Conversation 865-028

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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, you don't seem to be very polite.

You know, it doesn't hurt to be polite.

You're all over the carpet.

It's nice to know you.

Thank you.

My God, he died three or four days ago, didn't he?

Thank you.

If I can gauge a consensus, when you set down the little bit of partisanship that there was, and there was not much, is that they generally consider this a fait accompli.

and that by and large they agree with it because it's in the direction of more money and more power for them.

You told them that.

Well, they know it.

I mean, it's a special right.

Your point is that if they get a special right.

That's right.

It's a good deal.

They don't get it.

They're going to work with them, but they don't think they're going to get it anyway, do they?

Do they think there's any chance for it?

It's still kind of floating around in the atmosphere.

Well, I think that...

If we are able to be firm about the end of these programs that the special revenue sharing would substitute for, then they'll want it.

In any event, the kind of talk we got was the same as I was telling you about Bear Grylls.

It is, I like where you're going.

I've got to get from where I am to where you're going.

And I've got to make it all come out.

I've got to make a budget.

And this is hard because it's a time of uncertainty.

And so I need a lot of definite information, which they hit Roy for.

And I've got to get a little plan.

And a lot of them said, I have to call a special session in my legislature in order to rejigger my budget and the likelihood of these changes and so on.

A lot of misinformation, a lot of misunderstanding, a lot of lack of information on their part, which is kind of typical of where the conference is.

and sort of an application of political instincts to this thing on a gut basis rather than an intellectual basis.

Misinformation, like on the line.

Well, like on one of them saying, I got a telegram last week that all my library money had cut off from my state library system.

And so today, it's true, you've got that wire.

And he said, I think it's unconscionable for the president to come up with my library money like that on such short notice.

It might come out of my state.

So then we get into it really, went back and forth, and it turns out that the ATW appropriation, as you know, has been on a continuing resolution, which expires today.

Sure, sure.

Sure.

And who wrote it?

Who is responsible?

That was the governor of South Dakota.

Then we explained that and said, go talk to your favorite congressman about this problem.

But on the other hand, what are we doing with the library?

The program is being terminated to be a part of the special revenue sharing, but the lead time is such that the level of expenditures next year under the program in the state of Sanford, from the point of view of expenditures,

is almost the same as it is this year.

It was special revenue sharing.

The total library programs, which are $77 million this year, are 60 next, which isn't the biggest reduction.

First place isn't the biggest program.

And the reduction isn't the biggest.

And assuming special revenue sharing goes in, it overwhelms the library, for which it's due.

Well, I'm just glad to see that I'm a part of the library program.

these days but nevertheless it's going forward there's a there's a continuing undercurrent that you're going to have to watch out for can slip me a note there about that there's a a record undertaking that we made at the time we enlisted into help on general recognition that we would not

We renew that undertaking today.

They say, well, you know, the original people, your local people are telling us, gee, that's tough, Governor, but here's your general revenue sharing money for that.

That's what it's for.

We say, no, look, the only things we're cutting are no-good programs that don't pay out.

You'd be silly to continue those programs.

So we don't recommend you use your general revenue sharing for a no-good program.

Yeah, right.

On the other hand, it's a great setup.

You heard somebody that said, by God, that's right.

Everybody continues one of these things is a dang fool.

Particularly like legal services.

We're not discontinuing legal services.

It's about moving to a corporation.

Right.

The argument that we make has to be very clear that the only substitution process is categorical programs for special revenue share.

But no, well, suppose we don't get special revenue share.

All right, then categorical programs go on.

Is that what you mean?

We've so far kept ourselves... Sure, we haven't said that categorical in our answer.

As a matter of fact, we've said,

that funds them at slightly more than the same rates under the categorical basic after you've got the no good ones those that would be

that are to be offset by special revenue sharing, assuming there is special revenue sharing, will allow the total of monies available.

It's shifted between categories, but the total available will come out at about the same level, 70% of it.

As a matter of fact, if they want, though, if they like to know the programs, they can use your special revenue sharing program.

Well, your revenue sharing program can be used to get money from the Internet.

In fact, revenue sharing can be used within one of the four federal states.

Well, the thing here is not to permit yourself to adopt an implication on anybody's part that general revenue sharing is an acceptable substitute for cut programs.

That means there should be no implied relationship.

There's some unfortunate language in one of the documents that refers to special recognition, but not precisely.

And so they've read it to their advantage by saying it must be general recognition that they're talking about and that there's a relation.

But even that language, if you read it literally, they reach for meaning.

Literally, it's safe, but it does invite them to reach for a meaning that they can prove.

That's right.

Well, so anyway, that's it.

And the other major bone contention is this whole subject of social services.

And you remember the Congress put the $2.5 million lid on social services.

And there was quite a good give and take among the governors and with CAP and everybody chiming in on why social services are cut.

They're not cut above the existing levels.

They're cut below expectation.

The expectation line is way up in what we want Congress to deliver with our support.

Now, the current controversy is over a set of regulations which Cap has promulgated and published and on which he's accepting comment.

The regulations are not yet in effect.

There have never been any regulations.

and so he promulgated these regulations and some of them i guess are pretty tough and so you're getting some squeeze from the governors who say

and the regulations that are not in effect.

Hold on.

Ken's answer was excellent in one respect.

They had the idea, since the ceiling was $2.5 billion, that we should draw regulations that would lead to spending $2.5 billion.

That's just not at all.

That's a statement on that program.

