Conversation 937-013

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

I'm sorry.

We're going to have this meeting at 3 o'clock, per se.

Whether I include Burns, Armstrong, or Conjuring, I don't know.

I don't know if you should try to get him out, because he's being quite candid at first, and I don't know if he does in some circumstances, he's a terrific guy, but he always suggests a line that he knows, from a pragmatic standpoint, can never go through, and therefore, like this business, let's have a, let's lead that into a three to 15% tax, and it's

There isn't a prerogative or any tax legislation to get through that I can sign.

Arthur knows that.

That's going to be a pop gun.

And so he said, don't do any of this, do this.

You see my point?

He won't face up to the cost.

And I'm just not going to have any fear of wasting our time on it.

He's made that point every meeting, and he's making it work.

We're not going to be...

It was like the course of the moment.

Let me say this.

I was trying to get George, Herb, Dunlop, Tilden, each thing in the right direction.

Well, it's right in that direction.

I may go a whole route.

The only two that came down in the side that I'm presently considering were you and Simon.

Yeah.

After we took our position, we met so...

They were fairly close.

Yes.

It's fairly hard for George and for, I mean, I got to burn all the old speeches with my political language and all the old speeches at the time.

Dunlop, he's been great and he's got to do his job.

There's nobody else at the present time.

Your suggestion of getting John Tomlin to be the top spokesman is great, but I spoke to John about a month ago.

That's right.

It's not the idea of John stepping in here at this time.

It appeals to me enormously.

But I don't think he wants to do it in any way that is too formal.

You know what I mean?

He wants to keep his options open.

And he doesn't want to come down and anything will lock him.

That's right.

But could he be used on a task basis rather than a...

But this test basis, rather than a... Hello.

Yeah.

Hello.

Howard, it seems that we're always asking you and our dear friend, dear friend Neil before that, but I want you to know I've had a long talk, a several long talks with Bryce, and I...

Just very grateful to you.

We wouldn't have asked you and your company to do this, except in the interest of the service of the country.

And I just want you to know I'm just very grateful.

I appreciate that.

The only way I can repay you, I'm going to make fresh and use ivory so we can't leave it.

Well, and it's going to come out, and he's just a terrific fellow.

And as soon as we can cut him loose, we'll cut him loose, you know.

Yeah.

Yeah, yes, because for his price, frankly, from an economic standpoint, should not, you know, I understand that.

And also, I need him to be of use with you, but we need him at this time, but I can assure you that I will not...

Not with Bryce.

Yeah, Bryce.

Right.

Well, in his case, Bryce, we just need him out of anything that might be involved.

I don't have anything in mind that would be operating.

And it was a thought conflict.

But look, you don't check it all out, believe me.

But he is so thoroughly respected that I don't.

They're all there for a few weeks.

A few people are treasuring on some columnist.

Yeah.

Isn't that right, Tom, before?

They're talking about everything, yeah?

Yeah.

Tell me, how's the business?

I hope it's good.

Well, don't you bleed.

Let me do the bleeding and you do the golfing.

All right.

All right, well, we'll look forward to seeing you all tonight.

Very, very grateful.

Thank you.

Bryce.

All right.

Well now, let me say that the

We've got the labor management group that has been heard in Georgia and so on and so forth.

We're hoping, by the reason of what they have said, that they're appreciating what we've done.

Basically, all the management people just want to keep things to themselves.

The labor guys, George Meany, Woodcock, and so forth, who are partisan, and are trying to tell the world what the Senate did is not really constitutionalized.

They've got to change their minds.

You've got to remember,

Amy and Woodcock are out to kill us.

They would say that privately, but they aren't saying that privately in public.

The basic labor is not helping us.

They're not helping us at all.

And they won't.

They'll talk this way, but it isn't the same.

On the other hand, the two that were terribly honest with me are our friends, Woodcock and Hall.

I mean, Vincent Hall.

Hall.

It's quite honest to say, but we're for free economy and all the rest of it.

You've got to do something.

You've got to do something first.

If you don't do something, it's a group.

Our university has a chance to.

And we just don't know.

Maybe you're old, like this, and you said, roll back the hoop, right?

