Conversation 679-013

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Uh, I got it.

It's runnin' by you.

I'll let you keep it off the wood or you can start it.

It's not gonna be anybody without our preparedness here.

We'll start it down right as soon as we can.

Come on.

I don't know what's going on.

He's out of town.

But he's known somewhere here.

He's coming back, I believe, tomorrow.

He'll be here one day.

He's going to the Central Bank.

There's a fall meeting.

Anybody else?

No, I don't know.

None of our ground.

He may take some.

I don't know.

He takes more than 10 people.

That's the thing.

We don't want what they do.

They come in with each other, right where they are.

Yeah.

we wouldn't have such a good expansion going on if they complained that their share of the local legislation was a good part of this position.

Let's bring up two issues that we're probably going to discuss with you today.

One is the debt ceiling.

We were checking everybody to put the debt ceiling, I mean the spending ceiling, on the

uh, either the gold bill or the debt suit you're spending too on the administration.

Well, both.

They want to be clean.

But the Roth is taking up your proposal to evolve.

That's right.

We, uh, we've kind of been, when I say we, Treasury has been pretty much

But we've got some indication that it might be painted here in the White House, perhaps in Olympia, that we ought to resist putting the spinning signal on the deafening.

or fear that they might put this 20 social security thing on there but we're gonna have to confront this uh social security matter one way or the other

So this was the position you and I took at the Senate the next one year, and we've just been caring for, that we wanted a clean bill that was just exactly the same as the House bill, that we'd have to go to a conference and it would just come down because of the fact that we were getting close to the edge on that.

So we've been resisting all of that that's on that ground.

And we did better with that, although we think, we, we don't feel, uh, outside of all the Congress, the timing, I mean, uh, we don't think it's, you know, inherently wrong.

We might have to put that, you know, suspending seat on this.

That's, I think, exactly what the point is for the next meeting.

I don't think it's wrong, but I don't think it's the other way around.

But we, of course, I don't know if Jackie can tell it, but in fact, we've been trying to see it.

What about Social Security?

I mean, it seems that we have every now and then Social Security.

Well, I would say, I mean, my personal view is we haven't had a chance to discuss this.

I mean, I just, I think it ought to exist.

And, but training, you know, training to defeat, they've had about 30, they've had about 33 or 33 degrees the last 24 months or 27 months.

And this is a peer-reliable law.

I don't know this part.

I don't know if the 20% increase is justified, but he's saying that if you're trying to hold down wages to 5.5, you're trying to hold inflation to 2.2 and a half to 3%.

I don't know what justification there is.

These are federal employees.

the racist Congress story here, confining every element to the plethora of American society.

I don't want to be involved in what I did for another time, because that's what I'm trying to make.

Thank you for coming, John.

It feels not right to say that there are people, folks, that have a big issue with us.

And I think that Bill is still, I guess, a bit disconcerted on the floor of the primary.

I don't think he's not in there.

On the left is the, I'll figure it out.

It's Monday, I'm afraid.

I'm very doubtful that we can get out of that frame.

I'll come back here on that floor, because Bill's not in there.

But, uh, uh,

Well, you can't get married.

You can't get married.

We have to.

If we start a new session during the session, we're going to outbid or at least equal the bid of everything that the Democrats can propose.

We're dead before we start.

They take control of Congress.

You don't.

We don't.

They oppose every week.

We can't match it.

That's all we've done.

Maybe they've got more that we can agree to or support.

It seems to me, and I think it's deceptive, I don't think that many of the old folks are there for you.

They're very important.

But I wouldn't be averse to saying that they've had this increase, but how much more is the levy of the tax, $36 billion in this increase when we started with the closing?

But I'm sure that they have the fact that they have to lend the taxes to do it.

You put it that way.

I'm sure we're going to be able to come to an increase.

I don't know how you justify that.

It goes to the credibility of your whole program.

You've got an enormous deficit already out there.

Well, you're certain that the point can be made that you could just say that the 20% increase in Social Security is inflationary?

I had no intention to give it to her.

I was just trying to figure out the game, how we do it.

Did you address yourself to leave your testimony?

Could you just start the line with the 5% plus the cost of living?

That's what I mean.

We're all about this.

And we've both said the president's position is 9% in cost of living.

And here are these problems with the bill's proposal.

We, I think, tried hard.

We didn't make any criminal statement.

I'm not sure of your reaction to it, but we both said in response to the direct personal questions that Inclusive stated was, we thought your original proposal was wise, and I'm not sure it's the same.

I don't think there's any, he didn't have any intention of the, in terms of a regular group to see what the time, maybe the time.

What do you think we can do?

I mean, how many would stand up?

If Gregor thinks that any court or another is going to pass.

Twenty percent.

Yes.

Without any money.

If it comes out of that ceiling, there's no...

I see another ad page connected with it there.

In Bill's proposal, there is a tax change.

He raises the wage base to 12,000.

It's now $9,000.

In HR 1, it goes up to $10,200.

And that's what we carry in the budget.

And he has proposed to raise it to $12,000.

So he's raising taxes.

But of course, raising it to 12,000 in January of 73 doesn't do anything for you at all on the 73 budget, so it's just an increase in benefits, an increase in benefits.

But we can't do it, I understand.

And I'm wondering, I guess, what we're looking at then, in this situation, if we are trying to fight under social distrust.

and look for the rules that they're touching.

Kelly has a proposal that is gradually emerging, and I can't help but feel behind all this, the Social Security people in the middle of the work have certain things that have since come here on the board in a different direction.

What's that?

I have Bob Bowles and I have Kelly on.

And his proposal is, well, let's have the 5%

July 1, that's scheduled with H.R.

1.

And then we'll put another 15% on January 1, 73.

In other words, six months later, another 15%, so that's the 20%.

And then take the 12,000 wage-based proposal and make it effective January 1, 72.

That would add to revenues of fiscal 73 because you would catch the last half the year with the generating fiscal 73.

and says this would cover the six billion, are going to be quick estimates this afternoon.

I just found out that those are the parts that I would generate as compared to the 10,200, but only generate about 2.2 billion, so my figures would weigh off.

Or else they're calculating for 9,000, which is, yeah, sorry, my budget was already counting on 10,200 before I appropriate that.

Yeah, that's what we gave our one, right.

But at any rate, there is a sort of split proposal, and you could see it from the way Elliot was talking about the leadership meeting, and that's the councilor needs a position.

Well, let's decide.

If we have to stick to our position, I think we've got a function.

I would just have to look at that situation.

Maybe we can do better than that.

I don't know.

I think it's fine.

I agree with you.

I don't agree with you necessarily.

Yeah, I think particularly that's just a very good question.

They're going to have to get forward and all these guys, you know.

There are enough guys to save districts that ought to be running against them.

They're a good guy.