They're drawing regulations to achieve the purposes of the program, not to try to find how to spend $2.5 billion.

And if it comes in, it can't come in more, but if it comes in less and achieves the purpose, of course that's what we're talking about.

I think that was the very key point.

We're not trying to find a way to spend two and a half.

We're trying to find a way to meet the objectives of the program.

for 74 out of the two and a half.

I don't know if they were with the budget.

And then Gilligan and Lynn had a good exchange on the whole subject of community development and housing freeze and so on.

And I thought Lynn was good at stopping his clock very nicely.

They all came in with a lot of misunderstanding, largely gleaned from news and other media.

That's what the understandings they brought with them.

Clearly all the understandings worked out when they were reading the budget.

And that's really how much of it is speaking of the misunderstandings and of their misunderstandings and congressional misunderstandings.

And it's our fault because it's our majority.

Let me give you an example.

Your sterling leader in the Senate suggested to me yesterday that it would be awfully handy if he could have, just on one sheet of paper, a description of the impact on federal social programs of the President's budget.

i don't know if you remember but totally these guys with key fact sheets and they were very well done i've been using them around and they're just as effective as they can be

But here's our man, and he obviously didn't see what was the situation, and what is the regard for the amount for given resources compared to this.

or another way to look at it, defense is held.

Relatively flat.

And human resources have doubled.

As John pointed out this morning, defenses held flat in absolute dollars, but it's really down 25% in what one can buy in goods and services given the effect of inflation.

And the banks, 44 to 30.

It's flat, basically.

It's basically flat in absolute dollars, and it was actually down until the 74 budget, which hasn't been bought yet, but 73 is less than 68 or 69.

It's down in absolute dollars.

It is not less, but it buys a lot less.

And it buys less as well.

That's practically...

General price inflation, but to a very heavy extent, volunteer, I'm 40.

Yeah.

Right.

47 to about, what is it?

44 to 30.

Now the defense, 32 to 47%.

for the human resources program.

Now, somebody will say that that's all Social Security.

Not so.

About one-third is Social Security.

About two-thirds is not Social Security.

Other programs of various kinds are Social Security.

Frank, you don't know what we said about this this morning.

I was wondering.

See, that may be something I'll break off of.

on the international front.

See, you've got an interesting way to get these rather early clowns to understand what a state they have, some leadership that will reduce the problems of the war in the world.

Now, sure, we still need a hell of a lot of money.

We need $84 billion or whatever it is.

And it depends.

So that's a lot of money.

But the point is that if you look at the whole situation on the outside,

as a result of effective board policy leadership, we not only have a long-term army on our grantee people, we not only are on the war, but we also have a situation where the amount of our budget is needed for defense is, the priority has totally changed.

And these farmers are exporting wheat at a price that they wouldn't agree to three and a half years down the road.

I didn't dwell on this very long, but I said that there's this belief that when you get a little short of money on the domestic side, you turn to the defense budget and tap that, and that you have to realize that the defense budget is an instrument of our foreign policy, and that there's an important judgment call that has to be made as to what is apt to be an effective defense in terms of foreign policy.

And that's the judgment that you would be speaking to when you talk to them tonight.

But that they should realize that there has been a decline in the defense budget in real terms during their four years.

And as I was referring to this, the fact that we're in point of fact.

spending 20 to 30% fewer real dollars on defense.

And more than that, our forces, our actual, there's been an actual force reduction.

That's the only thing that's happening here.

3.2 million, 2 million, you know, which always tells me we're lost in 10, 12 years or something like that.

And so I said, obviously, the price of it.

I don't think I said very much about that.

they came with a very good attitude.

I don't know, very constructive meeting, and I think they deserve a certain measure of congratulations.

Oh, we haven't got more than that to say.

I'm glad we had a good meeting.

I understand there were some misunderstandings about it.

We want to do what he agreed to do.

I was going to say, I thought that Mandel handled himself very well this morning.

He's the president and governor, and he presented a very constructive attitude, I thought, to begin with, and it surprised me.

Do you want me to make a general reference, sir, to any of the documents that was in?

No.

Well, I could do it in those terms, since we've met in our reference, sir.

we had made with regard to general revenue sharing uh being a substitute for other things

That would certainly give great credibility.

You can really boost Ken's credibility and give me about one sentence I can say on that one sentence.

You could make one brief.

No chance.

On revenue sharing, particularly when it comes to special revenue sharing, it would seem to me that there are two points to be made that

We did have a tough time last year with Mayhem.

We certainly would hope that they're on the side of helping Mayhem rather than having to fall back to unworkable categorical programs.

And second, on this one that we are asking their advice, there I think you could particularly say that we want to make sure that the formula for special revenue sharing

is the best possible one.

And if you do have any information or any thoughts of your own, we want to make sure to get those in.

Because there was some discussion of how much do the governors, how much are on the .

The biggest issue was the formula for uncertainty.

Uncertainty in numbers.

And how much goes around them.

Uncertainty in numbers.

And the formula and its distribution, not only state by state, but within states.

The process by which it does or doesn't stick to the governor's office and people around the governor's office.

In fact, we can invite it for whatever purpose, but we don't want to take too many of their ideas.

You know, when you go around the country and talk to these governors, the thing that they play back is the time you had more than 50 years to talk about Vietnam.

You shared with them your sense of foreign policy and then focused down on Vietnam.

And I've had eight or ten of them.

