Conversation 836-007

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

All right.

More of a sport.

We have a real top group lined up to be on the labor market today.

Amy has agreed to come back on.

I.W.A.

Paul Paul.

Vincent and Leonard Woodcock have agreed to come on.

There's a big part of our team.

There's another.

Well, in this new setup that we have, we'll have self-administering rules that we can move in and move out.

There's something else that I was trying to ask you about.

What about our...

I'm trying to get that put together and I'm trying to work it so that...

And the threat didn't take responsibility.

So I have sort of resisted the temptation to move in myself.

Good.

You should.

That's what I meant.

I'd like to see them step in.

Because I know it's one of the meanings.

Everybody likes it.

But we better go on it fairly.

I believe that's the best possible way to do it.

I've been coming back to this, because people you've got on this could be on that.

That's the problem.

Could they do both?

Could they do both or not?

They might take a lot, but we have on the industry side, we have terrific people do it all.

Good spirit of the state back in the military can do it.

Ed Carter, you know, well-respected.

Ah, Jim Rose from General Motors and Heath Larry from USC also.

We have a very high, we have a very, all those are very, very intelligent and articulate, almost.

I'll do it anyway.

This Labor Management Committee's job is to review the standards of the table and to recommend that the cost of living accounts of what should be constituted as reasonable wage behavior.

then we will use that administratively they're all delighted with the deadline when i was doing some labor fellows with them we didn't announce it we'll announce it when we announced the whole thing and i've been quite called me and i said george you want to have done up in this job and he said i sure do this is the best vaccine

You've got to help us persuade him.

And he puts a lot of questions to me about the need for cooperation and dispute settlement and so on and me agrees and urges him to take the job.

He's doing the same thing as Abel and I set up the same way with the Senate.

So we're trying to get these guys in the corral.

And of course, our biggest problem, Mr. President, is food prices.

I heard about the wholesale prices.

They want to be reasonable.

And they cannot wheel their running file if the food prices continue to go through the roof.

It's not getting away from us.

And what we would like to do is accompany.

No, sir, that just wouldn't do any good.

But I know.

Accompany the.

That's what you'd like to do, but you don't want to do any good.

So what do you want to do then?

Well, we think.

I know it's not going to be for anything today, but I'm going to.

I should send you the book that Herb Stein got for me on my birthday.

Well, we would like to accompany the announcement of the change.

with an announcement of some policy steps, and Herb has gotten up a list of them.

We have nothing on over them, but we, what we would like to be in a position to do is go and say, look, if these are anywhere near reasonable, let's do them.

For example, we subsidize the export of broilers, which are a, you know, the chicken of the business.

it seems ridiculous to subsidize an export of something that's in place at the bottom.

So while I do that, and Herb has a list of things here, we would like to read them and get out on the table.

Well, we could further relax the planning recessions on the grain.

It's probably been clear that it's somewhat, but it's still our restriction.

The price of all these things has skyrocketed in the last...

Partly because of bad weather, people think there isn't going to be enough, and we tend to make sure there's more.

We can sell stock to farm commodities still owned by this department.

We believe they could be reduced further without getting the low levels required for national security.

Well, look, on that, hold on.

Hold on.

There's no national security problem.

That's just a plain bullshit.

That's a little business of the stock market, but it's bullshit.

I don't know.

It's very likely.

Well, we have some grain that is owned by the farmers but held under loan to the Department of Agriculture.

These loans could be terminated, and the farmer would then have a choice of paying the loan or selling the stuff.

And some of them would sell.

Of course, the prices are enormously high.

I was just staggered this morning to see that the price of an acre of Iowa farmland had increased $45 in the last year, or 11%, which is the biggest increase since the boom of 1920.

And that's where all these prices are going.

They're just going into these high, being converted into high land prices.

George's tax laws believe that.

I don't know.

Well, we could increase import quotas on cheese.

Go ahead.

It's all right, cheese.

Well, the— Why can't you eat a little like that?

Discontinued subsidies on exports of food commodities, the broiler thing.

The subsidy on broilers is 14.5 cents per pound is as much as the price of broilers.

All of this is going to raise trouble with the farmers and the farm constituencies.

But the thing to do is you better raise the hell now, rather than raise it later.

Their income is fabulous, and these prices are just the unbelief.

They've been just going up and over to the back of the end.

Well, then I have one more.

Cutback concessional export sales under PL 480.

Accept those for legitimate emergency relief.

Oh, absolutely.