The, uh, the thing that, that they held on to, you know, so many years ago, you know, the great lieutenant's day, in which, uh, the, uh, by the way, senators and congressmen come around and say, well, now what's really going to happen here?

Now, their statement is this.

They say, well, I don't want to be the fellow who stood up and voted against, you know, folks.

And then two months later, it's done.

And the president signs it.

There, I voted against it.

And everybody on this board, I'm through with you.

I'm not supporting you on that.

If there's no security, then I'm going to fight to the finish.

And we don't want to be left out.

And that was, in a way, what Russell Long was saying in his comments.

That's exactly right.

You said, Ron, that we needed to learn the church in order to always join in our own personal views.

I must say, to be frank with you, that to be sure that we weren't speaking to you, that to that extent, I think we created something to you in mind.

They might, in some ways, wonder if they're going to have to do that.

So I think the effect is strong on the position of your party.

All right.

And I wonder how far we're going to go in buying the package of $6 billion with the tax increase, or an active tax increase.

But it seems to me that the first, that we only get 20% with or without, I agree with it, that would be the first position.

When is the time to get a D?

It is thought that Bonneville is kind of offering this on the death statement bill, and that it might be this afternoon or it might be tomorrow.

So that's one point that we...

The Senate Financial Committee is in the process of marking up H.R.

1, and like Wally said this morning, they're basically working on Social Security.

Part of that, and they haven't come to this yet, but he's very anxious to get some guidance about your views, and he will, he is, as I said, he wants to follow your views, but he has to be

have a firm position and they can follow through on it.

And I suppose sometime in the next few years, that's what they're in the process of doing.

Well, I think it's, that has to be the, uh, that we take part in the solution.

They give you that immediately, that's what we're going to do, and then they say we've got to get rolling.

I mean, every year we're going to change their minds and sign it annually.

Of course, the point there is, I suppose, that they figure if it's on the dead seat, we'll have no trucks.

We can, but it'd be tough.

Now we have a week to go back and do a med city middle, which we could do at the crunch of about 15.

We could go beyond that and probably go 20.

There is a sense in which the country, it seems to me, is kind of looking for reassurance that we're really serious about opening the lock-on.

This would be a kind of bitter reassurance in the sense that this is obviously politically

a very popular thing to do to be willing to come down strong with these very strong signals.

The business people, I talked briefly with Russ Harlow about this.

What did he say?

What does he hear in the business community about this?

He says that in the business community, there's hardly any discussion of it because everybody dismisses it as pure politics, not even worth discussing, doesn't have a chance to take it seriously when life shows it.

not far away to bring it forward.

They are.

But anyway, that's their judgment.

And I would think that if the Sanders, if you were to propose it, say, they would just be stunned.

They'd say, well, it came by the door.

It had nothing to do with that.

I was thinking of a way that I could, you know, I could shake the pollution out of it.

I'd wait until I saw it.

In the meantime, let's get guidance to Bennett today.

Do you want to do that, John?

Who's in the middle?

George Reed Curtis.

Yeah.

Okay.

I'll be in touch.

All right.

All right, so I don't think we can oppose this in terms of the procedure being brought.

And also, we are in disagreement with the assessments of social security .

That means we can't .

As far as this particular proposal is concerned, we just can't follow it.

And that's it.

They're very, I don't know if this is the way to pay for those.

I think we have to do it.

I mean, there comes a time, and you take the old folks, and John's quite enough ahead of the 33, 30% increase.

You've got an operation, and I'm worried about you having more.

Nobody's got as much as he wants, but you just can't, you can't, you can't swallow this.

What's your view?

Well, that's where I can pick it up with the marketer.

I think we appropriate money for that, under conditions that we wouldn't do it for anybody else.

They're getting, they're all getting a lot more back out of the system than they ever, to pay in or to pay in on their behalf, and I don't see as many cases where it's whatever, and the logic of the system and part of the economic situation is acute.

Yes, I agree.

I think the time to hit it was this week.

But at least today, we should have had a study of science because I can't go tomorrow.

I might be able to do something on Thursday on its paragraph.

If I'm asked, I will get it.

If I'm not asked, I'll find a way to get out.

I think it's just better to face right up to it.

Now all of us should take the line.

If you're a general, that's the line.

If you do, George, that's the line.

Now, who else needs to be informed?

Well, that's the word.

He doesn't, he doesn't get busted.

Well, he thought he was pushing to give ground.

To give ground.

The mills compromised.

They compromised 5% now, 15% later.

They're saying, all right, take the money and break up the title a little bit.

And misread it a little bit with the taxes.

get around it that way but what we are doing but we are going to take five percent and that's pretty damn good

I think that the point, I could just, on this paragraph, there's a point about how much has already happened.

There's a point about taxes versus benefits.

You've got to get it from somewhere.

i think the key point to make to the country is that uh that the uh not not so much how much we've done but the key point to make is that the 20

In view of the fact that we are, that our budget is already a full employment budget, that it would be without question inflation.

And every group has to be prepared to respond to inflationary actions.

are not in the interests or not in the interests of any people in this country, at least in the interests of people who are older citizens who live on our call, rather than protect their incomes.

Other than that, I think we can get into this later.

I think the distinction should be made, I like the idea of setting

As far as making this fit, it is the position of the administration that no increase is expanding.

should be approved by the Congress and should be signed by the President.

all right that's what we'll do and you you tell him that's it now another one has to be brought in he works with that group

whether those are the old folks.

Maybe they do and maybe they don't.

I don't believe that the old folks generally are more responsible black people than the young folks.

I just don't think that Carmichael and all those demagogues, the L.A. is held and the right to a law and we're against social security and all the rest.

But in the final analysis, we've got to protect their future.

This is a good way for us to make the case on final inflation again.

We're not going to add anything to our proposals.

We're not going to add anything to the wage board or the price board or the rest.

But we're going to say, we are not going to go for this.

And also some of the people that are concerned about our hiring,

that our big deficit will realize that a deficit can get too big, and some of us, we don't give a damn about the deficit.

I think that's the compelling argument to me.

The compelling argument to me is that in this, that we just have to take a tough, well, it's somewhat similar to that two years ago, to that

education, you know, where the whole damn education lobby was down here screaming around, maybe to, you know, the billion dollar education, you know, off the budget.

Well, it was a long time ago, probably then.

We think about it, we would do it now.

But it was the right thing to do, and we lose money on it.

We should have lost the professional BCA and all the rest of it, and our course, and the old folks here and there.

But I don't know.

I haven't.

Always in the future, great folks, veterans, anybody like that, these special groups, they aren't just trying to help you.

Just to be certain.

That's what I'm trying to do.

In particular, Mr. President, they say that you've really opened the line on this.

This presupposes now a disposition on your part to go all the way across.

You have to go across the board.

We cannot sign.

We cannot fail to support this one and then proceed to support huge increases in other areas.