The reason that I thought I should talk mainly about not Vietnam, which of course is another problem with other things, is that the governor lives in a very parochial, dull atmosphere.

He knows that what he does doesn't matter a hell of a lot.

I mean, what I

So here he sits, and he really isn't too relevant when many great things are involved.

Now, let me say this.

I don't mean that the governor of New York doesn't have a hell of a big budget.

He doesn't have any arms problems.

He's got prison to worry about, and the state police force, and the schools, and all that sort of thing, this and that.

But when you come right down to it, a governor sitting there, even a Rockefeller sitting there, or Reagan, well, they just panic and get the hell out of it.

Yeah.

They really want to be able to do something that's a little bigger.

They want to live their sights and other things.

They're part of a bigger picture.

I think we all need that sometimes.

I mean, that doesn't mean that all these other things aren't enormously important.

If you take the chapter in the church's department, the Christ-sake's environment, he has more interesting things to believe than these guys who believe in them.

And he didn't really think of this.

Not that, you know, look what I got here because he cuts through it.

Then what they do does

You know, when it's Jeff, when it's, when it's a category of brands, it's the goddamn Congress and what we do.

There's always special revenue sharing.

They manage them.

There's never going to be anything like it.

And I feel for them.

And I think they need to feel it.

That's why they raise the economy.

It's not their interest in war.

They need war.

And it's a terrible issue.

But they sit back there and they read Time and Newsweek and look at the Chevrolet and all the rest of it.

They kind of like to feel it.

I don't know if you remember what he told them, but he took them all around the world.

He explained to them the significance of the Mideast and all that kind of thing.

He really gave them a global sense of that.

When was that?

Right here.

That must have been in Cambodia.

Oh, it was in Cambodia.

You're talking about that afternoon?

When we had them on the table.

One of the things you've done on other occasions is lining up the economic structure of the world.

I thought that was a good thing to perhaps touch on at least.

And that can fit into the thrust on trade and the need for a bargaining stance on trade and so on.

And I'll bet you half of these governors have taken a trip abroad, presumably for the sake of promoting exports from their state.

and uh maybe they don't go to paris but they do that and those that haven't are probably in farm states and they've got the biggest stake of all and they are of course recent amendments of this tremendous expansion that comes with trade with the russians and so on and uh i think that might be an angle to bring in

I'm just telling Governor Mandel, he's got to determine which one goes first.

Actually, we can't send a group to China.

We have this element that we've got to arrange with Joe and I.

The same people who killed him, they'll come up over that table and say, I know, but I'll say that we can only send very, very few because they have the facilities for them.

And we need a governorship representative that we can exchange for.

all the chinese textiles

There's no hope.

You know, it's a funny thing about South America, the north-south business.

For the most part, there's really very little hope in the southern part of the world.

It's all in the north.

I mean, what are the great nations?

It's sad, but it's true.

I mean, you start in Latin America, we love it.

But Brazil may, maybe one day, the rest of us,

Maybe three or four thousand years from now.

It doesn't, you can't tell them that.

Because South Africa is changing now.

Okay.

What is the, uh, what about other names of the governors now, or the, uh, how old are they?

What is, have any of you ever heard of George?

George is before the Congress.

George, you're up there every week now, aren't you?

Why don't you go on up next?

you want to go next monday uh for a day on the treasury budget but that's a big open hearing and they ask about everything other than the treasury budget when i'm there and then they take the treasury budget um

and the Appropriations Committees and the Geoeconomic Committee that, just as John says, the governors regard the budget as a kind of an accomplished fact, the Appropriations Committees don't argue with you at all about appropriateness of holding the line on spending and so on and so forth within those limits.

They want to argue about the method, and they want to argue about the composition, and so on.

But I think that the argument about whether or not we should hold the budget to those levels and avoid a tax increase and so on, that has been won.

And it's just amazing, because six months ago, the mood was entirely different.

And just a real example of presidential determination and talent is that there really isn't a first event.

farmers with every kind of interest group you can think of and they're being conquered on and they're cornered and they're confronting the boat on a number of issues and they're they're damn if they do damn if they don't i'm just a whole string of things

Uh, they, they sensed the mood out of the country in the main as being with you.

The polls show that.

On the other hand, did you see that Seminger poll, by the way, that showed the individual?

It's like our individual thinks that they're confronted with very tough calls.

I had to see what else was up with that guy.

He's been all day long.

When's he gonna die?

But he senses this, that there are political instincts telling him that they've got

Of course, we're not cutting back.

We're cutting back on the increases.

But I don't expect we're going to cut back.

If people really want to cut back, there's an expectation that it's necessary to cut back on parallel strength and control inflation to keep taxes down.

That's the way it is.

On the other hand, some in Congress want to restore the President's cutbacks, even if it means more inflation and more taxes.

Do you agree with the President of the Congress, President of Section 53, Congress 33?

It is estimated that for Congress to restore the cutbacks in federal spending that the President has made, and to do what some in Congress want to do in federal spending, it would raise our income tax by 15%.

Thank you.

that i do feel you see uh bob was saying

That's real cash.

They don't want the president to be too powerful.

They don't want him to be trying to kick the Congress around.

That's why they say they're ruthless and all that sort of thing.

The other thing I know that is very important, and George is very good at this, and I want him to talk to Kevin.

I think, George, you better talk to Kevin about it.

And I want you to pick this up, too.

I want to make a note of whatever this is.

Well, I mean...

The problem with everything in our administration, our kind of people, is that we all are basically, we're managing people.