Paul Hall says do something.

I don't care what it is.

But now, you come now to basically the common approach.

Conroy is the hoop.

In a final analysis, it was capable of making right decisions, and whatever the decision was, it was capable of solving it.

That's the key.

He says, if I did it, sometimes on things like this, John's reaction is, do something.

Do something, you know what I mean?

Instead of going down and looking at all of it.

Because I would have to try and do an exam.

Where do you come off?

How is it going to work?

This will make a great headline tomorrow.

What's the headline six months from now?

Or 60 days from now?

Now, it seems to me that you, in science, must be thinking along the same terms.

I didn't understand it.

Both of you really are fools.

Freeze.

Sure.

And in other economics, you believe, I understand, both you and Simon believe that the dramatic action is to, to, uh, to change the country.

And then, you are very blessed to see that that action does not pass at all.

because they presented the freeze option in this most stark terms.

They said the freeze would be followed.

First, they had the freeze applied to everything except wages.

But it was to be followed by a phase two that was unbelievable.

They could control everything, bureaucracy, etc., etc., etc.

and also repealed the L-480 when they had an opportunity .

By presenting it in that stark turn, it makes it very difficult for me to look at it.

So yesterday I said, now look, what I have in mind is the freeze, and I'm thinking basically, this is another 60 days, well, 50, but it is something you may as well, 30 looks like to, but it's happening.

I said, make it a really narrow law.

I said, I don't want rents in it.

I don't want interest in it.

I don't want profits in it.

I don't want weight.

I said, that's it.

Right.

And to think that that's already signed.

Then indicate with surety what's going to be afterwards.

But indicating it now, not the real study.

Third, say that this is a very good use, but accomplish these things.

Now, what's your comment to this?

And I said, make it as close to Bay Street as you can, except in one category, food.

Food is the culprit here.

And in this instance, what we have to do is to find ways to do international action and domestic action that will not only do something about the problem, but more than that, that will convince the people that we're trying to do something about the problem.

That is my approach at this point.

I wonder what yours is.

Mine is the same with one addition, that to take this freeze period and recapture the stage on which this whole discussion with the people is going on, to do everything you said subsequently, but sell part during the 30 days, or a little bit of the 60.

In fact, the date I would have would be the end of July, which is about 50, I guess.

But it doesn't mean that it's at Congress that it goes out and organizes the work.

But the 60th is the second.

It's okay.

And use that time to focus the attention back on the administration's view of things, rather than Congress's view and every, every pundit's view.

Use that as a time so that we get up in front of conditioning the minds of this

this nation's public.

Everybody else is out conditioning their minds, whether it's the newspapers or the Senate or everybody else.

We use it to condition them as to the realities of economics to a degree, but what we're going to do in the days following and do everything you said plus a very strong effort on that.

It was the latter that I had in mind.

Maybe John is the most great assailant of this stuff.

Yes.

No, but we hope he will sell some because he is for the heart of it.

But he'll sell a package that's put into his hands to sell.

It's very difficult for a man outside without a portfolio to go out and say, well, I just want to make a speech about my story for the program.

I think he will, but we've got to here mobilize the entire county.

We've got to mobilize the entire administration, and to the extent that we can, we've got to mobilize in support of the Congress for what we're doing so that we're all, and all of us think the same thing.

It's a very orchestrated program to recapture the initiative of what the program is going to be and the support of that program.

I think it can be done.

And I think that's the kind of a program that will do it.

If it is a more temporizing program that doesn't have this short-term freeze, I think we'll never get it from the curve.

We're still kind of fighting it with the rear guard action.

That's the problem.

The freeze, one reason it didn't come down that far, a freeze of some duration, is that the reason it didn't come down that far is that

you feel we simply have to do it in order to capture the energy in terms of the frankly selling, then we need to believe in the economy.

That's one reason to make it our ballgame again.

That's one reason.

Rather than somebody else's ballgame that we're sending in the sidelines.

Second, it is an indication of, let's say, imbalance.

It is an indication that we're hitting prices and for the moment

and other things, it's not going to cost business that much.

They've already raised their prices in anticipation of other things.