Now, do we have any of those coming out of the pipeline at all?

Well, we have this higher education.

Yeah.

That's an authorization, not an appropriation.

All right.

The way that's going to work, that's just, you know, it's kind of a little complicated.

That would be easy, so.

That's $25,000.

So it's, you know, it's just to get out of the budget.

I'm going to tell you, I don't get an answer to this authorization or not.

As far as the higher education, people with higher education get sued out of much money in this country anyway.

So we'll just be told that.

That's easy.

Authorization or not, I don't like the bill.

I mean, I know it's going to be a lot of jackass, so I recommend it, but I report when I send it down.

So, I mean, at Boone Institute, you need to study and educate, and that indicators that they could all be on the loose if they didn't play some wise game.

So that's an easy one.

That's that political issue.

It's the easiest one we could possibly have by our division, believe me.

The easiest one.

Believe me, if we oppose the old force, I'm sure you're going to oppose the educators.

It's all our fault.

You're making it sound like more of a translation, but it's very interesting.

More of a translation.

Well...

That might be a little different.

Now that, I think that is different.

That's, uh, I would be the same way, though, because good arguments against that is what it's for, but I don't view that in the same context as I do this.

Have you?

No.

I mean, then we have to be a little careful about this thing here, not to put ourselves in a corner where we couldn't possibly buy something like that.

Oh, I think that's right.

Mm-hmm.

Another big spending bill coming down is the water quality.

No one can have an authorization bill.

But it's got huge implications for us.

I'm not spending any of those bills.

Well, the way I understand it, on that, we were virtually committed on that.

It's very hard to get out of the wonder, but it's an impossible deal.

We're in that position.

We're in position.

We're complaining about this, that, and the other, but we're not giving up very easily.

It's on that.

It's on the position.

It has a lot of military things in it, too, such as things that are killing us in other areas right now.

But nevertheless, that's one where we see a great relationship come along.

What about the fire?

Because of the environment.

We touched on it for once again, didn't we?

Yes.

All the test fires cost us $50 million per percent of the fire pollution.

Yeah.

I know that, but nevertheless, we have a...

I'd like to be able to knock it out of the box for other reasons.

He says, look, I love the environment and all that sort of thing.

This cannot take us.

I know Irvin, who's very close to these environmentalists.

He's the only place where he could give a fix to them.

That would just really raise hell because, you know, that's his big issue.

He's all for it.

All for it.

And water pollution is such a thing.

But anyway,

Of course, I must say that here, I'm not a good judge.

I'm not a good judge because I must admit to the prejudice that I think a lot of it's crap.

I mean, this stuff, I really think a lot of it's wrong.

I think you, you know, we've gone through this.

You said we're attempting to clean up the river out here.

And the answer is no, it doesn't work.

It's the same year now.

It'll be the same year when it's clean.

I've been poking around.

You say you're going to open them up.

That's so much defensive policy.

Yeah.

But it's defensive budget issues as such.

One of the ones that I've run into that just started me is the amount the Navy will spend in the next three or four years.

essentially to dumping problems in where they're home for it.

And it's going to run somewhere between one and two and a half billion dollars added to their budget for this program.

And just here again, what you get for that amount of money in terms of net impact is small compared to what you would

probably get strayed in environmental ways by other kinds of expenditures that are kind of a silly position.

Exactly.

That is the example we're stuck with.

There is some legislation they're operating under.

There are also some directives that track it.

There are so many non-readiness, non-force structure, non-

...weapons development.

Yeah, they are engine gun defense now.

Yeah.

Yeah, and I'm trying to find these, at least understand them.

Well, then, most of that stuff, you've got an all-right defense budget, or each day, or whatever it is.

So you've got a billion and a half going for another one of that.

That's right.

Just keep it very clear.

Well, that's just a problem with Bucky, too, I'm sure.

Yeah, we've got to care for us in the Army.

It's just a bad idea.

Yeah.

Going back to the, well, the Social Security business for just a moment, uh, we had a discussion with Elliot and Latreka a while ago, and they never did get a favor out to you.

that recognized the changes in people's thinking about the social security system and suggested not that we should make a philosophic statement but rather that the tax rate increases that are in hr1 to be effective in 1976 and 1977 are big increases

that we, in effect, say we don't see a justification for those increases.

And I think we talked about that and we agreed that we ought to do that.

It's one of the things that invites these social security benefits increases is the fact that these

You make the statement that five years from now, we're going to have a big tax increase.

And that's going to generate $20,000, $30,000 in costs.

And then they say, let's split it.

Let's just split it.

say that we'll take any tax changes when we come to them and not schedule an event that way.

And we never did get to do it, if that was agreeable, as you saw as a position for us.

We related to this.

Here's the thing we have to think about it now.

that we will do anything in order to basically to abide the election.

All that just doesn't feel like we're going to operate.

We want to do everything we can, but we've got a huge budget.

We have a huge deficit.

And if we do anything in order to buy the election, this is going to be worth money.

I agree with her that we want to mock ourselves into a corner where there may be something that comes down here that isn't necessarily something we'll have to sign.

But let's just say as a general principle or something like that.

I'm trying to think of a language I see.

But we've stated the general principle in terms of your call, the R.A. expenditure scale.

That's right.

And that's the, that we've been sort of operating on that principle.

John Mills is a little off the track already.

Why would we shrug?

I don't know.

He just doesn't sound like a rational person.

As far as we can go, these fellows have got stars in their eyes.

I mean, he got in, then he got out.

I mean, he's about to get all the way to Massachusetts.

He's got no more chance to come to the president than I have to vote for him.

I'm going to kill him.

I don't think you're running for it.

You're running for the pope.

You know what I'm saying?

I've tried to make some sense out of this region.

The only thing I can figure out is...

He's made up his mind, he wants to go on the tape.

Obviously, he knows he's not going to be part of the search.

He's running for vice president.

He wants to go on the tape.

If he gets to take this, he will at least send nominees for vice president.

He can retire in question.

If he doesn't, he's made up his mind, he's never going to Congress anyway.

And this is actually laying the hell with him.

He's taking this basically because he's running for vice president.

unless the president dies, he's done, because he's 62 years older.

See, that's the fact.

No one can be nominated for vice president who's 62 years old.

Huh?

They're fooled, because they're afraid to be 66.

Next time around, they're 68.

And so they have to nominate them 66 or 68.

Right?

So it's a curious, curious operation.

Oh, he's going to get them.

He's spending a ton of old money in the interest of the government.

I can follow that.

They gave him the first day.

He's spending $100,000.

You know $100,000?

He's spending $2 million in taxes.

More.

$3 million in taxes.

That's a total vote.

Total vote.

There'll be 70,000 bills cast in the Democratic primary, and 100,000 to be spent on our quarter.

I don't know what those are.

20% more.

That's goddamn insane, 20%.

All right.

Well, this is going to be a hard one to wheel.