I mean, by that, we're good managers.

And we do things because of their rights.

And on the other hand, the inevitable result of our presentations is that we appear to be cold,

And it's true.

And the reason is that the American people have been conditioned to the fact that unless you spend a hell of a lot, you are miserly, cold, and efficient.

So therefore, they make you, as somebody has said, they make you compassionate by the passion for spending.

Now, what we need here is to get around that we've got to say that compassion cannot be measured by the competitive perspective.

It can't be.

But what we've got to get around is this.

You've got to do what it probably can.

You know, you sort of work around and say, you care about the poor folks, those poor folks out there, and then...

And it's just terrible that these bully bellies and all that.

And you see what I mean?

What I mean is that we've got to say that there's a hell of a lot of things to be done in this country.

We want to do them, and we want to do them right, and so forth.

But I guess what I say is, when Kat and Lynn, particularly, go down before the Congress and the rest of you, or when you are, I would rather than, rather than making the case, which we have made very well, for that hard effort, doesn't want to pay any more taxes, I'm continuing to make that always, but as a sort of sub-theme,

I think the case for this is a compassionate administration.

We're doing a hell of a lot.

And the question is not whether we cut, but how much we increase these things.

We know the amount for human resources.

we have held the amount for defense.

And, well, let me put it this way.

There's an old story that the, you should know, they always say that the Democrats, the Republicans spent more and enjoyed less, which is quite true.

We all, we spent more because every election, I and I spent more than true.

We spent more.

Nevertheless,

and Kennedy, of course, Andrew, all talked so much about what they were doing for the folks.

You think, for example, down in the field with the hiring of blacks and other enemies.

Now, we all know that most blacks aren't qualified for the jobs.

We all know that it's hard to find an honest attack, an honest attack employee to come to work with us.

It's even harder to find an honest man to come to work for us, a bold man.

We've got to hire more Mexicans.

We've hired more blacks.

I mean, in positions of responsibility.

And for that matter, women.

Most of the women we hire are not competent either.

So we say all that.

We never go out and say the women aren't competent, the blacks aren't competent.

But what we have to do is to hire.

But guns.

Most of it is symbolism, believing.

It's symbolism, symbolism.

That's where we're weak.

It's a symbolism, right?

When they say to me, well, why don't I have the women in government?

You know, I've done it four times.

Nobody's ever used one line.

Some way or other, some way or other, I think you've got to serve.

Roy's got enough of it.

Leave it around a little, Roy.

I can't reach to it.

I can't face it.

He's a liberal person.

I mean, he's liberal.

He's pro-civil rights.

More than I am, actually.

Not more, but he would go for it than I would.

But he's a captain.

We had the money.

He spent it like a drunken sailor.

No doubt.

You want to take a look sometime at a fact sheet that Roy got on what we had done in a number of different areas.

Minority jobs, hunger, elderly, job security, income security.

It's very interesting.

I had 100 high school kids over here for a little while the other day, and they just went down this thing.

And I said, I read these categories off.

You indicate this way and this way.

What do you think are...

effort has been greater or less in this administration than previous administrations.

And they were all going like this for the first two or three years.

And then I'd say, up 300%, or up 97%, or whatever it is.

And I'd give them the dollar numbers.

And after a while, toward the middle of this thing, they got very uncertain, because they realized that they didn't have it.

And they realized they were asking a loaded question.

Let me say, I don't know whether we can get across, because basically, we're not comfortable being down a bunch.

You see, Bobby Kennedy was, I mean, and so was Kennedy and the rest.

But what we always show is our responsible side.

We always show our responsible side.

And I don't know, I don't know how we, well, maybe it's just a loser.

Maybe it's a work crime.

Maybe you lose your other audience.

Maybe you lose the earth.

I read that rather fascinating interview by your friend Friedman in Playboy.

Yeah, I saw that.

Well, I was startled.

Yeah.

He is a hard rock conservative.

He's a very, very decent guy.

He probably cares for the poor folks and the black folks and the ignorant folks and the morons and all the rest.

So to me, he's pretty godly.

That's the problem.

He puts all these things in those terms.

He's against the minimum wage because it hurts the poor so much.

And he's in favor of people paying tuition at the University of California.

because he's against subsidizing the rich and would give scholarship to the poor.

I mean, he turns all these things around that way.

Right.

Could we do the one area where we've got to be, where Roy, you've got to reevaluate.

We have a constituency there where we have to sit down.

We kicked the farmers out.

I'm willing to do that.

I mean, because, mainly because of the farmers.

Some of the programs are just disgusting.

But from the standpoint of farm subsidies and all that sort of thing, we've got to get the food subsidized.

So that's better.

But on that better, it's...

My God, we even find that some of our friends in the press, I mean, the more conservative papers that use the whole thing, you know, here we've got these rather vicious characters about, you know, we do this for the POWs, and here's a poor German veteran, and what the hell is he doing?

I know, I know we've got a bad rap on that one thing that happened before you came here, but it was a mistake.

And there was, yeah, there were mistakes that added up to that, too.

You've got to look at the signals on that.

That's the direction they're taking right at this point.

That's not a talk PC.

The euphoria of the post-war euphoria and the glow of the returning POWs.

is going to be removed as rapidly as the media can remove it, and they're working hard at it, and our opposition, by replacing the brave EOW with this American flag, a public mine, with the guy that they have to wheel down the ramp, and more importantly, the guy that's left out at the Veterans Hospital without a bedpan to piss in, and going through all the problems, the terrible side of the thing, trying to get away from him.

to glory and patriotism in the town of Assorted.