So they're not going to hurt.

And so the other day, oh, they're going to crack the market down.

The market is acting like a child.

It's going to come back.

So they were proceeding to work at a certain level here.

It's a good group.

It's going to continue.

The market's just going to come back.

It's a good group.

So I would come down for a short freeze.

It's bad economics, but it's good politics because it allows us to make it our ballgame again, rather than having it rustling away from our hands as it has been.

And it is coming down in a way that should get a lot of public support, but more people have to go.

And the price is dying, and it's close.

It's taking away from us.

It's not a lot, but it's more reasonable.

Science has taught us to create the impression that if we go and read through everything that science has taught us to have faith in, it's all been taught to me.

All during 1974, it was a question of where to get your truth in.

Well, first, I don't believe in that.

I don't even think that's true.

Don't you think that we move and produce it?

Well, I have a gut reaction.

There is a gut reaction.

And while there are still some strong inflationary forces, and maybe we'll get a weighty push from the other person, but we'll have a gut reaction that the food thing is about running its course and it's gonna stay alive.

But I think it's gonna run its course and it's a fall that's all.

It's a tendency to suffer.

The situation will start to improve if it does.

If the situation improves in other ways.

then we just gradually get out of the business.

But let me ask you, do you think it is inevitable that by going free through, we are inevitably buying this whole situation?

I don't think that's what, that's an argument.

I think it takes the hard work to work out, but I don't think it is inevitable, even as I almost said, I used the very word, it is not inevitable.

I know, it's like we must work on it.

But I think that you as a slant, or someone free,

We've come very close, that it is not inevitable that once we go this far, we are committed to going deeper and deeper.

But it is a risk, it is a problem to anticipate, and to give very simple efforts to work on.

But I think with that anticipation at work, we can work back out and come up close to a phase three.

And then we'll see where we go from there.

God, yeah.

Well, who knows?

But that's it.

Each has its own view and judgment.

Well, we started the proposition that all of us who sit around this group do not believe in permanent control.

And that's a pretty good start.

Not believing in it.

We had to fight it.

Now, the other thing we have to realize is that the country, because controls are working on the planet, may believe it.

But also, the Congress is in a very, very flexing country.

I mean, despite the median, so the guy said, that tundra is going to nap down here.

My guess is that it'll probably pass and hang on the day.

They're going to have a 90-day freeze across the board, followed by a tough phase two, and if I can do it, they'll guess what we can do.

Now, that's what's going to happen.

And we cannot let that happen.

See, this is also an action to avoid.

It's something to...

I have only a 40% probability on something that must be of a quality.

I've checked in on some of them.

I got reactions from some of them.

Both of them read the polls of all of us.

And I've asked all of them to study the things that you hold off in polls.

So, is that good enough?

There's no polls throughout.

It proves that these guys are going to reply.

I have one of these guys up here.

You see, the reason we won the battle on spending, Roy, is that about 60% of the people agree with us.

Congress doesn't vote this because they're thinking.

The Congress is voting this way because they're considering this as more spending.

But on the other side, the Congress is going to vote the other way.

We've got our constituents wanting full prices.

So, given all of these various possibilities,

I certainly join in your conclusion that it wasn't the best route to go.

And there is a need, as I see it at least, very strong, well-planned, orchestrated program of getting the whole cabinet, getting everybody out to condition the minds of people.

I think one of the ways that we proved it, and I realize there's some negatives to it, along this battle with the budget,

One of those 59% of the people said they agreed with the president the way to stop inflation is to hold down government spending.

They don't understand economics, but they had their minds conditioned by merely a program that was put out of here of saying it and saying it and saying it.

And we didn't teach them a thing.

We just caused them to believe that holding down spending is important.

Now we have to go out and teach them, pardon me, teach them a thing.

Again, conditioned their minds to believe.

reflected back to the Congress, and that's, we're not going to educate people, we're going to condition them.

We had a program of 60 days of strong conditioning, just as other programs have been mounted to condition.

General contributing can certainly condition people's minds.

Yeah, it doesn't look like, ah, it doesn't look like, ah.

The most important way to do this is whatever time of yours can be used.