You, George, are going to have to wheel it.

But let me say, we decided here

John will take the position.

You know, he's asked us to do it, but if you were to wheel, uh, if you could get over the burden and, uh,

And on the water, I want John to look at that.

Senator, have you looked at the water test?

I looked at it.

I looked at the record.

I asked you a memorandum on this a couple of months ago, and I'll give that to Senator.

Well, isn't this one that John's foresighting on?

Yes, yeah.

And what's his argument?

What do you think of the data?

Our house's environmental issue is very powerful, and this is symbolic of it.

And it's an authorization.

It's an authorization if you reach out, you're going to turn off.

the environmentalists generally and the young people who are out there, and somehow in the argumentation about environmental matters, that the cost side of it has not caught up with the benefits side yet, and that we can't catch up that fast.

Could I ask John to do this so that you could hear the argument?

I would appreciate it.

I'd like you to hear his argument.

In other words, let's hear it all since DeVero is not here.

He's not an expander.

He's looking at it.

So you get the bill.

When do we have to decide that?

When will that get done?

I don't want to get down here.

It's through the center.

Nothing can happen in the house.

Oh, well, there can't be anything down in the house.

No, I don't care what he does.

Well, I have two other things that are one related to the general.

uh background of your decision on the social security and that is the uh wage price area and the search particularly the longshore uh dispute that is uh before the paper and is likely to be decided maybe by the end of next week but it's there now

Bridges has been saying that if the paperwork has to be driven, then they'll strike.

Our information from people like her counts as, well, maybe they will, maybe they won't.

It's not a sure thing.

He's got an elephant crab and he's got himself a brick wall.

That's what Kurt said, that's what Bridges said.

He's claiming that he wouldn't be breaking the law because they would cancel their contract.

They wouldn't have any contract and they would just be in their other posture.

Our lawyers think that that would

In fact, being a strike against the paper and a strike in violation of the law, sir, it would be a legal question that would be thrown out there.

The, uh, wind host of plugs apparently think, or some of them think, that another possible, possible tactic of which is might use is, over the past 10 years with these agreements they've had, they've been saving agreements, they've been quite good.

They've made tremendous gains to productivity of the ducks, for which they have paid, they have bid, so to speak, a buyout.

of these bad practices, and the bad practices have gone.

And the threat of the service, if they work, is that they will go back to their old ways of working, and they will assist every, for example, every container that comes out of the West Coast docks.

be stripped of stuff, as they say.

Longshoremen will proceed to take the stuff out of the container, and then they'll proceed to put it back in again.

That's an old word practice.

That is bad, both from the standpoint of the extra work and from the standpoint of

On the docks, a big problem is stealing.

One of the things that makes containers so attractive to employers is that it's all boxed up, and you've got to steal all the containers.

And you can't take those pieces out, so that's been a big thing.

And so the last thing in the world they want is to go back to these old practices, and Bridges knows that, and he's playing off that, according to their accounts.

We have met on this, along with John Rumsfeld, and I don't know if John actually wanted to summarize where we came out, but I think the posture that we came out on is very consistent with the 20% decision.

And I think it's an example of how there are widely varied places where a consistent position needs to be maintained as time.

Basically, we all came out, the three of us last time around, the Longshore, which we understood, just could not be exceeded by the label.

They had to either reduce it or just say it's undetermined.

And if the Longshore was right, they were right.

And then you set a motion all over the people.

You try to enjoin them.

And if they don't come back to work, then they're in contempt of the court.

We just go through the procedure.

Now, we go there on the basis that the credibility of this whole program, the price to pay for it,

It has improved somewhat in the last three weeks.

But if we permit this long-shouldered thing to play through, we all think that they would prefer ice tea with pineapples.

What do you think is the case there?

Uh, first of all, we think that this is a place where you can't even control us.

You can't control the interest of the country.

Because it's a relatively isolated group of people.

And nobody likes bridges to begin with.

And, uh, it'll tie up the West Coast Docks.

Yes, the DC has them in California where you don't need them.

You don't want them.

All the places.

But, uh, at the same time, how much help?

Let's have me ask that question.

I mean, we do.

What about George?

Well, first, there's the question of if his blood is called, what would Bridges actually do?

Right.

After all, most people have been on strike for a long time, too, and that takes something out of them.

Those are just the employers.

Don't they have a huge, and aren't they paid about as much on off-work as on strike?

No, but there's no unemployment compensation.

I know that.

They have a huge strike fund.

They have a pretty good-sized strike fund, right?

They must not have very much of it left.

In effect, that...

A lot of them, it's because they shared the military cargo, so a lot of them were employed.

We were struggling.

But anyway, so one thing is, what will we just do if this bus is called second?

Our program, if this is agreeable with you, we would put together a interagency group and so on and start doing this.

But the program calls, first of all, for seeking the conjunction against the strike.

Right.

And I know that you're talking about how you would set up a contingency program to go right along the line.

Good.

And I think that because we do this, we have to recognize that chances are it will become known.

And many people think that would be a good thing.

Good.

That we're going to make a big thing out of it, but we're ready.

Let us know.

Well, then, if there is no judgment, it's in the contempt of the court.

Then, our thinking is that the first course would be big clods against the other.

That is the strike fund and the other assets they have.

I mean, by getting that, you'd have to get a judge who would be in the guts of that judge to find a job for this one.

So, I'll never forget the Grinner.

I don't know if you were there at that time.

Do you remember the Grinner gang?

I was a congressman at the time.

And that was the first Grinner in Ohio.

I remember when he died, I forgot his name.

Littlefall.

He stuck with me.

The place came apart.

Go ahead.

I think we're going to play the game.

We should go for the worst, right?

So you can show the cost.

John, you were talking to...

Something about the faculty that some of the later people tend to be sort of looking in our direction at the moment.

We shouldn't break it off into our knowledge regarding this.

Yes, I think you have to do this.

I don't think you're that committed to...

Uh, took a long, short week.

And again, uh, I didn't see nothing at the label recently, but that was the construction industry, because they were getting higher wages than the rest of the player.

And you can't, you can't let this go through, right, and expect the pay board, and the engineers sitting on that pay board, to hold their unions in line, because they can't do it, they won't do it, the fire will grab them out of the picture.

And I, in fact, if we let this long-term thing go through, it may well be the very justice of the day.

Before we get a walk-off, just say, oh, well, this is ridiculous.

We will, so this is what we're going to do.

That's right.

Well, if I'm having lunch with Ms. Simmons tomorrow, get further into that, that's a different kind of a problem.

Because he is one we need and we can get.

But on this, I think at the time, let me say that, I think I understand the problem.

We have got to, we've got to find, and you talked to me about it before, what are they, I forgot to mention it.

that we talked about it, and John talked about it before he went.

Second, and then we'd have to...

I think he knocked in terms of the whole package.