Absolutely.

emergency relief.

The old 480 is a huge boondoggle anyway.

It's just, we've got to look at our own problem here before we start helping.

And some people only use 480 in true emergencies.

You know, like right away, it's not bad, and so forth.

But what we do now, as you know, at school, we pay each other a test, and you send it all around, and the purses have been stopped.

It frankly is one way to use up your surpluses, and that's frankly the problem with the price of your home.

But if the price is too high to do this, now all of this might have to do it on a temporary basis.

If I could suggest, if that's the way you can make it palatable, I heard the thoughts, say, look, we're going to do all of this, and frankly, with the temporary, it then will become permanent.

What I'm getting at is that bus will have a hell of a time to wait if it appears that we're sinking a program in the Congress as an act of duty to safety because of this emergency that we have here.

We're going to suspend it for, I don't know, a little work temporary.

Or if you've got a combination of crowns, I mean, it's not going to take a long time.

You see what I mean?

But instead, if you can't go through the, go through the thing that Jake had said, you'll have no chance.

Bus will be here for a week.

The main thing is we've got to get us a problem of food prices, and we'll just have to take our knocks on the fire belt.

What, on the question of presentation,

I know your original thinking was to try to get it done by the end of the year, and we slipped that down in order to get it in that congressional session.

We are positioned in terms of getting the executive orders ready and all the papers and so on prepared.

So, all we've ever done is try to wind up and say that we could announce this on Thursday or Friday of this week.

And we think it would be desirable to do that because

don't surround so much people or get a legal idea of what we might do.

My feeling is that Thursday's probably the better day, so that you get, maybe you're gonna have to take two days of it anyway.

Thursday, you've got a chance to get it out in time for the Sunday neighbors to understand that this is something that people will have to understand.

You're getting, hitting the Congress in a day they're here, so that the jackasses down there you have to deal with, you can handle.

So if you could go on on Thursday, and I would agree very intensely, and don't be discouraged,

But when you read it, everybody's paying attention.

We're working this ass off trying to prepare to meet the president and ask him any questions.

Which does, which includes not accepting the reorganization.

They don't understand it.

And they're not interested in it.

So all these are massive questions.

You know, I prepare for them in press cards.

Everybody says, gee, this is a mess.

Can I get a reason for it?

So I get one, I get two questions.

I'll start at 30 or 25.

Well, it's something that's in-house.

It doesn't always provide a simple domestic question.

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Well, with restaurants, yes.

Domestic, they eat political, but not domestic.

But what I meant is domestic policy.

We know it's damn important.

We also, and we've been awfully welcome with the credit of these gentlemen.

We believe that we have a hell of a record.

And I think of the science of...

Well, we got by with it until we finally got into the neighborhood.

We never could find a neighborhood until we were in it.

Second point that I would make here is I would go, which I don't need to tell you this, but I would use her to John's contention.

I call congressmen, those that are interested, and senators.

I make an extra effort with them.

I told them, if necessary, hold their tables down here and give them, because we've all got one congressional breakfast and so forth, and we want to give them a preview of the whole thing.

The whole point being is it looks like Constitution.

Yeah, you know damn well now that I've contributed to this.

But break it down.

It follows like the

key guys like i don't know like mills or others you can tell that book you don't have to use so that they know that but so they but you know play the departments the way you should don't worry about the leadership this is not a case now where you've got to get the scores scots and all that sort of thing this is where i'm talking about the committees that have to handle this sort of thing the kind of people that will be asked questions about this that's what i have in mind

Work out a seat.

John, you should work out a seat.

So that you get it when we go through the motions here.

Rather than hauling it down, another way is to just phone call them.

But whatever you do, there are things with the ground that we, I think, have.

But the more that you are paying attention to it, that's not working for a while.

That's an issue that we can't pay attention to.

And that's an issue where they've got to be with us constantly.

All right.

Except when it gets to stockpiles, there's no national security problem, ever.

I'm told.

Now, Mr. President, will you consider making a statement yourself?

Well, I looked into it, and I was talking to the Speaker this morning, and I think because of the developments in other areas, I need not make a statement in public community or issue a statement.

I think you'll have to do it with your son.

I think it will look like that.

Whatever you want.

That's fine.

Thank you.

The choice really in terms of emphasis is whether to have a statement that comes out strong about a determination to do something about food prices and so on, and let that be the principal thing that stands out, or have one that says, well, this program is evolving and now we're going to have more options.

