Conversation 772-015

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Actually, Connell is not available.

He's flying to Florida.

Oh, that's right.

I asked Ziegler to sit in, thinking that it might not be a bad idea for him to soak up a little of the atmosphere.

He's really on the hot corner.

And, we got him off of the atmosphere.

Go around here tomorrow.

Sure.

I have a little additional information on the questions that you raised.

arrangement requires $30,000 of preference income before the minimum tax starts taking effect.

So that you know that you're talking about people who have at least that option.

That's if their preference income has to take from other income.

Second, in 1970, which is the only year we have this data for, $120 million was paid in as a result of the minimum tax that is now operating.

75,000 individuals filed returns, 19,000 paid a tax.

It's interesting that of those 19,000, 1,500 had no adjusted gross income.

That is, when you compare their preference income with their wage and salary income.

And of those 50, of those 1,500, but they were able to use the

people had to shelter all of their other income.

And they showed an adjusted gross income, those 1500 people, of minus 105 million.

That is, they over-sheltered, so to speak.

And they had a preference income in total of 136 million.

They managed to come out with 8.5 million of tax.

The point being that what you're talking about here are people with lots and lots of money.

But I think if you were looking for just a calibration of this in terms of income, it probably has a negligible impact below $50,000.

And probably not much impact until you get way up into higher numbers.

Was that $8.5 million in tax paid by the $1,500 or $1,500?

By the $1,500.

$120 million was collected all around by the $1,500.

Now, your proposal with $69,000, instead of going to $30,000 before a tax on preference income is paid, proposed to start at $10,000.

So that would have made a big difference.

Also, the rate that was proposed was basically half the rate of the bracket they were in.

In other words, 7% to 35%, being half of 14% to 70%.

And no doubt, the effective average of that would have, on this kind of income, must have come to something under 20% to 25%.

In other words, somewhere anywhere out of the same.

So that a return to the proposals that you put forward in 59, or even just going to the rate that you put forward in 59, would raise the amount considerably.

Yeah, the problem with John is that, of course,

is that even though it is limited to higher brackets, it's a tax increase.

The only way that you could, the only way you could answer the question is whether you take, well, actually, if you do that, you're sure as hell not going to add to the total amount of taxes.

The total amount of taxes has got to be zero.

There's not going to be that tax increase.

We don't want the empty funds.

We don't want this

tax increase no tax increase and even you know the president's point won't be that tax increase

Well, what did you say today?

Well, there's no tax increase.

There's no tax increase.

Well, that's clear.

Absolutely.

We've got arms.

Is this to the level of what I'm about to say?

You're absolutely opposed to any tax increase.

However, you have always believed in any improvement as early as 1969.

Congress did not care about.

And the way that you would recommend it is with regard to the middle tax.

And you think it should be at a higher level of the Democratic Congress in the next.

And that this comes under the category, this is old-fashioned politics.

What I'm saying is, let me say that, I'm just trying to think of how to put it in the most political way, and I know we've been trying to do it again, but what I'm trying to say is that I call upon the Congress again to enact the tax reform that I proposed in 1969.

The tax reform does provide for

for a higher tax for those who have tax shelters.

And that's, and then by then I would say people are earning $30,000 or don't.

You can't be in advance.

You're about to see a bunch.

You've got to save $30,000 and so forth.

People are going to worry we're earning $5,000.

I think you might be all right on that if you would say it's not the revenue, it's the price of the thing.

It's a higher tax, greater compensation to the cost of living, greater equity.

Well, of course, that's the purpose of it, to reform the interest of equity.

The only problem is it does raise more revenue.

Right, John?

Well, in 1970, the credit system collected $20 billion.

I still think that what I would do is to take that and even though it's minimal, I would put that as a

first installment on whatever we're going to do in terms of our long term property taxes.

Then you want to be a part of those picking stuff.

That's right.

Over a four year period.

Property technically cannot come in any sizable amount now.

You can't go to one year.

You can't go to two years.

You can't go to three years.

It should be about four years.

I'm just thinking how long.

But the point is here that, having proposed this in 1969, the Congress not having enacted it, I call upon the Congress again to enact, in the interest of equity, the provisions of my 1969 proposal.

Let me try to think.

Let me tell you.

And don't rewrite it in a way that I'll melt.

It's been a real problem in the last four years.

I didn't know.

Because you are disassembling local and tax assessment and collection.

I don't know.

I did not want $600 million of other revenue here to apply on the Dodd-Mann.

That's all I'm saying.

So we'll take the $600 million and give it to somebody.

Well, the point of property tax, really...

I wouldn't give it to the poor.

They're the worst needed.

I'd give it to the I'd give it to the I'd give it to the elderly or I'd provide it for the middle income people or whatever the hell you want but I'd call upon the congressman again to enact the proposal so and so which of course this is just that 600 million we're talking about these guys got in the way of the congressman you see if we could work out something that I still hate

I think it's very important to run this by him.

That means we're only talking now.

Forget we ever said it, but you've got to run it by the economy then, because he's up all the time.

He's quite aware of this, but on the other hand.

I hear a cyber attack.

The first three.