You see, it fits in with the Social Security pressure.

It fits in with buying or rising costs of living.

It fits in with the whole business confidence.

It fits in with the idea of consumer confidence.

Now, under these circumstances, we're just going to have to take the heat of what the doctor asked for.

I don't know what I assume for instance people will go out.

But they, on the other hand, we may be able to plunge in and blackmail them, scare them, frighten them, make them come in.

And you will not find any strong allies among the employers out there.

They are the sluggards of a bunch of jackasses in the world.

You don't know who those folks are.

They are independent for at least three years.

They don't give a damn.

You know, they pass on what they pass on.

That's true.

They've done nothing.

The structure of the deployment there is odd because the loggers are employed for the stevedary companies.

Stevedary companies work on a cost-to-cost basis for the real employers who are the ship owners.

And so the actual employers of labor don't operate under a system where they have incentive to control costs.

That's an inherent problem in this situation.

Well, it seems to me that the contingency plan, we've got a kind of system that we're going to get justice, we'll get all the teams together to get justice done.

There's another aspect of this that we haven't talked about yet, and that is

If pushed, do we man the docks somehow with the National Guard and the military in some fashion?

Do we have a task force?

I don't know.

Should we develop a contingency plan there?

Well, I don't want to jump too fast, but in my view, if these people in violation of the law

Don't do it.

I think we do exactly what we did for most of the United States.

I think we're going to have it now.

What do you think, John?

That was exactly my reaction.

Precisely.

Now, of course, that later might happen, but we have no choice.

We can say the national security.

Well, we can't say the national security.

We've got a little concern.

But nevertheless, the doctors are going to be mad.

The national security.

And that's why we're so involved here.

We're hired, and our next is Mr. Bowers, the famous man.

He's done something on that.

It's a situation.

Is this work so technical that you couldn't train people, or we got people that could do this?

And I've had a meeting from Vietnam.

I've been on the streets.

I've been on little docks.

The things out there, I've seen more on the docks of Saigon than I've seen on the docks of Los Angeles.

Has it?

are the ability to take care of military cargo themselves, and they can put out their own docks and move events.

I'm sure the defense think it would work, because they might say that they don't have that opportunity.

I think what we want here is that the Defense Department must be prepared to go in and man the docks, period.

In other words, to go in and defend.

Oh, absolutely, because I think the image of Damascus there, by saying, well, we'll do the Damascus like they've done before.

The, I think the, well, the sort of the strategic problem goes back to what John said earlier, I think, that Bridges is now gas.

and they have things to keep him that way.

And the mine and so on, I think that could be wheeled all right.

It is the case that he eventually, from what I heard, converged with Gleason that the east coast dies.

And Gleason is saying that he wants gunfire to bridge his nationwide courtship.

Which is notorious, however.

for changing his mind, isn't it?

He might have to do it on his own.

No, it's true.

He does, and he has to, on the other hand.

He's always, he's a tricky fellow.

And there's always the possibility that we're just throwing pickets all around, whether or not Lucian can control his people, but probably he can do it all right.

But I think that the use of troops

That's going to be a tricky one to wheel.

We wheeled that one later.

In the postal situation, we were very close with them.

They knew what was going on.

Basically, they looked the other way and they attacked.

No, I think that they discussed this with me and I haven't, and I was going to say that's good.

We need to be ready for breakfast Friday night.

I think that it's, you know what I'm saying?

I mean, that's just so good.

I love this thing that's got to go, and we don't want to worry about it, but this is a little group out there, and they're, they're, I mean, if they strike, I suppose they're going to cut off.

All right.

We'll race tonight.

Okay.

Friday morning, I thought I'd see you after you get out of the office.

And I will get this other task force in.

Could you, uh, put the meantime out?

That's something that probably would have settled off your chair.

I shouldn't think you're a dude.

Well, see, you got the time.

Well, it falls within the... Yeah.

Well, a lot of them, if anybody had a weekend chair, they'd know I paid for them.

I just want to be sure that this chair, I would say, I take charge, and some of them know a little bit more.

What do you think?

I feel a little more comfortable.

He doesn't know that more about labor than I do.

I think his whole contingency plan for example, because you're going to have to

really shake up some people, you know, you've got to get justice in mind, you've got to get defense in mind, you've got to, you've got to, you've got to, you've got to, you've got to, you've got to, you've got to, you've got to, you've got to,

I'm sure we're trying to work out a solution that is there, but we have one awful tough problem, and that's not it.

how to describe a, some kind of a, a busking in there that has a ration out on it, and a very artistic work done that way.

But that's all part of the subject.

I have another subject, and it seems to me that all of the cost of all these bombshells is a weird one.

I know this one, I think it's relatively simple.

That's the minimum wage for this election.

Where we are is the minimum wage is $1.60.

We have proposed a dollar rating.

effective January 72, at 2 hours from January 74, you must have used it, don't you?

Yeah.

And no change in coverage.

That's our basic position, right?

There is a reasonable chance, I'm told, that we can get away without increasing coverage, and we might be able to get the use of it, don't you think?

But there is a very little chance that we can get away with it.

with less, fairly immediate increase to $2.

The legislation, the bills, the doors that Democrats are pushing, the labor force is pushing hard, would get you immediately to $2, perhaps more, and then to $2.25 a year later.

It would expand coverage by quite a lot.

It would give you a huge difference.

So we're, the way the Senate's positioning right now is, is the Rules Committee, Comer's holding it there.

But, on the whole, people don't think he has a chance of holding it much longer.

And then, when it gets out on the floor, our Republicans will be looking at our conservative Democrats for some sort of reasonable pay coming from them.

And we're working toward his $2, no change in coverage, and he'll be the president.

I don't know.

$2.

$2 would be sometime this year.

Stay like two months after the bill is passed or something like that.

That's a big increase.

Have you done that?

I don't think we can do much better than 180.

And you're lying.

We don't think we could make it.

Your differential is a very beautiful thing.

You think that can be... That has a chance.

And we also have a chance to stop this big increase in coverage.

Yeah.

No increase in coverage.

Two dollars.

But it's a very large increase in the inflation.

And once again, we're looking at a 5.5% increase versus this.

On the other hand...

We have said, in effect, no wage controls below $1.90.

We have been criticized for that.

You know, the Economic Stabilization Act, there was a provision that controls shouldn't apply to low incomes.

And the Cost of Living Council triggered that as being anything below $1.90.

And what that fight is all about is not only wage, it's always about where you're going to get a position under the minimum wage legislation.

And we're already at $1.90, even though the concept is different.

That's where that has blessed us.

So we've already, in fact, taken part of the $1.80.

The proposal is to leave the unit at $1.60.

There's 17 and 18 year olds, or 17 year olds and then there's another to say the first time that applies under 20 or some such arrangement as that.

There is proposals for that coming.