If I could suggest one thing in order to get the attention on food prices, I would say that there are two

That is, that I look at this and this is the way I look at it.

If I were thinking orally, I would say that, I would say that as I pointed out at one time, there were many critics that scoffed at it.

I said 1971 would be a good year and 1972 would be a very good year economically.

1972 has been a very good year economically.

I now would say that based on present prospects that most objective observers believe that 1973 will be another very good year for the American people, for the wage earner, for the businessman, for the house owner, for all of us economically.

And that 1974, 1973, that we are now have laid the foundation for two very good years economically.

There are two, however, major threats

major threats to America's prosperity, threats to the family budget, threats to the president.

One is food prices.

Oh, I put a second spend out of it, and I go to the food by Shackley Act.

The other is congressional overspend.

In other words, that if the Congress exceeds the full-time budget to spending, which it might require, which would thereby inevitably put enormous credit or upper credit prices and leave possible price increases or tax increases, this would destroy the brain force that we have now for two of the best years economically in our history.

In other words, put some little bit of grand language.

But I'd like to, in other words, I would take the Congress on.

I think I do share a briefing for the purpose of laying the wood to the Congress with regard to what is going to be the major issue we're going to have.

That is, it's going to be, we'll have problems with the food prices and things like that, and the agriculture people.

But the major problem we're going to have in the Congress is going to be impounding

uh, excessive, uh, budget requests, squealing and that.

What we want to do is now have a public condition, a public amount for the fact, look, the economy is in good shape.

Uh, we have submitted a budget, which is in full climate balance.

Now, the only danger to your prosperity, the only, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,

I've got some language, John, on that.

In other words, let's start making the issue so that the leader of Europe will not be food-administration fearful about high food prices.

The leader of the administration warns Congress, warns Congress that if the Congress overspends, the Congress will jeopardize the prospects for the two best years in America's...

Shultz warrants Congress' invasion of two-year prosperity.

Yeah.

Two best years.

Another two years.

I look at this one, that 1973, based on what we have seen, that 1973 and 1974 can be America's two best years, you know.

Why do you say that?

We don't know that.

Why would we get down to a little 4%?

You know, but...

it's easy to say that for the reason that they're going to be more jobs they're going to be higher wages we're going to have greater growth simply because the country's a hell of a lot bigger so it's easy to use in there and that's why you explained the course uh but you look back to some of the rather soft meters when we've had three and a half percent on the planet there's nothing compared to now this place is boiling it's rolling and uh and uh i like it so i'd like to

So start planning, everybody heard, I want you to do it, George, think of, I saw your, I just looked at your report about the economic reports.

I want you to lean hard on that.

A major danger, a major threat, a major threat to, this would be congressional respect.

Now you and I both know it, it's real.

But other things could drive it.

The wage price could drive it, as I understand it.

And we might get to the point where I suppose people would lose confidence.

They quit buying and so forth and so on.

But the threat that you and I, in this room, that we have gotten to fight, really, has gotten to be the Congress.

Because the Congress has busted us by $230 billion.

And then we would be faced with a harder choice.

We'd have to go for higher taxes.

And that's great, but we'd have to go for the whole thing.

And we don't go for higher prices, George.

I think you'd agree, or you do.

You are faced with inflation and pressure.

I mean, suppose you have a $20 million boat line of debt.

Isn't that inflation?

In these circumstances, it wouldn't be.

I think that's not...

Yeah, with the economy.

Well, you see this, you know, we, I know that to her, it takes random breaks a little crazy, but most economists are.

I read this book.

Oh, it's interesting at this point that he's, that he's in his, in a crazy way, right on track.

Did you read his last letter?

He doesn't send me his last letter.

Well, he's right on the line, but the point that he makes

is that now is the time to move away from controls.

Because he says, he sees this thing rolling along at arm's pace.

Now let me tell you one thing I'd like for both of you to think of in terms of future though.

I would hate like hell to have 73 be a burial year and 74 be a lobster year.

I'd be really concerned about that.

So I'd rather take a little knock now, a little knock now.

You see, take the heat now on some of these things.

so that we could build for 74, because there the fed has to tighten up.

Incidentally, the crack that Mills took at Archer, which was amazing, because it was what it reflects is the fact that Archer really

He did everything he could through the whole three-month period, I told you.

To keep it going.

He did a few things he probably wouldn't have done otherwise.

He's held the discount rate down too low, and he's got to turn that around.

He knows that well.

Don't purge Arthur too much, though, believe me.