That's the part that's going to, most of all, have the effect of, I can use your time.

There needs, somebody needs everybody's time.

And then, with that said, I think we can get out, we know what you can guarantee, we can get out of the horrors of something worse than Phase 2 was.

The food thing, the industry.

It's a lot of work, son.

We can actually do it, son.

The economy is so strong and everything is going so well.

It is beginning to, the boom, I don't want the boom to go down too much anyway.

I mean, we could be blind again, and that's the worst of both worlds.

We have no growth and inflation.

That's what we had in 71.

Good God, I mean, that's the worst possible thing.

So, I mean, there's no odds.

No, but I think that all one can do is the best that can be at the moment.

Judges, and I'm convinced that given all the factors at work, you're coming down to that.

What I think at least is that the place that has the greatest probability of getting what we want, immediately getting what we want in the longer term, in transit,

puts a little higher risk on what the longer term might be, but I think we can make so great an advantage, take so great an advantage of the short term, that we can use that to mitigate even the risk of the long term.

And the short term effect would be if we regained the control of the process by the freeze, regained the initiative of what happens next, regained the opportunity to have our message be the one that the public listens to,

Not with everything that's running around in all the news media.

And then go do it.

And, uh, try to translate it back to the best possible program I've just received.

I-I-I certainly enjoy it.

Not with you.

I think George would be good at it.

That's what goes with getting back.

That's what changed his mind.

I, uh, no, I, I, when I left, the day I left for the West Coast, I...

I spent most of Wednesday nights not sleeping.

Taking fun is very suffocating.

I came in Thursday morning and I said to George Wilson, I'm going to abandon you.

This was even before anybody had taken this position.

I went to Herb Stein and I said, I guess I'm not going to do that.

So I changed my position Wednesday night over the night.

Just thinking about it, I'm thinking about it.

I said to George on Thursday that I'm abandoning his position.

I'm not going to do that.

I told them that Thursday morning, even before this thing got started.

So, well, the point is that we're not abandoning our principles.

Journalists are starting to recognize what we're doing.

We're recognizing the very top political factors.

And frankly, it isn't good if people say, well, it's an all-water game, huh?

It's an all-water game.

I believe that this is the thing that we can watch for people.

Good day, sir.

And?

Okay, I...

I think George is joining us.

I don't know.

I don't know what to do.

I think he felt a little bad.

I think I felt a little bad.

In the very moment I was up to you, and I gave it to George, and with the rest of it, but I said in there, there should be a strong role for Conley.

I probably insult George for blessings.

But, yeah, I forgot that.

You know how I look at George, don't you?

I felt bad for George, but, you know,

Well, you know, I economically owe option one, but it's an all-in option, too.

So, but, now I can do it in stark harder terms, which makes it impossible.

But I do, with freeze, unlimited freeze, follow and indicate a call number, and as close as possible, phase freeze, we can get it, except for food.

Except for food.

There's going to be some problems even with food.

It's, oh, data planning is part of a very interesting little task, and I don't know if you've had the benefit of it yet.

We've been listening to our department of agriculture tell us all the data they expect of food crops.

Now, when we did economics, we could often see what others view.

But we didn't come out to see what others view about the climate, the sand, the carbon system, all of this sort of thing.

We'd just taken our USDA information.

We could simply go out and see what others think about the agricultural process.

It was a very good idea.

We did.

One of the points is, is that when the USDA data probably comes down, we'll stop to miss it at all.

And I think it's a very good plan to take up Cincinnati

If we're going to go out and get other views on the economy in general, let's get some others that we didn't.

So that's a slight warning sign that we should put out.

The warning sign is that they may be a little optimistic for institutional purposes at all, maybe.

It's something to keep in mind, that there are other views of what the outlook for agriculture can be.

Now, this wouldn't be across the board at all, come on.

I'd like to see the table for you to look at, but at least get someone else to look at it.

And it nearly says, it's like a warning flag.

When you look at the agriculture data, we may not be in the center of that.

We don't know if I can pull it tomorrow night.

That's right before anybody has taken this position.

I went to Herb Simon and said, I guess I've got to do my thing.

