attempting to, as the director,

to pass that on to the Commission at a time appropriate to the Commission's other agenda.

That sounds great.

So you're not ordering the Commission?

No, you're not.

How do you know it's going to be a small amount of money?

Never.

That's a good point.

I think she had a good time.

She had a business and five or seven hundred dollars.

and we all hope that you will live under this banner here on front of the tent.

While I'm going out, I'm going out.

I'm going out.

I know it's a steel drill, but just keep working on it.

We won't have any substance.

We won't have any water.

I said, it's a tennis field game.

We're going to have to get water.

We have to get water.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.