Let me say, don't purge him too much.

Because, you know, he'll get the Jesse Martin syndrome again.

Don't you read her?

I don't let Dan and Ben go together.

He's not going to do what they didn't.

Let's keep very close with Arthur.

There's no Arthur.

Do you have any other views on it?

No.

I think they're really cool to send too fast.

I think they understand that.

And they don't control it week by week or month by month that well.

And certainly in the last month, this was at a rate which you wouldn't want to see.

But I assume that everybody over there knows that.

I think we ought to be keeping close touch with them and show them, indicate we don't want them to blow the roof off.

But I think... Well, can I suggest this in terms of just being in the house here?

I'm glad we had some of you here so far.

It's good to have Arthur on the team rather than off the team.

I've heard of some terrible experiences we've had where he wouldn't do a damn thing.

But you folks have got to spend some time.

I will too.

But I'd like for you to, I think we've got to get out, the whole group.

I think we've got to do some damn heavy bragging about how good the economy has been.

Jack Wilson was pointing out to me that if you read the Sunday New York Times financial section this year, it was practically, this last Sunday, it was practically liberal about the economy.

Was it that good?

It was the time that, the year was that good.

The year was very good.

No, no, but I think this was, there was a lot of...

No, the election.

They never said it before.

Here's what I'm saying.

I think we ought to get the word, John, that all of our Republicans in the House and Senate are strangling.

Get it out to Don Kendall, not the Business Council.

Those assholes are always going to be pessimistic.

But get it to Don Kendall's businessman for Nixon.

You know what I mean?

These are the guys that have got a little balls.

And let them go.

And those few members of the business council that are willing to step up and say something positive.

Get it to the labor guys.

Our labor guys.

Get it around with the country.

I mean, I did some, I did Herb's economic report this year.

I was trying to get him to write.

I mean, the other years we weren't so damn proud of it.

But I mean, not that the report was fine.

We weren't so proud of the record.

But you seldom have a record on the economy that you can look back with as much pride as we have on this.

Right?

It's like I heard it.

It's exactly what she said.

I don't know what's going to happen on the other point.

I mean, I'm going to come down.

It's still unique.

I know as far as you see his statement, the former secretary of the Treasury, he made a very good statement.

You should continue to have those meetings, George, with those former secretaries of the Treasury, because they're a pretty responsible guy.

And Barr said that we were doing exactly the right thing at the economy.

And he said he expected unemployment to move by the end of the year, down to about four and a half.

I'm sure the board can answer.

But I want you to predict that.

You predict in the neighborhood of 4 1⁄2.

Oh, yeah.

Okay?

That's what I was going to say.

We have a budget picture for 74 at the Capitol.

We're going through the process.

And it looks as though

we would be able to project a 74 budget deficit of about $15 billion as compared to $25 billion in 73.

In other words, we're coming down.

If we wanted to push it a little, we could probably project a 74, say 13 or 13 and a half billion or something like that.

And that would be half of 73 budget deficit.

It doesn't make any difference.

The only thing that makes a difference is whether it helps the economy.

As far as the issue is concerned, whether a deficit is big or little, it doesn't make one tinker's damn difference, except to a few political guys.

The average person in the country runs the deficit.

We've had to spend it that much money.

But don't you worry about it.

Don't put on a number you can't live with.

I'd much prefer these numbers on the economy and the revenues

may be wrong, but they represent the best judgment we've got.

We haven't read this budget in one way or another.

Wouldn't you say, Herb?

I'd say this part first.

Yeah, well, there are a few mirrors in there.

I mean, there's a few mirrors on the outside of the budget, but not on the right side.

The right side.

I suggest this, John.

You might talk to Herb Lyon about this.

It's important.

Why don't I take the offensive on this?

Why don't I have a few little briefings of some of these spots?

I mean, the economic writers and so forth and so on.

I know we do some of them individually.

I don't know where this is going.

George had them all lunched, didn't you, the other day?

He had them all lunched.

There's hundreds of them.

I was thinking about that.

Oh, I see.

And the reason, I guess, no, you might even, you might even, you might take a little flip around through the Chicago crowd, the Detroit crowd, the Los Angeles crowd, the Houston crowd, the Atlanta crowd.

You know what I mean?

I'm in the St. Louis group.

The Cleveland North, Cincinnati is probably a little better, I promise.

What I'm getting at is, Philadelphia, New York, what I'm getting at is that

When you've got a good thing, I would just sort of get around and get it sold.

