In this election season the White House is telling us a solid economic recovery is taking place. It claims a
slight
drop in unemployment. It says that prices aren't going up as fast, but they are still going up, and that the
stock
market has shown some gains. But, in fact, things seem just about as they were back in the 1972 election
year.
Remember, we were also coming out of a recession then. Inflation had been running at round 6 percent.
Unemployment about 7 [percent]. Remember, too, the upsurge and the optimism lasted through the
election year
and into 1973. And then the roof fell in. Once again we had unemployment. Only this time not 7 percent,
more
than 10. And inflation wasn't 6 percent, it was 12 percent. Now, in this election year 1976, we're told
we're coming
out of this recession—just because inflation and unemployment rates have fallen, to what they were at the
worst of
the previous recession. If history repeats itself, will we be talking recovery four years from now merely
because
we've reduced inflation from 25 percent to 12 percent?
The fact is, we'll never build a lasting economic recovery by going deeper into debt at a faster rate than
we ever
have before. It took this nation 166 years—until the middle of World War II—to finally accumulate a
debt of $95
billion. It took this administration just the last 12 months to add $95 billion to the debt. And this
administration
has run up almost one-fourth of the total national debt in just these short 19 months.
Inflation is the cause of recession and unemployment. And we're not going to have real prosperity or
recovery
until we stop fighting the symptoms and start fighting the disease. There's only one cause for inflation—
government spending more than government takes in. The cure is a balanced budget. Ah, but they tell us,
80
percent of the budget is uncontrollable. It's fixed by laws passed by Congress. Wel1, 1aws passed by
Congress can
be repealed by Congress. And, if Congress is unwilling to do this, then isn't it time we elect a Congress
that will?
Soon after he took office, Mr. Ford promised he would end inflation. Indeed, he declared war on
inflation. And,
we all donned those WIN buttons to "Whip Inflation Now." Unfortunately the war—if it ever really
started—was
soon over. Mr. Ford without WIN button, appeared on TV, and promised he absolutely would not allow
the Federal
deficit to exceed $60 billion (which incidentally was $5 billion more than the biggest previous deficit
we'd ever
had). Later he told us it might be as much as $70 billion. Now we learn it's 80 billion or more.
Then came a White House proposal for a $28 billion tax cut, to be matched by a S28 billion cut in the
proposed
spending—not in present spending, but in the proposed spending in the new budget. Well, my question
then and
my question now is, if there was $28 billion in the new budget that could be cut, what was it doing there
in the first
place?
Unfortunately, Washington doesn't feel the same pain from inflation that you and I do. As a matter of
fact,
government makes a profit on inflation. For instance, last July Congress vaccinated itself against that
pain. It very
quietly passed legislation (which the president signed into law) which automatically now gives a pay
increase to
every Congressman every time the cost of living goes up.
It would have been nice if they'd thought of some arrangement like that for the rest of us. They could, for
example, correct a great unfairness that now exists in our tax system. Today, when you get a cost of
living pay
raise—one that just keeps you even with purchasing power—it often moves you up into a higher tax
bracket. This
means you pay a higher percentage in tax, but you reduce your purchasing power. Last year, because of
this
inequity, the government took in $7 billion in undeserved profit in the income tax alone, and this year
they'll do
even better.
Now isn't it time that Congress looked after your welfare as well as its own? Those whose spending
policies cause
inflation to begin with should be made to feel the painful effect just as you and I do.
Repeal of Congress' autornatic pay raise might 1eave it with more incentive to do something to curb
inflation.
Now, let's 100k at Social Security. Mr. Ford says he wants to "preserve the integrity of Socia1 Security."
We11, I
differ with him on one word. I would like to restore the integrity of Social Security. Those who depend
on it see a
continual reduction in their standard of living. Inflation strips the increase in their benefits. The
maximum benefit
today buys 80 fewer loaves of bread than it did when that maximum payment was only $85 a month. In
the
meantime, the Socia1 Security payro11 tax has become the most unfair tax any worker pays. Women are
discriminated against—particularly working wives. And, people who reach Socia1 Security age and want
to
continue working, should be allowed to do so without losing their benefits. I believe a presidential
commission of
experts should be appointed to study and present a plan to strengthen and improve Social Security while
there's
still time—so that no person who has contributed to Social Security will ever lose a dime.
Before leaving this subject of our economic problems, let's talk about unemployment. Ending inflation is
the
only long range and lasting answer to the problem of unemployment. The Washington Establishment is
not the
answer. It's the problem. Its tax policies, its harassing regulation, its confiscation of investment capital to
pay for
its deficits keeps business and industry from expanding to meet your needs and to provide the jobs we all
need.
No one who lived through the Great Depression can ever 100k upon an unemp1oyed person with
anything but
compassion. To me, there is no greater tragedy than a breadwinner willing to work, with a job skill but
unable to
find a market for that job skill. Back in those dark depression days I saw my father on a Christmas eve
open what
he thought was a Christmas greeting from his boss. Instead, it was the blue slip telling him he no longer
had a job.