So I changed my position Wednesday night over the night.

I just listened to him.

Just thinking about it, I'm thinking about it.

Nelson George on Thursday, I'm abandoning his position.

I told him that Thursday morning, even before this thing got started.

So, well, the point is that I need to abandon, I know we're not abandoning our principles.

Journalists are starting to protect the time.

What we're doing is not being recognized.

top political faculty and ideas in bed, and people say, well, it's an old watergate, huh?

It's an old watergate.

Believe me, this is the thing to be in the minds of the people.

Convince her.

Okay, I think church was right.

I think church was right.

I gave them to George, and with the rest of them.

But I said to Derek, there should be a strong role for Conley.

I probably insulted George for the process.

But, yeah, I forgot to go out and talk to George, who, like, well, made for heavy.

And the last story I said to George, I didn't, you know, I couldn't, I couldn't go south.

I still didn't do it, so I was like, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just,

They really don't get that field control.

He has such an honor in this room.

I told him about the church, but he was like, in the middle of the night.

Well, his hands, it's like a particle punch in the government's face if you don't breathe or anything.

So, you know, sometimes that's what I mean.

The other thing, good times.

We're not about to turn and see us around here.

Well, you know, I, economically, all option one, but it's the only option two.

but not do it and start a heart attack, which makes it impossible.

What I can do with freeze, the limited freeze, follow and indicate a call number, and as close as possible, change freeze, we can get it, except for food.

Except for food.

Could be some problems even with food.

It's, oh, data planning and point of various single tasks.

I don't know if you've had the benefit.

all they'd have expected, food crops.

Now, when we did economics, we'd go out and see what others knew.

But we didn't come out to see what others knew about the climate, the sand particles, and all of this sort of thing.

We'd just taken our USDA information.

We just didn't want to go out and see what others knew about the agricultural process.

It was a very good idea, and he did.

One of the points is, is that when the USDA data probably comes down, we'll stop to miss it.

All.

And I'm very confident that we're going to go out and get other views of the economy in general, but let's get some others that we didn't.

So, this one warning sign that we should put up.

The warning sign is that they may be a little optimistic for institutional purposes or maybe it's something to keep in mind, that there are other views

what the outlet for agriculture can be.

Now this wouldn't be across the board of all economies.

And there are data, Peter has the data around here, I don't know if it's in the table for you to look at, but at least someone has to look at it.

And here it says, it's like a warning flag.

When you look at the agriculture data, it may not be in the center of that.

That's right.

I got it in person just to be a little careful.

They earlier in the year, they were all telling me the same, like, the restaurant was too much, they were too much work.

They didn't predict the food prices.

The prices were starting to go up.

The food prices were up.

I see someone leave in the summer.

Boy, I didn't thank God.

But we're not going to see it go a little easy, even though it's on hold.

that takes it by major crop, at least, and says, watch it on this one, and that one, we're probably okay on.

That's a, that's a, that's a, that's a, food is still going to be a problem.

In particular, I mean, it wasn't.

And this is what we need to make sure people understand is that

We're doing very well.

We're the best people in the world.

We have the highest wages.

This is America.

Now we have a problem.

The problem is necessary.

We've got to deal with the problem.

So I'm recommending this.

That should deal with the problem.

Let me bring up another subject that will be up to you right soon here.

The Congress, we had a very successful Battle of the Budget Plus, and we were able to still condition and veto the term of condition to Congress.

We got the first two bills vetoed, and we kind of had them on the run.

And now they have us on the run.

Sending back things, we're going to spend a lot of money.

Now, what are the options?

A number of these, consistent with

fundamental policies that you've taken in the last few months on taxes, on certain policies, even as to specific kinds of new categorical programs that are foolish and should be eliminated.

They're trying to override all those and reinstate the olden days with a series of bills.

Now, what happens?

You're faced with veto oversight.

If you're vetoed, there is a fair probability that some of them will be overwritten or

Now, the key question here is, on what scorecard do you want to be counted?

Is it the scorecard of whether you change your position and thus are not perceived as having an overridden veto, or alternatively, you hold your position and maybe lose on the Hill, but win with the people?