And since there is no such thing as the property tax, it varies because the problem of interlocking federal government to all of the jurisdictions, city and state, is great.

One method to handle this, although it has its disadvantage because it has some

said it the other way, but one method to handle it is just to make the property tax, say, for the elderly whose income is no higher than something, a tax credit, as they can just deduct it fully.

Then you have no, you're not interlocking with state and local systems at all.

But if they can just deduct fully any tax that they pay, the property tax, they have to pay any tax.

The property tax for people who are 60 or older, if you pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay, pay

And in addition, look at the increase in

People are paying higher property taxes, and an enormous increase in real property values.

That's a very good example right there.

It is a good example.

Well, because you're in a higher bracket.

You're in a higher bracket.

You're the second piece of property.

And it's rural.

You take the guy and you claim his points.

That's right.

There's a middle income or lower middle property and his real estate is gone.

Not much if he's in a typical ethnic enclave in one of those frame houses.

His values, if anything, are declining.

Because the house is probably 22 years old anyway.

Plumbing isn't working very well.

It means an effective reduction in property taxes because of the absence of land property taxes when taxes go up.

That's true.

And some may go down to 6,000 in that law to prevent somebody from cutting their tax as a result of this income rather than spending it.

And some may go down to 6,000 in that law that prevents somebody from cutting their back as a result of this income rather than spending it.

Well, that's a tough case to make either way, as to whether they will or won't, you know, whether it will or won't affect property taxes.

But it's a tough case to sue on the property taxes.

In some states, property tax is at the maximum, so it could go up anyway.

You know, constitutionally.

So you get a wide variety of interrogations.

How does the tax credit go?

It works.

It does.

In not a lot of states right now, the circuit breaker

I think it's a start.

And it starts with the group, whose team is likely to be, you know, .

I don't count, who don't have the 30% structure.

You and I.

There are two, having suggested this, and I think it's a pretty good way to get at it.

There are two disadvantages, I think.

One is that if this principle

what you started is extended further and further as the basic method for solving the problem.

Then what we have done is provided incentives for property taxes as far as local governments are concerned.

Because they can say, look, you're not paying if you deduct it from your federal income tax.

And it's a full credit.

So in effect, the federal government

going to take up whatever property taxes assess, so we might as well assess a lot.

So I think it has that.

I think it's a good thought when restricted to a group that you can identify and manage that isn't too big.

And the general principle for the whole problem, I think it has that major .

Now, another way you can do it is just to not .

Are you concerned that the people who are on the way to Delaware are not all rich people?

We can't do anything now because we're spending so much.

Well, I wouldn't want to say that, because that might imply there's a rule to that.

What you were just to say, we're working on it.

We'll continue to work on it when we're ready.

that we will propose, just as we have in the past.

But this is an artificial demo.

Well, if you do that, the problem is .

It hasn't touched so much yet, or it does to you and to me, because we've .

And I can see that's .

And that means that there are 12 million people in America.

He had no plan for that at all.

And a lot of this stuff is others.

If you can keep the debate on his programs rather than ours, we're in for it.

That's the problem.

Now, the point is, the fight is whether or not the fact that some rich people don't pay enough tax is so vulnerable that we can't do it.

We didn't guess that so much.

The question is, do we do nothing in the tax field?

We do, Washington.

and advocating extensive tax reform.

At some point, it also comes to the position of tax increase.

If something like this was submitted, it's not really extensive tax reform, and it is tax increase.

And the debate would be .

You understand.

tax increase?

Well, tax reform, I think one of the points that the court is going to cross is tax reform has very little money in it.

When you think about it in terms of the tax shelter business, it's an equity proposition, not a money proposition.

A government gets its money by the taxes on business and the taxes on capital gains.

That's where all the money is.

And there, we

the investment tax credit and the asset appreciation rate.

And that is what we specifically advocated last year and the Congress passed and we're in favor of that and it's working.

I've got a little bit of time for some business here because I'm sort of on the line out here over this afternoon.

But what I said to these birds was the tax reform doesn't necessarily mean tax increase.

that we can affect a reallocation of federal resources through a number of different devices without raising taxes.

And I say that we're not going to govern.

We don't.

The best half they've done is.

We've been at it for years.

No, we've been at it for years.

We've been at it when we had one in 1969 and one in 1971 last year.

And we've been at this one now for 18 months.

And when it's ready, we'll advance it.

But not in terms of what you want.

I did not plan to increase taxes without committing to reform.

Mr. President, this is just a matter of political credit.

I'm not smart enough.

Yeah, I know.

You can buy without anything.

It's the best.

I don't know.

What I'm afraid of is that you may push into this.

and you find yourself guilty of this or more, well, you're not guilty.

It's better to do nothing than to do wrong.

Absolutely.

We're perfectly positioned for October without a period to be pushed into it because we've said we've had all this underway.

We've had it under study.

At the right time, we'll be out with it.

And when we do, it'll be careful and thoughtful.

And we have really only two criteria.

No higher taxes and more equity, more jobs.

We have to have this in mind.

In terms of the various advantages, as I said previously, of putting it out as late as possible so that these people have less chance to shoot at it.