Yeah, results, which is going to put the focus on the benefits.

My advice is that my advice is going to let us get caught on that issue, not because of the money, but because there is not where we are.

Look, there's no way, there's no way, let me tell you, that any veto of any veterans bill can never be sustained.

So you just don't quite lose the balance like it.

I'll veto farm bills, and I'll veto city bills, and I'll veto bills and all of them and everything else.

It was believed they were going up with a program to save up to 60, but it was a program that had 183 and didn't tell anyone.

That's what the mistake happened.

This was a

They didn't like the proposal, which was a perfectly decent proposal, so they rearranged it.

As I understand it, I don't claim to be all that knowledgeable.

They rearranged it so that it would backfire, and somehow or other they managed to get it signed and sent, and then it was exploited.

Now our problem is to get back what the bureaucracy got up to.

without an extra hundred, not holding the line, adding 183 or 186, by going forward with an unauthorized proposal of revised benefits that weren't just holding the line, weren't even saving 164, adding on 183.

We've got to get back to where we came in, and where we have right now.

Is that why anyone was fired earlier?

Yeah, because he was the guy who ran through Johnson River West,

told him this is the final response, and it wasn't.

Johnson found that he'd been stungered and suffocated.

Johnny A.

What's his name?

A camera fellow who worked for Johnson.

He got Johnson's signature on both representations as to what this thing was.

Anyway, right?

Sugar up the veterans thing.

I don't know if he's got his two backbones.

Good, good.

But are they asking for more?

In other words, the problem is, of course, more, always more.

That's what they went in with, this unauthorized presentation of the committee implicitly, although I'm not sure everybody understands it yet, asking for more.

Are they going to be lucky to hold the line and get back out just to withdraw or go to 160 and get back out?

That's about the way we're...

Well, just tilt it as much as you can to those people down there.

Just tilt it.

If you have to go over another hundred or whatever it is, because you're a member, fine.

That's one group that has to be brought up.

That is, I mean, the veterans lobbyists, particularly wherever it involves the service-connected disability and so forth.

Ray, of course, is correct, but the problem there is the, well, it's a mixed problem.

I mean, you understand part of it, the other part is more difficult.

Part of it is the fact that when the back, when the field moves back, you see the favor of the country.

This

to those who were against the war, on the war grounds, as they say they were.

That, of course, flied right in the face of what they said, because they thought they would all come back to the horrible war, and I'm sorry, and so forth.

The real heroes went to Canada, and that's why.

The other reason, though, is the speaker, and it is what is disturbing, because the first one, understand, a person who has ever gotten on the wrong side of an issue can't bear to have some guy come off his sucker for six years, showing love to you, bastard, what's the matter with you, I mean, and so forth.

The other thing is, not just being the wrong side of the issue, but deep down, you have to realize that

that there is something in the country today that it wasn't here in the 50s.

It developed in the 60s.

It'll probably be with us for the rest of our time.

And it's certainly here in the 50s.

And that is, from the poison that they got to the only younger classes in the universities and the rest, there is a terrible, frankly, lost faith in the country.

And they frankly hate the country.

They wouldn't say it that way.

They think it's corrupt.

They think that it's prejudiced.

They think that...

Well, it was really, really saw that the arguments made most effectively by McGovern in the period before he was nominated.

I mean, the whole thing, well, this country is sick, and we ought to feed our breasts and wear hair shirts and all that sort of thing.

They got a terrible shock when the DOWs came back, because after these poor guys have been out all this time, they come back and say, God bless America.

What does that do for that guy sitting there, the average person that these day heads have been working on all this time?

Raised devils.

And maybe the country will look bad.

Now, so what are they going to do?

You are saying it's just to be an inversion.

Uh, UTI had a feature on it.

Uh, you see, uh, the, uh, uh, Baha from the coast, and, uh, the, uh, Chanel, taking the line.

Well, this is all on TV.

Uh, these guys have all been programming the race.

Now, they're trying to tell a tale there.

One of the reasons they don't tell a tale is the...

is for the same reason that they have failed, and this is another thing that kills me, in not being able to destroy me and four years we've been in.

You see, it's every kind of objective observer will say I'm at the worst price of any president that's ever been here.

By that, it doesn't mean that we should be angry about them.

It just means that, by the worst for us, it only means that it doesn't mean that it's personal, but it does mean that, basically, they don't believe us people, as I do.

So, what do they do?

After four years of a bang, smear, poisoning, I mean, on the tongue and on the writing, the rest of the version of the Washington Press for people out there,

presents their views not well, but presents, gets the hell out of them.

After four years where they're saying, it could never happen, that the world would be together on any other basis except in a plug-out.

So it didn't happen then.

So that, so what does this do to them?

What did it happen?

How could that have happened?

That way, you see, this is another thing that infuriates them, and that's why they're really choking on their fury.

And I say they, those that, that sort of the lead, lead orchestras, the Lissaguards and so forth, the brilliant ones.

The thing is, you see, that there was a time, and even in Eisenhower's period it was true, in Cronen's it was true, and every, and before that always true, before the days of live television,

The White House press corps could make a great president.

And they broke Johnson even with live television.

They would have broken me if I had not been able to go over their heads.

And that's why they hate us even more.

That's why, while they will squeal about the fact, they say, why doesn't the president do more like this?

They don't want me.