Now, this is really the decision that's coming right up.

I'm trying to reduce it to a legal piece of paper.

But I think that the scorecard can't be just

who wins or who loses on the hill.

The scorecard is who wins with the people.

Because if in order to win with the hill, you have to give up some very fundamental principles.

You may win the boat, you'll lose the hill.

The governor of New Hampshire wasn't who really faced this same issue.

He took 250 deaths and got a resounding public support, even though many of his vetoes were overwritten

In fact, he played the battle for the bigger game, the game with the people.

And we won it.

Because today, you're being faced today with, and will be, with a number of decisions to be made in the next few days and weeks of what position to take on this one and that one and the other one.

And there will be treaties to sign or otherwise go along so as not to be perceived as losing the battle with the hill.

Some of these are tough, and some of them you may, you may have to, each one has to be taken

From that, and it's the scorecard winning on the front of the front of these areas.

They're, they're also going to be, uh, help educate a lot of, a great extent of that.

Uh, quite properly.

So Bill Simmons would take the opposite of that.

Quite properly.

Because he's, he's charged with fighting the battle.

I'm really saying there's a war.

And, and he's in charge, he's the general in charge of that battle and in order to win his battles.

The scorecard in the field, he will take that position.

He's okay.

That's why it brings a take.

But I'm saying that there's more than...

But you've got fundamental principles.

That in the minds of the people, taxes are one.

Certain fundamental policy positions... We have to go over tax increases.

We may have some time.

You've got the voting...

What they're trying to do up there is to have a lot of money on these and come down to the fence, figure out how much they need to come up with a two to three budget and is you running taxes.

You can't get one of them here.

Look, there's a bigger war than that battle.

And it doesn't mean that every single battle has to be... You don't fight them all.

It means that you do.

You mean, for example, on a veteran's thing, I mean, you have to... That's right, you have to desert.

That's okay.

On an education thing, I mean, there's people...

Absolutely.

Don't feel that you must avoid every possible...

of principle and of policy that has to be in mind, I agree, too.

I'm having a little difficulties inside of getting everybody to see this, but I think we're getting along.

Al's joining, Al Haig's with me on that view of things.

One by one, I'm getting... Well, I'll take a hard look at it, because I see exactly what your point is.

It's good that you emphasize it.

Then I'll want to go to the names at the bottom of the sheet I can have in mind.

I don't suggest that everyone...

It's the amount of loss and the particular issue.

But it can't be that every single one goes the other way in order to not have a loss.

Never.

It has to be.

Well, okay.

I just don't remember.

But that's a good problem with Harlow, as well as Harlow, but not because of the contract.

And it's like I said, where you go this time.

Every time there comes a war, there's some managers in charge of battles.

And each battle manager is in charge of winning his country.

You're in charge of the war.

And one has to learn the war as well.

And I don't want to be in charge of just saving money all the time either.

No, I don't either.

Thanks.

Right?

I go back to the very first schools and hospitals and the old folks and blacks.

We want to hold them.

Sure.

Because I'd like to take care of everybody.

So nobody had to work.

Of course, I wouldn't be able to do that.

But there's a war as well as a bunch of battles.

And that's really what I'm saying.

Well, okay.

That's it.

I keep going.

On this evening of the day, I'm going to have a cup of tea.

For your information, I had made up my mind, pretty much.

And I'm going to let them talk a little guess, and I'm going to tell them to come up with what I call option three, which is a combination of one, two, one, the three, and so forth.

You would have said, on the free, it's a 60-day version.

No, 60 days is okay.

I would buy 60.

I would not buy 90.

No, no, no.

I'd buy 60, I'd buy 50.

In fact, I would look at the calendar and see exactly what economic data come in that we'll have to benefit from.

Where does the Congress stand in session?

I would take that period that is between 45 and 70 and now look ahead and say what's going to happen on July 31st, August 1st, or 2nd, and fit it around what specific things, what new data we have, whether it is important or not important that Congress be or not be in session,

phase goes in, but I would be right around 45 to 60.

45 to 60.

I think the term's right.

If we're going to do the three or something, we don't think we ought to do the right.

We better have one or so people that it's meaningful.