There's some

and shaking this political basis upon those who worry about the youth vote and such as this amount of discrimination against youth.

Are you going to have that kind of a backlash?

First of all, the substance of the argument is that by making the wages of young people necessarily so high, this is one of the causes of the high youth unemployment.

Let's get back to John's unemployment project.

That's the basic argument for it.

If your two sons are getting at my job,

There aren't a lot of people down here.

That is the principle.

These differences will be worth something because as far as anybody can measure, that is where they come from.

In fact, they can come to this point.

Yeah.

We have publicly changed our position.

If you think we could do anything with the $1.90, now that that was established by the cost of money council, I'm not so certain.

If you could just say that this is the cost of the money council, that this is the wage which corresponds to the income we're working for, and we went through a lot of analysis and rationale.

We're being sued.

We're being sued for having said $1.90 by people saying it would be more.

Let's say a minimum wage.

Is there anything to be rejected?

In terms of the, you know, the idea of such shops and all that, it's ridiculous.

The, at this time, it used to be a problem, it isn't now.

And my, the second thing is that I, my belief is that if I had time to wage a very great problem, to raise and help later, organize labor, but I think that a lot of people care about trying to, just trying to take out a lot of what you're doing, you know.

I think that's right.

How about the youth that you mentioned?

That's part of that concern.

How do we make the young people mad?

How is that?

Honestly, Paul, you need preparation to get it done.

It's not about making the young people mad.

It's about making the youth mad.

But on the other hand, I mean, that's where it's at.

People should be unemployed, aren't they?

That's right.

And that's one good way to get them employed.

We've got a lot of statements out.

In fact, the minimum wage is a major obstacle to the employment of young people.

That's right.

I heard, I was, I was, I was, I was, I was,

I wouldn't move on from it unless it might be compromised and in fact trade out and get you a new differential.

I wouldn't go for $2 in this gamble if you get a new differential.

I'd try to trade it out.

Let me say that if it comes down, George, if it comes down at $2 without a new differential, I'll be told.

So there's your trade-in for hours worth.

We'll see what it means to you.

I think the only way to sustain that would be to have a new one.

Now, so therefore, I think we ought to shoot for, is it because $2 is sort of a nice round number that that's what we're going to go for?

I suppose we'll have to go to this early last year sometime.

That's what I'm going to do.

The extension of coverage is a very important issue.

In many ways, more important than raising the amount because you're bringing all of these

New areas, many of which are under that.

We're fighting contention coverage.

We're fighting for the differential.

We have been in the $1.80, been a step up to $2.74.

And we're now being shaken off of that $1.80 position.

If you could get...

If you would get the agreement on no attachment coverage to use the correction, then we could pay the two dollars in my opinion.

Because it means that it's a good round number.

I see what the deal is.

The other thing, I prefer to try to, try to park it out at maybe 190.

I mean, if you, it can be done. 190.

This isn't like a...

This is the bottom.

It's nearly as difficult to say as the damn water.

What he would say, if we get more than $2, if we get some content more than $2, or a subject content of $2,

And do you have a differential or has a major extension of coverage on it?

I'll be told then.

We put a veto signal on that.

Exactly.

We will do a veto.

Exactly.

Extension of coverage.

This veto signal reasons are fairly strong positions are being heard.

Yeah.

Are the extensions of coverage a new differential?

Or does that make you really want to fight off it?

And then on the amount, try to do it at one night.

That's the position.

That's on the right.

Okay, you can get that out in a minute.

Wait a minute.

Those are the things that I wanted to discuss.

We have one event that's about to happen that we might consider programming a little bit.

Under the non-equivalent charts, amendments that you proposed have passed.

There's a trigger for that.

which extends the duration of auto-employment benefits when auto-employment nationally is four and a half percent and that is being chaired out for three consecutive months and the federal government pays after 15 weeks of duration.

That is now in effect because when the law became effective

we've had those three consecutive months that we're paying them now.

However, in the latter part of December and January and February, we've had three consecutive, we have in effect three consecutive months taken in the weeks together that are below 4.5%, so you figure out

And probably in about two more weeks, we will have had the three ones that triggered out this provision.

So that is a marker on the positive side saying things have gotten better.

And according to this automatic system, when you trigger something in and trigger something out, you're not triggering out.

So I think that that's not something that's going to happen.

It's a question we can never point out.

It was not noticed when they triggered him.

It's not our own.

We were afraid that if I can't fight them, just as he can get one.

And that's playing the other way.

And this is not a statistic that's based on sampling or household interviews or anything necessarily.

It's the number of people who are actually going out and what they're compensating for.

And that's going down.

I'd love to come in a minute, but let me

I'm curious as to what background you're talking from.

I don't make any other circulations when I send a memo to you.

Yeah.

I don't make any other circulations except the ones that come through the White House.

And anyway, it goes around to the people.

There's a lot of people in the White House who are informed, who are on flow.

Yeah.

Memos.

Yeah.

I'm also thinking about, it could be that what was in that penalty was in a medal that I had sent to both Georges.

There's a challenging connection with this.

There's no use there, I think, very much.

Come on.

I see.

Good.

Since that came in, what is the one that came in?

Yeah, there have been some events.

In fact, back in February of 2018, there have been some events.

We have the naming problem now, but why don't you spend a minute and tell us how you see that?

It really has been very encouraging, the number of things that I've seen, our anticipation, I find it increasing.

and the recovery of hours of work in manufacturing.

We are about out of track with the behavior of projects given the situation we had in the two months and the three months and as good as what could have been expected.

I think we have

I think other things that have to be, that you have to pay attention are any, that the

I found out about this environmental thing with the baby in part because

The Navy is the slow spender over there, and I would have worked that with a little old company.

In fact, I said if you felt against that, it's probably going to be the Air Force, the Army, or something.

I think it would bother them quite a little.

That's the thing we have to look into.

We are having a target tomorrow.

That is the over-the-top situation and the income tax.

since we've been here for a long, long time.

But that may not be for a long, long time.

I just want to be clear.

I was at this index of consumer confidence for the first, and now I'm at five points, and it's mainly economic.

So who's the center as you've got the answer to this?

And the higher situation in May 1959.

And the thing I am beginning to get a little concerned about is there's a kind of drum beat I hear from a

from downtown new york and from western europe but uh oh i think i can hear really

It occurred at the same time, as you know, and I respect it.

You look at items here on the road, and we keep you in the eye.

Right, right.

We've got about five.

I mean, this is the favorable and the unfavorable items, as I see them.

You do find equivalent expenditure heard referred to.

That's now anticipated to be 10.5 percent, 72 over 71.

We've calculated over 9.1 percent.

And the 10.5 that we now anticipate for 72 compared to the 1.9 in 1971 and a 5.5 in 1970.

That's a new plan to put an expenditure.

New orders for production of capital goods have reached 18% between December 71 and January 72.