The disadvantage of putting it out later, as late as possible, is that it allows the other side to create a phony issue.

Exactly.

Some of these fascists, one, they're not going to delay that.

Or two, they're going to do something terrible.

I think that's a de minimis issue.

I think we're in the vortex of it at the moment.

We've been with it, what, about five days.

There is just a whole lot of opportunity to elaborate on that issue.

That's it.

When you've said it, you've said it.

And it seems to me that it goes to the President's credibility, to the confidence people had in his method of doing business,

And it tends to strengthen to say... Well, I'm glad.

Let me say this in the current degrees before you came in.

I think I'm glad that we can now position there's going to be no tax increase.

We can cool the value-added debt, which is important.

We can continue to cool it more and more.

Well, let me get that committee and they'll put the top down and then the top.

That's the problem is whether we go this step further, go for a more equitable...

tax, which has to do with this thing.

Now, not a real question, Rob, to put it this way.

Suppose we said there would be no tax increase, but in the interest of equity, we are going to ask the Congress again to pass the proposal we made in 1969, the report, and provide a tax credit for the elderly for property taxes.

How does that work?

Well, I think the attack against that would be

That the minimum tax is reformed.

And if that is going to be our tax, as far as the tax shelter type thing is concerned, we ought to say that.

But it isn't us.

We haven't.

All you're doing is adjusting the rate.

So it really isn't us.

Well, it's a question of degree.

Let me suggest this.

What about the freedom proposal?

Are kids aware of this approach?

Approach your peers and our mutual friends on freedom.

Now that is real.

That one I like better.

Yeah.

Putting that up.

What is fiscal dividend?

This is a proposal to our, I don't know, we can explain it.

Please, George.

to factor in the tax system as a result of inflation.

So instead of having Congress do it periodically, not just a cliche, but also a part of the growth, right?

You can do it in a variety of ways, including... Let me go back to the reason I think you ought to be prepared.

You talked about this long ago.

We have got to stop the rise, the growth of guns, right?

But I just like the idea of frankly having a restraint.

The more you get in taxes, the more you're going to spend.

That's how we know this money, because the bank is going to spend it.

But if your taxes automatically come down, they're going to copy this.

Well, either the taxes come down or you earmark it for some other real property.

That then meets all of our criteria.

We say we're going to realize $7 billion a year.

Like for example, what would be a sort of outside figure that you could say?

That could be as good as a 3% inflation rate.

And you assume a real growth rate of 4%, to say.

Don't count the population increase.

So you've got 6% there.

And considering the fact that you're escalating through the bracket, that translates probably into something on the order of 7%.

And you've got a $93 billion personal income tax take.

So you're in the neighborhood of $6 to $7 billion.

So maybe 5.

That's the way you would... We are going to have that as a new principle.

I mean, I like the idea of... Rather than having to increase the cost per place, automatically increase the size of government.

Let me give two

contrary arguments within the framework.

But I like this idea.

Because the cost of government is awful.

Well, one argument is that we're having one awful time financing the spending, even after we squeeze it down.

Nobody seems to know where it's coming from, and everybody is...

There's a lot of talk about tax increase and so forth.

So this is a tax cut.

And it means that we have to find that money in the program somehow or other.

There's going to have to be a lot of rough stuff done in order to get this property tax raised out.

That's one argument.

The second argument is that apparently we're planning on a 3% inflation rate or some percent inflation rate.

And we are.

Particularly as we're building into the property tax, we're saying in order to do this for the property tax, we have to have this inflation rate.

We're going to find out.

But it's a compensating argument.

Because if you don't have inflation, then property taxes are not going to go up as much.

If you do have them, then they need disrelease.

So they're leaked.

You should be aware of it.

That is, that if you adjust income tax rates for inflation, you can help to institutionize inflation.

So I forgot to do that.

No, no.

Yes, you do.

It's like Social Security.

You have an automatic S.

What?

You take the, look, I don't want social security.

I don't, I don't need it.

All right.

But do you, let's see what your assumption is.

Do you assume that we're going to adjust rates?

Well, you have to.

No.

You have to.

No, but I understand that it doesn't.

It's without any adjustment of rates.

You see.

If you have to give a structure, an income tax rate, with inflation, your real income tax rate is going up all the time.

The only way to correct for that is to reduce taxes.

Well, this assumes no reduction in taxes.

This assumes a real effect that you've described, but without any mechanical adjustment of rates at all.

Well, there are various reasons.

There are all sorts of ways in which you could make this adjustment, and that is something that we are working on when one has to think through.

What has happened historically is that Congress has periodically done this, with the result that you keep the potential interest rate at around 10 percent.

It's a deterioration.

They're periodically concentrating.

The way they have reduced them has always been to reduce the low end of the scale and to leave the

high bracket up there.

They reduce exemptions or something.

So you might, there are all sorts of ways in which you could calibrate this in order to sort of .

Under the present system, the way it works, if the Congress did nothing, and if the tax criteria

But if inflation, the real tax rate will keep on going.

Now, if you try to adjust to that, then I haven't seen inflation.

See, they don't have to worry about inflation.