I mean, they only squeal here at some issues at the moment.

Have me do two or three.

Now, say, the president's taking too much television time.

You see what I mean?

I'm just, I do it.

But you see, the speeches to the nation, the live appearances from behind the time, not too long.

That's right.

And then, it kills them.

Now, what does all this have to do with the other countries?

Here they go out on this rather pitiful, pathetic kick, but these people are all programmed, and they're as high as the New York Times says, they're stiffly saluted, and all this and that, and couldn't admit it.

But what's that guy eating his pretzel, and drinking his beer, and the average little person out there, and, um, that's what's been going on.

He says, well, I see it.

And that ain't true.

And so what really is happening here is that these people are learning that more and more they're becoming less and less relevant.

If they are up against anybody in this office who's shrewd enough to go over their heads.

Now, this doesn't mean that we should sit back and say, well, you don't have to worry.

Every time you've got a problem, you have to speak to the nation.

That doesn't work either.

Because they drop the poison on the rock every night.

They drop, drop, drop, drop, drop, drop, drop.

But we have to realize what I've really got around two years in our presentation.

that to have our message filtered through the press corps gives us an almost impossible job because of their bias on theirs.

And I generalize too much.

There are honest people in the press, and sometimes we get a chance.

And it's a big enough story to override anything that goes into anything in the story.

But we also have to realize, though, that in terms of an issue like this one, the war, that comes so deeply.

They have so many guilt complexions and so forth themselves.

that they will do anything they can to divert attention from it.

and move it off to something else.

Say, well now, now that's done.

Let's talk about this.

What are we going to do about the cities now?

And what are we going to do about the poor folks?

And what are we going to do about the veterans?

What about that jobless veteran?

The point was, I was rather surprised that I didn't see that the story of our jobs for veterans didn't get much of a play.

I don't know who gave you that very good report.

The very next day, all I saw in the news summary was a wall and a ramp that defected.

or do they feel that these are coming back as heroes and the other veterans on employment right for their age bracket is lower than others sure i know that that's what old said but i i uh i mean i you don't need a you know i wouldn't need a memo wouldn't have needed a memo

to know that that's exactly what they did.

I predicted it a month ago.

He was writing in a different context, which is what we got, right?

Well, you showed me that.

I was filling it out.

My point is, a month ago, as I said, when people had thought that, I mean, and I met with the Ivy League presidents when they were here at the time in Cambodia, and they unanimously said that they, you know,

They have to follow their shoes rather than believe in their shoes.

They now follow them, or they think they do.

They're really following their guidelines.

But the point is, I raised these, some of these subjects again, and they are,

They said, well, I said, well, what was your problem?

And this is the violence on the campus, and the problem with students.

And I said, what is it?

Oh, it's the war.

Oh, I said, I don't get it.

One or two said that maybe Allen was, or was really not actually, but there were other things, too.

I said, well, didn't it start before that?

I said, well, I think before the war, I think things started when Vietnam was harder than public consciousness.

I said, let me tell you something.

The war is going to be over soon, but it wasn't a request.

Maybe one or maybe two.

When it's over, you're still going to have your own business.

the problem of the nation.

Controversies of all kinds, and particularly now, particularly now where we, where this nation in the 60s has been fed on a diet of, I guess, supercharged crisis and controversy and everything's going to hell and we've got to do something about it and so forth.

Once the war is over, the frustration is going to be back to the initial euphoria, if you want to call it that, where it's off.

Then your intellectual people and so forth will go, will even become less responsible on domestic issues, less responsible, because they must have a cause.

I noticed an interesting thing that you, you know, when you go around now since the ceasefire,

And you see these war-worn people, you know, who carry the signs and the rest.

They're just sad as hell.

At least when they were back sitting against the war, they were happy.

True, true.

A person's got to be caused.

Now, what the hell are they going to do now?

Now, by they, let me say it.

There are a lot of people that the war labor is a relief.

But I'm talking now about the leader types out there.

But then, the war was never the issue, not really.

Their hatred, their, I mean, frankly, their lack of confidence in themselves started long before, long before the war made it worse.

But now they're irreparable people, and they're going to be a bitter, frustrated meme.

That's what you're running into.

That's what part of the thing you're running into now.

I'm not, I'm not, I think part of the Congress is that.

I think part of your problem is the press is that.

Our problem is that basically they're not happy about the work.

It isn't a question of credit.

That's what we're talking about.

We're talking about the nation.

The point is,

that they are unhappy because they are, shh, that they were beating our brains off.

It's not gone.

So look how they hate us for that.

So now they've got to go to something else.

And there's nothing quite as exciting as that one.

And also sometimes they look in the mirror and they say, well, maybe, just maybe, see, be smart.

If they're honest, they'll realize it.

Maybe the problem is not out there, but in here.

I think there's an awful lot of that.

I would say, as I read the dating press, I see it growing and I see their attitudes and their frustrations and so forth and so on.

Now, there will be some that will, I mean, the more stable ones that are not.

Basically, the intellectual as an individual is a very unstable person.

You know, he really is.

And we can all talk that way, we are all intellectuals, but you take that guy out there taking a ditch, you know, and working eight hours and getting $1,000 a month or whatever it is, hell, he's got problems with sugar and all that sort of thing.

He may get ulcers, but probably not.

But the intellectual is highly strong, emotional, unstable.

That's why you take a long term, it's a hell of a thing to work in.

Mm-hmm.

Psychiatry.

We have both of that.