Is that probably the...

Total new orders for all manufactured products in January increased 3.7 billion.

Orders for durable good manufacturers increased 9.7, which is one of the largest advances in recent years.

Survey of Purchasing Agents with 45% reporting increases in income in February, up 41% in January.

I'll just skip through the pieces.

Pollen rate, I already mentioned, down 5.7.

Primary work group, married men, pollen rate is 2.8 in February.

We're down to the third successive month from the November rate of 3.3, 2.8, 2.8.

The price, as you notice, has stayed at 8.6 million.

Domestic car sales reached a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 8.85 million units in February, up from 8.77 million units in January.

This is compared with a sales rate of 8.3 million units during January to August.

And sales in 1970 amounted to 70.1 million.

So sales now are going to exceed the just basis 8.85 as opposed to 70.1 in 1970.

Financial positions were silver.

Couldn't be better.

It may be too good.

But their net acquisition was that financial assets now reached $96 billion, compared to $71 billion in 1970.

Leading indicators in January reached 2.3%.

That's the monthly advance.

And that January gained large since October 68, six of the eight leading indicators were up.

George already talked about unemployment insurances.

They're down.

The expected rate of manufacturing is over 4.3% per employee.

This is the highest since February of 1870.

The layoff from manufacturing declined at 1.3 per 100 employees, which is the second-monthly decline.

The layoff rate January a year ago was 1.7 per 100 employees.

Housing starts, we're exceeding just the 2.5 million units in January.

That's 40% above the year-over-year.

Housing permits were at 2.2 million units.

That's 34% above the year-over-year.

The same is true of the marketing and branding institute that made exceedingly high net-news savings, exclusively for the interest-to-savings loan total of $21.1 billion in January, 26% above the year earlier.

Deposits at mutual savings banks in January rose to $807.5 million, an increase of 11% from the year earlier.

Standard and Poor's index and high-end stock prices rose $1.7 in February, indexed higher than $897.11, 13% above the November 7 loan low.

As you know, the stock market hit 950 yesterday.

And instead of all the stock in the industry, it's up even more than that.

And Dow Jones is trading on all the... What was the high at Dow Jones in the 60s?

I think it was the highest.

1995 and the spring of 1999.

Yes.

When?

Spring of 69.

I think it was spring of 69 or late of 68.

I think it was late of 68.

Real income is up 2.8%.

We usually adjust the consumer prices to calculate the annual rate on 2.6, which means from August 71 to January 72.

The number of major labor areas was substantially unimproved by 6% of origin, many sharply in January, to 54 out of a total of over 150.

This was next year in December of 71, and less, and a little less, than the 10-year peak of last October.

Monday's class of December peak increased to an annual rate of 8.2%, compared to 1.1% in the fourth quarter of 1971.

Over this same period, M2 is reached by 14.8%, up from 8.2% before the 4-7-1.

It's increased to the highest potential in all categories.

Now, it's unfavorable, but total retail sales are less awful.

It's increased only 0.5% to 10% between the summer and January.

At 28.1 p.m. January 6th in the middle of the year, quote, January, February 6th, we're short of the first quarter projections.

Merchandise trade is bad.

We have a third work on Thursday, June 19th.

That's in January.

The imports were almost 107 million in January, 23% of all the year earlier.

Exports advanced 362 million in January, up to 13% in January of last year.

Those are the points that we, I'm sure you can find more, we really try to take care of the broader gauge and just everywhere you look.

I don't think there's any question for it.

The message to the community is better.

There's a very substantial strengthening of confidence in the message to the community towards the consumer index.

I heard something like that recently, unfortunately.

So I think I'm going to verify it completely well.

Let me say a word so that we have no misunderstanding on this point.

Harder to hear, but I need you to know that the first understanding is a great thing that we're going to keep down.

And the money supply is going to continue to go up.

And third, and I can't say this too strongly, there is not going to be a return to convertibility.

Not partially.

Not maybe in the future.

Nothing.

That has to be the line.

Because the moment that you say, well, we won't think about it now, maybe we might later.

You're going to raise all hell on this thing.

Now, if at some time in the future, who knows, who knows, but we all, we decide that some different system is needed, and you need the ability.

But at the present time, and that's frankly the way I believe in playing these men, the way I have time.

You don't, you don't, you don't indicate, well, I'm going to be able to do this or that or the other.

In fact, he's told those damn cards close to your vest to keep you guessing.

As far as we're concerned, our line has got to be very clear.

The line is that we have found, as you said, there's not going to be a return to the brick building.

That's it.

That's our position.

Now, no matter, I don't care whether Wall Street raises hell, the International Bank of America raises hell, and the Civil Security raises hell, and all the rest, if you cross this bridge, not because he, let me say that, looking at his unfavorable bank figures,

There's one there that points out pretty damn good.

You've got the third worst month on the balance of payments and that sort of thing.

So if we were stuck not on convertibility, we could be having everybody scream about what's happening to the dollar, wouldn't it?

Well, just so we understand, I want you to see people in bedroom and here, here, just put out that line, okay?

Hard, and you just decided, and that's it.

And John, you're not here to build this, because you already have a way to do it.

The point that I think you should do is that if you were to build it, I think you should say it.

that you could put it on as the president's decision and let's just not have any fools around about it.

Because I don't think, I know Arthur's game here and I respect the guy fighting for what he believes in and the rest.

But he doesn't have to make, he doesn't have to make this big decision.

I mean, he's not, he likes to meet with all these things and the president's all fine.

But there's not going to be a return to convertibility.

So let go of our role in the business and all the rest, that's just fine.

They will let you.

So that may be a little bit overstated, but that's what I mean.

And we got that across last time.

I don't think they're going to change your mind.

My mind is totally made up on it.

And I'm not going to go back and revert a little bit.

Does anybody have an argument about it?

I don't think so.

Do you understand?

He's got to say that.

He said, well, we discussed it.

We discussed it.

So the answer is, you can discuss anything you want.

Our decision is we're not going to go back to convertibility.

And the situation changes, but I think in order to be in any bargaining position at all, we've got to say, this is our decision.

We're not, but we're not sitting around here wondering whether we did it right, and wondering whether now we have a tender position.

The moment we do that, boy, there's a sin upon us and terrors upon us.

Right?

Yes, sir.

All right.

Well, that's it.

We'll just fight it, fight it through.

Good.

In the meantime, I think what would be helpful, Herb,

Because these figures too, it's very helpful for me to get them.

I'm not a student here, of course, but when you

When you make up a, one of those confidential memos to me, see that one of those, George, I don't know if you've talked about this last, well I, it's not, it's not all, it's just, you're doing it, I don't pay it, so I can read it in a hurry, but I think the jobless is that he knows what my body has.

It's all, it's all we think of the same figures.

But you had your report, most of these facts, but also you had reports of changes, whether you're, you know, going to 2019.