As far as this is concerned, we can't say how long they're going to have to oppose it.

They might want to oppose it another week.

I may be opposed to it in person.

I may be devoted to it.

That's the argument against it.

In other words, it poses an additional burden on the taxpayer because you don't adjust the rates to that.

Well, it is.

No, it is.

See, people who are now opposed to inflation and who fight politically against it are not insolent under this regime of government.

Well, don't you have the other effect?

If you don't do something like this, and skimp, so to speak, then it tends to be institutionalized by having that additional revenue expand the government.

Well, sure, look,

I am in favor of a reduction in tax rates, always.

This is a consideration from an economic viewpoint that one simply should have in mind.

I perceive politically that I have a freedom of support.

Well, this has the advantage of being $5 million a year between the bear market that does not involve a, quote, increase in taxes, unquote, in the political sense.

That's what I got to find out when I was making those answers in there about various alternatives.

I rather mysteriously said, I don't know how to do this without increasing taxes, to make a pool of federal money available.

that could do some of this property tax job.

Oh, what is it?

What is it?

Not easy.

I'd like to say that's the word of money in this race.

Sure, sure.

You don't have to be concerned about the growth of the money.

You're concerned.

Since December of last year, money supply, hourly, my sense is growing at nearly 8%.

Well done.

Well done, but I...

but I'd like to see some of this has been on the high side and nothing worse has ever happened in this area.

One of the trouble is we've had a whole bunch of parts management hasn't been too bad.

We've had this every month.

There it is.

I don't see it showing up anywhere anymore.

They're not in yet, but you know, on some cities, they hit quickly.

Once they start rising, it's hard to get to the right area.

And that's where you begin to get the squeeze.

Well, you don't have to worry about housing because the savings and loan association, the savings bank, and why I think it strikes, I didn't write it that late.

on the short-term market interest rates.

The market interest rates have to come through.

That's the one.

And it's going to come through.

But I'll tell you where I am.

I'm worried about primaries and frozen.

I am worried about the discount rate.

You've got to know this.

The pressure is building up within the federal system.

I am knocking it down.

See, I've had two applications.

And normally, when we get an application for an increase in the discount rate, well, we sit on it.

This time, this time, we've had an application from Kansas City, and we knocked it down.

That very day, I have a divided board, but I carry it.

Now, next we have an application from the Boston Bank.

We knocked that down the same day, and I am unanimous for this time.

Whether I can continue to hold that bank, I'm going to make my best efforts.

I can't.

I know.

I'm going to make my best efforts.

I even think I'll succeed, but I can't promise you that I will.

I understand.

Could I ask you one question?

I didn't get Elvis Friedman's theory presented.

as well as possible.

I'd like for him to send a little sheet in on it.

Could he do that?

But, I mean, now he's got to be down in the tent.

He doesn't need cameras and all this.

They make a nice little speech about it.

I'm up here.

How do you describe this dark thing?

How does he answer it?

Well, we will

We have taken it further than he has already, in the sense of trying to figure out precisely how you would do it.

But we'll get him to state this well, and I'll get him down here.

I'd like to bring him in to see you, and I can't even tell if you'd like to talk to him about it.

The one thing I do understand, I can see the building inflation.

I can see the problems associated with all the rest.

Any restraints that we have on the sides of even ourselves, you know.

I know you spent the OMB and all the rest of your, now the Treasury, and it's a horrible process, right?

But believe me, it's a good thing for us to have restraints on what we spend.

Right.

We'll spend up the bills.

Right.

We'll always spend up the bills.

If we do that, Congress will.

Congress will, that's right.

They'll, you get any kind of, if we have to get real, we'd like to have any kind of a little bit more in and out, which is what's going to happen next year.

They'll spend it.

And my view is that it's good to be restrained from the spending.

I just don't like to see government grow bigger than it needs to.

I like government to be as big as it needs to, but no, you'll agree with that.

You used to say in 1968, the tax was too high.

I don't know, right?

Well, Mr. President, they, um, I don't know, gut expenditures on all levels in 1971 accounted for 36% of the dollar value of this country's output at the time.

And taxes accounted for 34%.

That's right.

That's nothing.

I'm not saying... McGard's, McGard's plan was over 50%.

Anyway, I think it's taxed, not just the welder, but the whole scene.

Well, the, um, the, uh, uh, I understand that cats have started doing this.

Making calculations of the cost of this.

You've got a paradigm.

Well, if you see me, the, uh, I would like to, I would like to see cats

Quite a few weeks, we've been out.

It's still 96.

Our odds come down.

You know, changes proposed in 1992.

It's more likely to go down.

We've been keeping a running inventory.

That's the latest one.

I read it.

You read it.

I read it.

That's a cheat code, that's fine.

But you know, this law doesn't work.

My mind says this law doesn't work.

And it shouldn't come so way from you or political people.

Here's the question, is this technical responsibility?

Not a bad idea.

Good thing.

Well, I wrote this up this morning through the Republican leadership, and we attributed it to the research people as they are the CEO of the committee.

All right.

any of the, what happens is, this becomes stock market.

As soon as you put it on a piece of paper, it becomes true.