Yeah.

That has gotten out of hand.

There was one fellow psychiatrist that was straight ahead of the day.

That's right.

Now the lawyers don't have that problem as much as their wives.

Their wives.

Because as you New York lawyers have those problems.

Well, you're going to find, you know, I always, Dr. Burns used to say, George, you know, Mr. President, when this war is over, it's, you know, we'll have other problems, but believe me, it's going to be different.

I mean, people are, it's just the war that we're in, you know, aren't, you know, not true.

I said, you should be a little different.

But not a hell of a lot.

And it isn't, really.

But I said, do you see much?

You know that Glenn Olds, he emerged in peacetime in the middle of summer this way?

Yeah.

He advocated that all drug pushers be shot.

So he put the war behind him and he moved on.

I see them out there.

You know, because you see, they're smart.

You know, a dummy doesn't, you know, he's never going to realize that he may be kidding.

Some of these guys don't.

They know what's happening.

And they eat the liver.

And we eat exactly the same.

You know, like you're going to...

But what we have to do is to not get into an adversary position with the Free Film Association, which we should try to, try to work with in this moment.

I can speak to the press, the Congress, all of these.

Have you said anything about the governors that he, uh, and the politician generally?

Well, he's, uh, is he the Washington politician?

He reads the Washington Post, and they read the Washington Post.

They catch us at the Akron Ski Show in the weekend, and they eat shoes.

That's a poisonous goddamn atmosphere.

What does he do when he goes out at night?

He goes out to parties, generally, unless he's doing it with constituents, which they shouldn't do, then they'll have a little sanity.

He goes out to parties where he just gets the hell, we get the hell kicked out of us.

So it's a little hard.

How do you come along with that idea of having some social events where, you know, the nice people can come to Blair House and press something up here?

I mean, that's a good idea.

It sure is.

In other words, the idea that the only parties we're going to are pom-pom braids or, you know, or those spottish people.

How would that...

I mean, there are a lot of nice people around here.

They don't just have to come to my house.

I, you see, particularly the women need, need some, not all, most of them need some sort of social life.

It is not simply a, it is not just simply to do with work.

And you just set up your liberalism on that early.

That's why you can, uh, strike Henry Kiss in your own forum.

all the capital officers and even the white house is open to the public they can come through

You all feel that, George, you feel that we are right to try to make this historic turn, priorities and so forth and so on, trying to revolutionize the government.

Do you think we're right to go, or should we just cave?

I mean, we wouldn't go cave right away, but we can work out some strategy to cave.

I'm pretty hard-worn about this.

Do you think we ought to fight through?

Yes, sir.

What do you think?

For sure, we ought to reform her.

I don't think that we shouldn't be ready to work out reasonable things as I come along, but I don't think it's time to.

Well, my point is that if we work it out,

We're going to reorganize the government.

See, we're doing a lot of things here.

We're trying to, like Rio, this whole special rep, which of course is just two years older, but now to not depend on various things to fight the bullets, a lot of popular programs, we should be some.

This is quite a change.

We're buying a lot of problems.

We could be sitting here enjoying it, being calm and happy.

Well, we're going to make that budget total.

Roy and I was making things 250.

Even after you raise interest, we're still going to make it.

Don't raise interest.

I like what we are doing in these initiatives.

And even if we're not one, we're drawing the battlegrounds rather than somebody else.

And it's better to have the battle take place on the grounds that we live on.

Well, I'd like to spend a moment on how we do that.

By having the whole of the Congress, let alone the public, working on issues that we put in front of them, whether it be reorganization or the positions taken on the budget, we're deciding where the battleground is.

Basically, the battleground is that we use guns, aren't we, in the battle at all.

we just won the election and we end the war on a digital point was that uh i don't want to defend r.e.a he said it's a terrible thing for me to try to defend it's an indefensible program he says that's a perfect background he chose to be the one dale creek valley says if we haven't established a battleground that doesn't mean there won't be a battleground

Well, that's the thing.

You don't have a choice.

You couldn't just be sitting here being that.

You would be fighting some battle.

You might as well be fighting one.

Well, you think so?

You think so?

Yes, sir.

What, like what?

Well, they'd be honest on some dance.

I suppose we, yes, think of the 250, well, see, you've got to think about the water quality.

But then Muskie would be up there every day, checking up on the water quality.

As it is now, he's all over the map.

He's trying to cover all the bases.

Incidentally, a little old wild man named Elizabeth went to work as Muskie.

And just really did a job on me yesterday.

And, uh, we must remember that.

Well, it was quite a surprise.

Uh, it was quite a surprise, isn't it?

Yeah.

Well, it was quite a surprise.

You must have the assurance that when you're in a bloody battle, that you've either got the, you've got the assurance you're right, and I think we are.

We went through that exercise at Camp David for that purpose, George, and of course you joined, you were in it too.

The other point, though, is that, and that's the reason I was just kind of strangled here.

I agree with Bob.

The other point is that if we had not, in a short way, basically, if we had not done this, they'd be beating our brains out about something else.

This is a partisan country and a hell of a partisan Congress.

And I think part of the problem in the Congress is that

I mean, our Republicans' attitude is understandable.

I mean, they're careful to lose you and so forth and so on.

And so I don't know.

I mean, I'd probably wonder why they didn't do better than play us.

Which I think is so silly to hear Carl Kurtz, who got about 53% of the vote, saying, well, my house is going to go right up the way they ran it in Maine.