And I said, let me say this, there's one thing that I, I feel is a problem, that I don't want you to fall into it, members of the council, and I don't want you to go solve it, and maybe the same thing.

I know everybody worries in the administration about, particularly presidential advisers, about whether or not history's been recorded, whether they gave the wrong advice or the right advice.

Harper's possessive of that, I understand why, because he's been around a long time.

So, consequently, he's advising on both sides of every one of these damn issues.

Three heads he's protecting perfectly.

I know what I said about all the medals.

Remember what he said?

He didn't care for a bad guy in Texas.

I can't understand it.

I got a medal from the USA before I got a good guy in Texas.

That was different.

That's not the point.

I understand.

I understand the game.

He said it.

Good idea.

But I want you and the members of the council to realize that we want you best to stick your necks out and, you know, thanks for working pretty good with us here.

If they're in terrible shape, you have to say it's over.

Don't feel that in order to protect yourself and so forth, that a confidential member has to do the right thing about the thing.

Later on, I'll say, well, I don't think it's wrong.

If I were to do it, I mean, you won't get it wrong.

The only way to get good advice is to have people feeling that they can send it in here.

And I don't take responsibility.

So you call and discuss if you can.

But I'm not as certain about whether or not it's the faculty who is wrong there.

Therefore, we better get somebody who's going to be right.

The economists never agree.

Yeah, no, you were right.

That's all I had to say.

I tried to tell him what I thought.

I know he didn't choose me.

That's the reason I asked him to write these memos.

I had to go all the way down to the top of my mind.

I tried to tell him what I thought.

Well now, also there is the need to always put up the warning flags so that we don't get a bit of that sassy, but I think it is well for us to have a little sort of teething pot for everyone, no matter what kind of time.

I think we'd welcome any of our backers to do everything we can to jazz and sing some of that and try to go forward strong and see what we have, what we have.

Yeah, those figures sure really can impress you.

I just got this up here again.

How can I keep an eye out for the president?

One of them has been here for quite a while.

One of them has been to Michigan.

I haven't had a chance to read anything to her before.

I had lunch with Gracie, and she had a very good meeting with Jack Gracie, the vice president.

that study aid was expected to be utilities, that they are, in effect, going to establish the new guidelines and turn it back to the regulatory agencies that have the responsibility for regulating them.

The price regulation is not going to recommend any increases

in the health farm and they're going to in fact step out of the picture and try to do it she brought their own guidelines across the country but the theory being that

Do we overrate and focus on the price-to-mission level with what telephone companies, what rating groups, they get the new guy or they don't know the price-to-mission level?

And are we going to try to do the same first among the regulatory agencies throughout the country because their prices are going up, because their costs are going up, because their rates are going to have to go up?

When it comes to inactivity, with the alternative, I can talk to the person.

I really find nothing...

to disagree with him on how to interpret his philosophy, on how the Vice-Commissioner would operate.

He told me, frankly, that he had it somewhat fair with him.

He had a bunch of folks that turned into right-leaders, and both won the commission on the staff.

He said, no, that's not so.

We don't want to.

We'll try to turn some of this loose.

And he started talking about going from tier one to two and moving people back and forth.

And I said, isn't it very difficult?

I said, thank God we're doing fine.

I said, just don't confuse us about it now.

And I said, just don't worry about your business.

Let's just do it.

Keep still about it.

Maybe after the first quarter, the courts are going to be looking for reporting groups.

Take a look at it.

Get some idea of what your tier two group did.

Then you might have a place to make some changes.

But the change I recommend is they don't report the city annually.

Nice to know we get the natural report in December.

Still, before they...

Did you discuss with him what we had discussed?

Will we have a cut-out appointment on coverage?

No, we didn't ever talk about everything.

I told him we weren't going to give you the staff.

He left 100.

He was asking for it.

He now paid down about 100.

He said he was working with Donovan.

He said that too much.

He said he needed 100, or 200, I think.

He needed 100 from IRS.

And 100 from the Defense Department.

He said he had trouble getting the defense.

And in this study, I think he is in some trouble with George.

getting cooperation from the other agencies.

And we are going to need to put the arm on some of these agencies.

We can do that, all right, once we get the language of coverage laid out along the lines of the discussion that defines the work that we can take care of.

Reluctant to see more people outside of the Pentagon than have a pretty tough personality.

Well, so we have to try to replicate it.

And we've buried it 2,000 million years.

We've improved it in dollars and cents.

However, man, we lose and we lose revenue.

We estimate that we'll lose one quarter of a billion dollars.

this year.

So that's why we're very conscious.

We prove that for every audit we make, we recover so many dollars.

And there's just no question that we can get it done.

But we plan to meet again two weeks from now.

And we'll just

First of all

We should inform the congressional committee.

I'll get them a better approach.

The same we'll tell everybody.

The same way as you are.

We'll get this task force going on long term.

And we'll mention that to me.

I'm on Social Security, Roger.

I don't know how to talk to these people to say that I'm talking about Social Security.

I know they are going to get in the Congress.

They're going to say, look, it's going to roll, go through, and it's going to be 20 percent.

It's the old, the old motion.

We'll lose it and all that and the other thing.

I understand.

But you could just say that I have a lot of other problems here.

or that may have a total impact on this, on our whole control system, the wage price, the bus, the budget, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

And that, just a number of times, is too damn bad to see, Steve.

But all in all, that worked out pretty well by the market.

5%.

What's wrong?

What's the limit?

9%.

That's right.

They're doing fine.

That's good.

Uh, next to the first line.

First line.

Go ahead.

First line.

Now to the, uh, uh, the base on that part of the beach line.

I thought it was, uh, maybe mine thought it was 68.

Uh, it might have been as tall as the edge or not as the edge.

I'm looking at my chart here.

I know it's standard before, but it wasn't.

I think it was in, uh,

We've had it many ways, it seems to me.

And God has done it.

um

Oh, I understand.

And I understand that we will do it, but I think it's not going to get to the heart of the city every time we're going to talk about this.

So this is our damn job.

In fact, it's not going to be done.

I mean, we can't do it.

We've got to make these decisions on these things.

And we'll do our best to be posted very soon.

We'll work with you.

This is a good meeting.

Uh, the, uh, you're not going to schedule another one?

Yeah, yeah, I think we're not working out the time with any other calls tonight.

I'm going to say to you that you ought to, uh, uh, if at any time, at one thing we can do, there's certain things that...

They're interested.

If at any time you'd like to bring somebody, you know, I mean, it's virtually all right.

I mean, if you've got a special problem in Somalia or if you want to bring a body member to the council, then sometimes it might be a sort of, you know, might be a very, very good thing to do.

Where it's this kind of meeting, you see, but where you might have somebody you've been working with especially and they'd like to come in here and that gets very, very attractive.

It should just be the four of us.

Are you ready to start?