It happens to be true.

Yeah, but I mean, you don't have to, you don't have to, you know, I get it.

We'll have it before you leave.

Getting back to the tax thing, John and I share Rob's view that

that even this adjustment in equity would be considered to be a tax increase.

Yeah, it's fuzzy.

It has to be very simple, very clear-cut.

One of the reasons that McGovern is slipping, I think, is that he's fuzzy.

People don't know what he stands for.

He'll change someone.

He's free of our money.

We stand for, as a matter of fact, there's a lot of kids not even there.

They said, well, you know, it's very political that you're coming out with this at this time.

I said, now, wait a minute.

The president was in Russia.

And Brookings came out with their report.

You remember we went over at the AOB and we had a press conference and we had no tax increase to this administration.

And all out of their heads, yes, they remembered that.

Thank you.

And so, I don't know if you have a copy of this.

It's too bad.

So, we have our foundation laid a long time back.

Simple, clear trust.

categorical no tax increase unless the Congress goes crazy.

Well, we're going to have to start a veto.

Sure.

Can I ask one question while these falls are here?

On the water bill that was brought up this morning, you're still going to get rolled on a veto.

It will not be sustained.

But the amount is a little less than that.

Yes, it's considerably cleaned up.

from what was said before the recess.

What we're talking about, Arthur, is the water pollution bill.

And we had one, you know, we put it in, but these fakers have raised the price.

But more importantly, they have some terrible provisions that they put too much of a burden on the industry.

But I understand, according to the board, they've laid a lot of that out.

Have they?

They have laid that out a little bit.

They have not cleaned it up as much as the representative did this morning.

What's your opinion, George?

I haven't looked at it.

There's no way out of what the government is putting out.

I think that would be a pretty tough thing to be done.

What do you think, Ron?

Here I am.

I agree with the environment issue.

And frankly, I have a great water interest.

I think it's a lousy issue.

I mean, lousy.

Let me put it this way.

Lousy.

That's not wrong.

It ought to be done.

And here I am, business up the wall.

People I talk to may be the wrong people.

People I talk to are business people, financial people, and also my neighbors and their moms, and they think that this environmental thing is being overdone, and we're losing our sense of proportion.

Yeah, I know.

There's no doubt about that, and I think that is beginning to... Well, I didn't know that.

I have all of a sudden, I've caught a cold.

I think that this would capture an important note in thinking around that.

Well, but we can't be that we can't rule in the region.

No, I don't know what he should have done.

I don't know.

I couldn't remember.

This, of course, this is a...

It doesn't go as far as the, for example, what we've done with the auto van.

We wrote that back.

We saved for it.

Well, we saved them on a technicality.

They were in some technical violations.

We saved them, but we've been very tough on them.

Well, we might have to go into this in the last couple of years.

If I was us to do this, as a matter of fact, our technology is catching up to... Michael told me that that bell system announcement was quite premature.

Did you get the material since you had the ?

No.

Anyway, that's the water quality.

That's an authorization.

Wait, but I think it requires my contract authority.

It's contract authority.

That's authorized.

And the question of how much is actually spent will depend upon how much Ruckelshaus or whoever is over there is allowed to spend.

And what...

John doesn't think so.

Well, I'm going with the LFB people now.

They say I'll go right out the door regardless of anything.

Well, let me end this, John, so that I don't come up and have to decide this at the wee hours of the morning.

You better, I'd like to take a good look at it.

I've been all prepared to meet Joe today, but I don't want to meet Joe until the bill gets rolled.

Well, I'm not mad at him, but I don't know.

Why is it the worst of both worlds?

And also, if we can't control the spending, and all that would change the money a great deal, change the game.

We're in power.

They took the appropriations committee out of the process.

So that this money does not pass through appropriation.

And that has influenced people's thinking about the ability to, in effect, withhold funds or whatnot.

But as I understand it, the contract authority is very much like the contract authority, say, on highways.

And there's no appropriation there either.

And we struggle with the transportation department each year about how much they're going to spend.

And while there is a drive in this bill to actually spend that money, nevertheless, the contracts are left by the EPA.

And they can't let contracts turn up.

I must say, it's been a hard one, those counts, regarding the people we're talking about.

Now, coming back to the tax, I think this has been very helpful to sort of get the feel of the feed.

I think that in terms of getting my own thoughts in mind, before I go out and actually have to face these idiots in the press, what I like to do is to have another meeting

And in the meantime, I want this run by the company from a political standpoint, not the merits.

I want to say the merits, not the what did he do, et cetera, because he didn't understand everything that I said.

His political judgment is very important to me.

And I would go beyond that, because I want to just talk about it.

I'll ask my great-grandchildren and all those people, because they don't even know.

I mean, they don't know what we think about it.

Then I think what we should do is to get together again.

I think that this is a good group.

I think we've got George, ,, and John.

Is that fair enough?

And what we really want to do is to, first, your simplified form is no problem.

Second, I like the idea of having something.

I think of something new and from something entirely new.

That's what it feels to me about .

If you could do it that side, we'd pay the whole $7 billion.

That's too much.