I mean, not get it sold, but get it understood.

And I'd be sure that the economic report this year, with a very well-written flysheet on top of it, should be sent with a personal letter.

the average person that gets to a full list of about 10,000, including the major editors, all those who support us, business people, and the rest.

In other words, rulers and shakers and the rest.

And just a little personal letter to tell the whole story.

The letter would come from maybe one, maybe it could come from...

See, it can't come from an individual who participated in it.

In other words, it can't be Schultz, it can't be Schneider, it can't be Burns, because it's too self-serving.

A client could send it, you can, or...

For that matter, you could get a Kendall to mail to the one group.

You know, he said, I thought you'd be interested.

Oh, I don't know.

Well, think about it.

Think about what's going to be in the White House.

You've got a labor guy who mailed it to a friend who mailed it to a lot of labor people.

That might be an idea.

Maybe a denizens about it.

Just one step removed from the people that have participated in the policy.

And then bring along these people.

See?

That's what I have in mind.

I have an idea.

When we put out these amounts of report, I'd like to do a tape of that.

Either just audio or audio-visual.

If we can get somebody to come in.

Talk to the three of us.

For one thing, on the visual, we have the prettiest economy in the country.

And then we could get that out to stations.

And it's kind of educational, non-physical.

Set up an idea.

In other words, set up a team that we would then send out to people.

Use all your people that you can on this set up team.

talk to our closest to what he would have in mind.

He's got a lot of people, you know, on some of the past.

But let me put it this way.

I would like a first-rate PR.

effort made to say this was a hell of a year, and the next two years would be great years, but you've got to follow the leadership that we're given here, and the Congress has failed damn well enough.

Better screw this up by spending the amount of funds forcing us to go above the budget and so forth.

Make the Congress the devil.

In other words, the congressional overspending must be made

Congress' overspending threatens your prosperity.

Your prosperity is in danger.

There it is, Congress overspending.

And in fact, because we can never win fighting the Congress on any individual overspending program, never.

Because there's some clown out there that wants the limestone or whatever it is, or the home for the disabled, for the veterans, or whatever it is you get rid of.

But you can fight the Congress on the basis of the family budget.

That's the only way you can beat them.

You can't beat them on individual items on the budget.

They'll absolutely kill us.

This is something that Kevin has got to understand.

I don't know what he's leading now, but I'm sure that in the new management, in the new management, you'll understand this.

You all understand.

But remember, always take these individual subjects.

Don't get them involved.

Don't get them involved in this.

How do you answer all that?

Never.

Just move.

Whenever they ask about any individual, they move directly from it.

Well, all right.

That's a very interesting point of view.

But there's a lot.

There's about 30 others like that.

The whole point is let's come back to the fundamental thing.

It's a question of priorities.

We've got to have economic secrets.

because if we do, that's going to raise taxes or prices for both, for all that happens.

I think the line that you laid out before the election for us, that the issue isn't spending, it's taxes.

This is the way to raise your taxes.

That's caught on, and people are seeing that.

People are for spending, but they're against taxes.

That's right.

But you could point out that the Congress threatens your prosperity.

By overspending, it will raise your taxes or raise your prices.

The latter is a harder one to understand, but we know it's true.

We have said that a couple of times.

Well, anyway, I'm going to do what I'm going to do.

I'm going to treat it good here, all right?

I think that the Senate might be without a bill, but we are.

This is my birthday.

Material number 60.

Thank you very much for having me tonight.

I'm sorry.

Let me say that you have done one hell of a job.

I mean, the economy.

And it's one area where I am surprised.

You never wrote this down.

He says there's a lot of steam in the boiler.

Did he tell you the track?

I made it on him.

I heard you attach this to go back to the council set.

I called Rayburn.

I said, what are they operating on?

She said, this is my heart.

I said, well, they thought they were operating on your brain.

I'm going to see Mr. President, Mr. Schmidt, the finance minister.

I'm going to shut the party when I lay my seat.

Well, right now, after the inauguration, you can tell him that we, President, we have asked some of our Vietnam conference friends that we're planning to...

We'll be in touch with them on dates, but we do plan to do that after.

They all want to know about trade and so on, and I just use the same line we did in the leadership meeting.

I want to expand it, but we're not going to get kicked around.

President feels that Europe needs a higher priority than I mentioned in my leadership meeting.

Higher priority, you know, that sort of thing.

Yes, sir.

Press photo for me, please.