And sure enough, however, that's too great.

That's exactly right.

That's why 35 just won't do it.

No, the answer really sounds like a none.

45 to 60 is okay.

July 31st, August 1st, August 10th.

We're right in that range.

And within that range of the 45 to 60, I click the date on the calendar that fits other events that will be going on at that time so that it will unfold when it starts at night.

I'm not sure how many economic data come in.

fit into specifics.

Maybe 60 fits.

I'm just kind of checking on it.

Section would be, you know, in the back of July, August 15th.

August, yeah.

August 12th.

August 15th.

How many figures?

I don't get it.

But there isn't.

We've got to have certainty afterwards.

And that certainty ought to be required in the speech.

As certain as you can.

Keeping slang options open so that you're not absolutely frozen.

Right.

But at least enough so that you don't have apprehension and uncertainty that itself is a slang.

Right.

But not so tight that you can't wiggle it.

I didn't agree.

I'm going to wait in the room, but at least a general idea.

So basically, you don't have, from the moment you declare this, speculation at the end of what follows.

Yeah.

I don't want too much speculation.

That's because that will also escalate this thing.

But I take out the numerical, some of the key numerical things that follow.

For instance, will the one-half or one percent be the numbers that determine that?

I really call that to be kind of a total but overall pricey thing that we've got to deal with.

I worry about the precise number, but that doesn't mean that it can't be.

Certainly the idea of what the program will be, the specific description of what the program will be, and even maybe some reference of number ranges, but to pre-specify it will be exactly one and a half percent, which may be a little too tight on just this one year.

and use that attention to do something, to sell.

We're capable of this.

It's only been proven.

This organization can really go on a great deal of business unless, and this is the time to boast, that somebody should be in charge of an orchestrated program inside.

But this system is pretty well geared to do that.

What do they sell?

Where do they sell it?

How do they sell it?

We should be out there sold with a lot of enthusiasm, not just as bribes, but sold with a bit of vigor so that people believe it.

We're not just educating.

We're conditioning.

We're not going to try to educate people in economics.

But we are going to cause a victor.

make certain conclusions, whether they understand how they got there or not, is irrelevant.

Put the conclusions in their heads, not the education in their heads, I would say, right at their own conclusion.

I think a key part of it has to start with the part that you can personally fight would be the most important part, and then fall down to the rest of us and see what we can do after that.

I'll give it a hand.

Well, you know, it's unfortunate that you hadn't come into government to join us at the time.

We had this miserable business on Watergate, doesn't know the rest.

But we'll survive.

I've got one of the least sensitive, don't worry about me or therapy or anything.

I don't need therapy.

I've got all the sensitives.

I know everybody around me has a sense of, oh, God, what's the matter?

Just administration, crooked and so forth.

I can't, you know, I had an organization that was, you know, the president's council was from the...

go on next Friday or Monday or Tuesday and say the President is going to suspend all the, you know, about two-thirds lies.

But I can't deny, you know, I just got to go right to it.

If the fellow that gets immunity isn't discredited, then I don't know who it is.

You know what I mean?

That's how you can lie.

This whole thing, those urban here, Cox at least did one thing, I suppose, make a statement that the urban

Poverty is a bad thing.

It is.

One's going to destroy his prosecution.

He knows that.

Sure.

Well, he's partly got a record that he's still got.

That's his life.

He said that, John.

He's never going to be able to do it.

Well, I say never.

He is going to have a very difficult time convicting any of the people who have been already convicted in their early years.

He can't get convicted in the press room.

Good heavens, they can't get a fair trial.

How can they get this?

It's almost impossible to do that.

But Irvin doesn't want to believe us.

There's Irvin somewhere.

What this thing does is that if those here are being harsh on you, they wait for a while until they see you all with this television.

Sure.

They're right here.

But on the other hand, it's a decent support if you're real friends.

It's a strange thing to be honest with you.

I was in California last week, and I was in California last week, and I personally cannot

He said, just tell him we love him, we support him, that he's got a great bunch of people here right behind him.

So he asked me to personally send you his view, and he's a nice old guy.

Well, here we go.

See you at 3 o'clock.