Maybe $3 billion.

See?

Maybe just take, what you just said, you're going to pay this or that over $3 billion so that we have some restraint on it.

So that some of, shall we say, the fiscal dividend goes to tax reduction.

It is tax reduction, of course.

Not really.

Right.

The fiscal dividend that was going to the bureaucrats.

Yeah, it's a new return to the property.

And that could be a way to handle the whole problem.

I like also, I like the idea of doing what Arthur said.

The problem I have with that is whether that can be fielded in terms of whether it is a tax increase.

And maybe it's just too damn complicated.

I'm not sure.

Do you think it is?

It's a terrifically complicated

same when you get into it, but the idea of just increasing the rate is, that's simple enough, but that makes it a clear increase.

If you have an increase in tax rates,

...coupled with the tax credits that we go through.

So, we have to balance it out to zero, and then tax it.

Do this for me.

Read the transcript of this exercise that we did today.

Alright.

And then, against that, even this.

Let this transcript work out after John and I have talked.

We talked earlier with George.

It represents what our thinking is at the moment, and on the field of question.

I'll send it over to you as soon as it's available.

Right.

And then, before we get together again,

My feeling is that if you do that, it's not a tax increase.

My feeling is that if what you do, if what you do is simply adjust within the current tax levels, in other words, you say, look, we're going to make a little way for these rich people to get the old folks, that to me is not a tax increase.

But, I mean, this is the way I feel.

Otherwise, otherwise,

What are you saying?

This is a sacred town.

We're going to stand still.

The whole world is changing, but we're going to stand still.

We have an army in Texas.

We can't be aggressive anymore.

In the interest of it, without changing the overall attitude of Texas.

Mr. President, we will bring you for this meeting a

material about the minimum tax and what might be done to this and who it hits, what brackets, that kind of thing.

We'll bring you a statement about the various ways in which the Friedman idea might be handled and the amounts of money and how it could and the technicalities of what could be done.

And then we'll bring you the material on the property tax business and the calibration.

See, tax credits to offset

But the record showed that tax reform never discusses Dr. Burns' presence.

He was only present in discussions of monetary .

Oh, yes.

Particularly international monetary .

Well, monetary problems obviously .

We did.

We should.

Sorry to talk high of that.

Oh, yeah.

Oh, very important.

I have no objection.

I think you could do it tomorrow.

I think you ought to announce it.

Why not?

But don't mention discussion of interest.

No, that's right.

No, not for that reason.

Why do you think we have a problem?

That's right.

Could we, on the announcement of... Well, could we give that a little thought?

I don't know if we should tell Lynn...

You've been invited to give a welcoming address, but let us take a little time to figure out exactly how to do that.

Oh, this will be a big piece of news in the office.

We have discussed this, and this will play it out, so if you don't mind, you can have in mind to keep up with the final statements.

I will make a major speech before I have time.

Those are not a taxi.

That's somebody that was found away.

If it hasn't sealed, the first one ever painted sealed.

Good luck.

Thanks, Carter.

What did you make your copy?

Oh, I got it.

Take another look at the one here.

That one looks like it's going to be a good copy.

All right, guys.

Good job.

Thank you.

I thought of that in some of the pictures on today, through the administrative area, they gave him a passport from the military.

Well, they can revoke his passport.

He's almost done.

Of course, he's on a gun store, on parole.

Well, parole is more to prove his crime than revoking it.

We'll have a little fun with this tax thing.

We'll make it a fuss.

Well, I'm sure we will.

This is a big job out there, isn't it?

Right, because you hit the government well.

But keep attacking.

Keep attacking.

Don't get in a position to attack.

It's got some options.

It's got theirs.

The point of those tax treaties, the point of tax reform, is a good line to get across.

What does tax reform mean?

I'm not sure, Ron.

I'm not sure that you're going to want to sleep on the roof.

We did, for example, I want my 69 proposal.

The Congress would act on that.

I want to take that money and get a tax credit proposal.

But that might close it.

I think it depends on how things play out today, and how far we've walked into that.

I think it's very sacred to say, it's always sacred to say, that most of the people that were taken, practiced those who are amazing a lot.

But this is not the best story, of course, so never mind.

It's just they ought to pay a little more attention at all.

We'll check it out.

You, uh, you're following the plan that we've laid out, Ron, of making a great deal out of the fact that I am busy as hell.

Oh, absolutely, we have.

Because I already have it.

I run around with my head cut off through receiving ambassadors and having our... tell those clients that they're getting their responses.

That's right, we're doing it.

Absolutely.

And we give all the names out.

The second, the one with firebombs.

We did this for President George's stuff.

We did it for the fire box.

I can hear about that.

They got a new buggy.

Where?

Now really, it's almost the best break we've had in the cage.

I don't know.

Gene Westwood, the National Democratic Chairman, won't let me talk about it.

College of the President announced that she had discovered a box, a red box,

out of the hallway of the Democratic Committee headquarters in the Watergate.

And it was a box, and there were some men working on it.

And there were a lot of wires in it.

And she said to the men, what are you doing?

And they said, we're installing a fire in the fire alarm.

And she said, what fire alarm?