We got 75% in Nebraska, but nevertheless, they're relevant.

all of his people congratulated him.

He couldn't say that our purpose was wrong.

The point is that we, having won the election, being down, well, it's now virtually forgotten in the media that we won 49 states.

I mean, they talk about the Johnson landslide for two years.

This is all forgotten.

It wasn't forgotten over there this morning.

They got it.

And he got up and said, well, he was from Massachusetts, and he was surprised he had a chair at all.

Well, we're in it.

The point is really, George, is whether you think it's worth doing it.

Is it worth it?

Is that what we're trying to do?

Well, I think we had a juxtaposition of a need to be more disciplined from an economic standpoint.

Yeah, that.

And I thought that...

There were a lot of things that needed cleaning out and a lot of rearrangements that needed to be made.

I think there's a period in the way our system works.

where once every eight years there's a small window when a re-elected president may be able to clean out some stuff and once that window is many don't give them we didn't use it in our period you know well we cut the budget but we didn't do any reorganization not in the second term of course eisenhardt was not too well seen like too

But the point is, the point I made is, let's leave out the bad program you're cutting out.

That's something else.

But let's take the reform, the revenue sharing.

You said we're going to have to look at the reform.

I think once the momentum gets over, I don't know if it is revenue sharing.

It will be looking back as having been well worth it right at the moment.

I suppose there are those who are on both sides.

But I think if the objective is to...

believe first it's right sure

You can make a strong argument to the effect that frankly Washington doesn't know best.

That is at the heart of the objections to all revenue sharing, believing that state and other governors and state legislatures, state and other legislatures are corrupt, much more than the Congress, as we know, and governors are less competent than secretaries and cabinet officers.

So, they say, why in the name of God do we let those people decide?

You see, we say, but the people should decide.

So that's the fundamental thing, don't you think?

Deep down, we have to remember that since the Roosevelt period, the whole theory of the New Deal, the whole theory of the Fair Deal, the whole theory of the Great Society in particular, is that Washington does know that.

Another question is, that's a point I can really go back to.

That's the argument you're reading.

I think there's something else on it that goes along with it.

Also, Mr. President, that is that you're never going to develop competent management, let's say, in the state unless you have the opportunity to do something.

That's a good one.

In other words, a governor, therefore, a governor, just the very fact that these governors know that they're not too relevant, they're going to become a hell of a lot more relevant, and they'll get better people if they're going to make more important decisions.

Their people will ask them to be better if, in fact, important decisions are being done.

It'll take a long time, but they have to go little by little, a little more careful, a little more careful, a little more careful, a little more careful.

And the other thing I believe, too, is this, the reason I believe in the federal system.

He said, I think when a mistake is made at the top, it can be one hell of a mistake.

I mean, it's, I mean, after all, even the people at the top can make errors, no matter how bright they are.

But when they make it, it affects 50 states, 200 million.

When the governor of California makes a mistake, it only affects 20.

That's a hell of a lot less.

So that's something to be said for that.

This is a battle that has been waged for many years.

I was amazed two or three months ago at this meeting of the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, like I reported to you on this, with governors and mayors and so on sitting around.

And we were discussing the property tax and whether the federal government should do something about the property tax.

And the basic theme of the governors and the mayors there was,

Give us revenue, Sherry, and let us take care of the property tax.

That's our problem.

And there was a spirit of let us work at our problems that was different from any meeting of that kind that I'd sat in on.

I was really quite startled by it.

One thing we've got to do is seize the initiative.

Go ahead.

Or seize the initiative on this business.

Is revenue insurance working?

it's underway but it's way too early for anybody to say it's working or it isn't working

We've got to find out what they did with the money.

Well, sure.

And the answer is driving it.

I've probably not got three questions on this in Detroit.

What'd you say?

I finally said, well, you know, this is the first part of the first year.

We're very delighted.

Well, we're very delighted, but he's doing a lot of capital expenditures with it.

Well, that works.

All right.

But the argument you're going to get is you see that poor people have got out of the action with the money.

Okay.

I think the thing we have to say is that this is really a revolutionary process.

We're turning government around, pushing it in a new direction, and you can't tell as the turn begins where we're going to end up on this.

And we're going to be watching this very closely, and we'll be issuing reports from time to time that the President called this a revolution, and it really is in the courthouses and so on.

We're going to see change in personnel, and that's part of the bipartisan.

We're going to see people getting involved, and that's part of it.

And after a while, we'll know how this money's being spent.

And the people will know how it's being spent.

And there will be some hedges out of the story of the fact that we're getting out.

Are we going to get the word from them?

Well, see, George's got great water there.

They're going to start keeping track of this, I trust.

Oh, yes.

We have got our plan.

We have a very small group.

But we're trying to get out around and find out what's going on.

But nevertheless, stay in the spirit of revenue sharing and not trying to tell them what they should do.

just to gather as we get back to report this came up on the hearings even about special revenue sharing and i forgot where we got the word but there are those who are against the idea of revenue sharing those on the hill who are already trying to fight the horrible example

I told the governor that we are going to have to find out from you and work with you to be able to point out that if they succeed or ten years from now, just like

Today, we're cutting out social programs that don't work.

Ten years from now, they'll be able to force a guy out of revenue-sharing if it doesn't work in ten years.

They don't like it, don't they?

They like it, but I've suggested that they can't just take it and run and never let us know whether it worked or not.

We've got to, all together, convince each other to convince them of the facts of this.

All right.