We didn't order one.

And they said, well, the fire alarm was supposed to be put in or something.

So she went running back to her office and called the fire department and said, are you putting the fire alarm in my office?

And they said, no, ma'am.

And so then she called the water gate and said, are you putting a fire alarm in my office?

And they said, no ma'am.

And then she went out to see what was happening and no one was there anymore.

So she took the box out of the vault and ran down to Edward Bennett Williams with it and said, here's a box that they're booking you in.

What the hell is it?

It's a box.

Nobody knows.

It's a box with a lot of wires.

A red box with a lot of wires.

Oh, we don't have all that money, do we?

I wouldn't be too sure.

I don't get it.

It's a press play.

They're not charging that to us?

No, she's just saying.

Larry, Brian called her in the other day.

About that?

No, to end up for deposition.

Oh.

That's true.

Well, he didn't call everybody for sure, did he?

It's such a beauty.

It sort of adds to the rest.

at the start makes a joke out of it.

We have 100 on hand.

The Home Builders Association, which is the small home builders, small business guys in the home builders business, are so enamored of this tremendous job that the Nixon administration has done.

carrying out the mandate of Congress and the whole building thing, that they want to have a series of dinners around the country.

Out of which they expect to, they will, they commit to raise a million dollars for the president's campaign.

And they want to, want an audio, not just an audio, they insist on an audio, a kind of film, tape, film, picture thing of the president

What a great job that the nation's home building industry has done.

We don't need a million dollars to take that great steps.

And I'll just tell Maury or whoever it is, it's just too dangerous for me to be involved and raise money from a private interest direction.

I'd love to do it, but I just can't.

I just think it's dangerous.

Should we turn that on?

How do you think, too?

Oh, yes.

Anything.

Yes.

Okay.

I will not engage.

I cannot engage.

I can do it in any industry.

If I go to any industry where there are fundraisers, I'll give over their convention or something.

I would do it.

like this, just to be very honest with you, it would look like a straight payoff.

We're making something out of a beverage statement that he uses.

Yeah.

He'd say, I'll take the whole bunch.

I'm just not going to do it.

Great idea.

We appreciate it.

Yeah.

I think that's the best position to be in.

I have a feeling they'll go ahead and do it anyway.

They say they won't, but I think they will.

I don't think they think we have the guts to turn down the money.

But I think we should.

Henry?

has been selected the family of man of the Council of Churches of the City of New York, man of the year.

Don't do it.

And that's something, remember, Whitney Young, remember, was the, who's the insult?

I don't remember.

They selected you in 69.

They had a horrible son of a bitch in charge of the office.

Let me tell you what I did.

I don't think he should, because he is not being given the gold medallion award, which is their real.

That's what you got.

He's just being given a bronze award.

No, no, no.

Turn it down.

And as a White House staffer, he should turn it down.

That's the point.

The other thing is, it's a real insult to Mike, because the gold award, which is the

Uh, yeah.

No, that's not.

Client, well, we had clients before.

He doesn't have any in those galleries.

When I say he doesn't, he doesn't have any bench.

No, he's not here at all times.

Most of the soldiers we see on the line, he's always interested in the pipeline.

He's always having to get all the figures and bags and crap around.

Who else do we have on the line?

What do you want to get into?

That's just what I was going to say.

What do you want to get into?

Yeah, I don't know.

Sometimes it's good to bring it on.

Sometimes it's not.

Oh, that's hot.

You bring for dinner with the president of Sequoia this evening?

Last night.

Oh, man.

You just dressed in a suit and tie.

Wow.

Maybe you can change to your new shorts.

Get down there quickly.

Okay.

Let's see, what time do you want to go?

We'll leave you at the dock at 615.

Could you go over to the boat at 615?

I mean, we've got a car ahead of us.

You've got a car?

Yeah.

Okay.

Very good.

All right.

So, you've got a lot of things that are actually left.

Just all I've got is a coat and a suit and tie.

Well, I just brinked for dinner with the president.

I took away the night.

Okay.

Glenn Garson is going to be going too.

Do you want to check with him and

I'm going to grab a car in the next five minutes or so.

I'll be over at the dock at about 6.15.

I think that's it.

No, general discussion of the outlook.

Okay.

And if we had 10, how many have you got now?

You've got 4, 2, 10, and 10.

That's 4.

You've got 4 now without 10.

If we get 10, Colson has 6.

Just right.

6 is a good number.

Or you have any thoughts?

No.

I was just trying to think of whether there was anybody else.

Well, I don't want it to be, I don't want it to be something that's, at the end of the day, that's sort of negative, controversial, or, you know, that's what it is that it is.

I don't like him a lot.

He's an old-timer.

Let's see what

Okay.

I put out something over there and kind of built that over to the hillside.

In fact, if we check with them, that would be taking a car.

Okay, good.

Who else?

Coastal Police.

Coastal Police for how long?

How many?

10, Corbin.

Colson?

And Kevin.

Are they all going to have the motorcade?

No, they're just on the car.

Okay, everyone is safe.

I've still got a big car.

President 615, it's simpler than trying to put a motorcade on a vehicle.

Okay, we have instructions.

Guys, if you want to cheat out of the dock at 615,

and bring along your poll material.

Any interesting stuff you have to talk about?

We've got Harry Bennett and Bill Timmons and Len Garland going.

And I'm going to try and catch Steve Cannon.

So, I'm going to go.

Well, check the garage signal, get everybody over the line.

He does so many nice things.

He works on all these Jews.

All this stuff.

He goes out to the waiting pool for the memorial service.

He talks to the Jewish families and keeps your goddamn Max Fischer.

You know, that's an accomplishment in itself.

We've got Max Fischer working like a son of a bitch and not having to bother with it very much.

I catch him once every, about once a month.

Henry catches him about once a month.

That's all I think now.

I haven't seen Henry today.

Where the hell has he been?

He had a verification meeting or something this afternoon in one of these big...

I sent a little verification to the subject, you know, and Jerry Smith and Ken Rush and all kinds of military people with AIDS.

What was he?

I would have the support of the president, and I mean, I just put myself together.

And, you know, and call all the time.

I won't be able to do it.

one.

Well, I think probably why don't you just cancel it.

OK.

The Teddy County thing is one issue.

Do you know about the request for EPS assistance up there because of the foreign mission problem, the demonstration up there around the 24 different Arab nations?

Yeah.

Okay.

Let's get out of the fire.

I don't want Wilson to dominate and talk about house and senate races.

I mean, that would be a little boring.

You don't have that.

That's for Tuesday.

Those two subjects are helpful.

I think you've got to keep top of top of those things.

Polls would be the worst thing.

I never want that discussed in my presence.

Any polls have a group like that.

Right?

Absolutely.

Bad, bad.

Have somebody there to talk up to you.

That's all.

pretty hard.

I'm not ready to decide.

I'm better excited tomorrow.

I don't know if it's really a therapy.

I don't need that.

What you really need is to get what I told you, what I thought you was to tell the goddamn captain.

And I don't know.

I've talked to several people.

I don't know.

This is just a reminder of the one...

I know.

But what they ought to hear is what we expect in a legislative session.

You know, what the strategy is going to be, how we ought to take the other side on and so forth and so on.

Somebody ought to be able to analyze that.

Maybe Erwin would be concerned.

Yeah, okay, here's what we expect from the Congress, so let Andy Colson have a chance.

I would worship with that.

All right, but let Colson, he has to play those guys.

I'm trying to get a meeting tomorrow with Colson.

We've got to rest.

He's very objective.

He's, you know, I mean, just to

We'll get you.

All right, next slide.

Wait a minute, it's not that one.

Is that something EPS did?

I'm working with George Shills and we're squared away.

No, this is EPS.

That's one thing that's already taken care of.

This is providing EPS assistance.

Numbers of about 35 to the core emissions of New York, George, Bush,

This person may be questioned.

There's a lot of problems up there and demonstrations around the airway.

I don't understand why we need to do that instead of we are police.

The airway is now covering 50 posts and we don't know how to cover in responding to the situation.

And let's be described for help.

Okay, let's go.

Now the other thing that I want understood, if you covered the business of the county coverage.

Yes.

But you signed a man's room.

Yes.

And they all know that...

I'll talk to the new rent.

I just want to get one more answer.

But he's not going to sign this, you understand?

They said that the rally is not going to be signed.

A big detail.

A big detail, correct.

One that can cover him around the clock, every place he goes.

I want it to be that clear when you request it.

specific congressional session.

So issues that are going to be should or not.

Fair enough.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Go through with that.

I'll be credible.

Take me off.

Seriously?

No, no, no.

I just wondered how you handled it.

How do you tell Robert?

I told Alex to tell Robert that there's a lot of Mississippi, but it's hard to meet him.

I'm having Alex do it.

So there's a routine he handles that deals with the secrets.

And Rowley doesn't.

I don't ask her to do it.

Rowley doesn't bend me.

I'll let him do it.

And he'll talk to me about it.

And I'll talk to Ned Brown.

And I'll have him approach him.

Because Ned Brown will do anything that I tell him to do.

He will go on.

He really will.

He has come to me twice.

And absolutely sincerely.

what you've done for me and what the president's done for me.

I just want you to know, you want someone killed?

You want anything else done?

Any way?

Any direction?

The thing that I have is, he doesn't like it when you touch this son of a bitch.

Rule 176.

Sorry.

He doesn't know what he's really getting into.

We're going to cover him.

And that's why he's not going to take no for an answer.

He can't say, you know, the tactics are arrogant as hell with these secret services.

He's just fine, and he should take the detail, too.

Then, you know, on the basis of what Kennedy may throw it off, throw it off, but if he does, that's fine.

That's okay.

That's going to be fine.

He's back to just love.

Sure.

Also, I should tell Lou Brand, he will.

But, uh, he's bad.

He's a Catholic.

Play up the academy tonight.

Great admirer of yours, Jack.

Holy name.

Did you talk to him?

No, I just talked to him.

No need to tell us, huh?

Michael's birthday was a couple days ago.

I don't want to .

And I think we'll just .

It's a special birthday. .