The memory of him sitting there holding that slip of paper and then saying in a half whisper, "That's
quite a
Christmas present"; it will stay with me as long as I live.
Other problems go unsolved. Take energy. Only a short time ago we were lined up at the gas station—
turned
our thermostats down as Washington announced "Project Independence." We were going to become self-
sufficient,
able to provide for our own energy needs. At the time, we were only importing a small percentage of our
oil. Yet,
the Arab boycott caused half a million Americans to lose their jobs when plants closed down for lack of
fuel.
Today, it's almost three years later and "Project Independence" has become "Project Dependence."
Congress has
adopted an energy bill so bad we were led to believe Mr. Ford would veto it. Instead, he signed it. And,
almost
instantly, drilling rigs all over our land started shutting down. Now, for the first time in our history we are
importing more oil than we produce. How many Americans will be laid off if there's another boycott?
The energy
bill is a disaster that never should have been signed.
An effort has been made in this campaign to suggest that there aren't any real differences between Mr.
Ford and
myself. Well, I believe there are, and these differences are fundamental. One of them has to do with our
approach
to government. Before Richard Nixon appointed him Vice President, Mr. Ford was a Congressman for 25
years.
His concern, of necessity, was the welfare of his congressional district. For most of his adult life he has
been a part
of the Washington Establishment. Most of my adult life has been spent outside of government. My
experience in
government was the eight years I served as governor of California. If it were a nation, California would
be the 7th-
ranking economic power in the world today.
When I became governor, I inherited a state government that was in almost the same situation as New
York
City. The state payroll had been growing for a dozen years at a rate of from five to seven thousand new
employees
each year. State government was spending from a million to a million-and-a-half dollars more each day
than it was
taking in. The State's great water project was unfinished and under-funded by a half a billion dollars. My
predecessor had spent the entire year's budget for Medicaid in the first six months of the fiscal year. And,
we
learned that the teacher's retirement fund was unfunded—a $4 billion liability hanging over every
property owner
in the state. I didn't know whether I'd been elected governor or appointed receiver. California was faced
with
insolvency and on the verge of bankruptcy. We had to increase taxes. Well, this came very hard for me
because I
felt taxes were already too great a burden. I told the people the increase in my mind was temporary and
that, as
soon as we could, we'd return their money to them.
I had never in my life thought of seeking or holding public of office and I'm still not quite sure how it all
happened. In my own mind, I was a citizen representing my fellow citizens against the institution of
government. I
turned to the people, not to politicians for help. Instead of a committee to screen applicants for jobs, I had
a
citizens' recruiting committee, and I told this committee I wanted an administration made up of men and
women
who did not want government careers and who'd be the first to tell me if their government job was
unnecessary.
And I had that happen. [A] young man from the aerospace industry dissolved his department in four
months,
handed me the key to this office, and told me we'd never needed the department. And to this day, I not
only have
never missed it—I don't know where it was.
There was a reason for my seeking people who didn't want government careers. Dr. Parkinson summed it
all up
in his book on bureaucracy. He said, "Government hires a rat-catcher and the first thing you know, he's
become a
rodent control officer." In those entire eight years, most of us never lost that feeling that we were there
representing
the people against what Cicero once called the "arrogance of officialdom." We had a kind of watchword
we used on
each other. "When we begin thinking of government as we instead of they, we've been here too long."
Well, I
believe that attitude would be beneficial in Washington.
We didn't stop just with getting our administration from the ranks of the people. We also asked for help
from
expert people in a great many fields, and more than 250 of our citizens volunteered to form into task
forces. They
went into every department and agency of state government to see how modern business practices could
make
government more efficient, economical and responsive. They gave an average of 117 days apiece full
time, away
from their own jobs and careers at no cost to the taxpayers. They made eighteen hundred specific
recommendations. We implemented more than sixteen hundred of those recommendations.
This was government-by-the-people, proving that it works when the people work at it. When we ended
our eight
years, we turned over to the incoming administration a balanced budget, a $500 million surplus, and
virtually the
same number of employees we'd started with eight years before—even though the increase in population
had given
some departments a two-thirds increase in work load. The water project was completed with $165 million
left over.
Our bonds had a triple A rating, the highest credit rating you can get. And the teachers' retirement
program was
fully funded on a sound actuarial basis. And, we kept our word to the taxpayers—we returned to them in
rebates
and tax cuts, $5 billion, $761 million.
I believe that what we did in California can be done in Washington if government will have faith in the
people
and let them bring their common sense to bear on the problems bureaucracy hasn't solved. I believe in the
people.
Now, Mr. Ford places his faith in the Washington Establishment. This has been evident in his
appointment of
former Congressmen and longtime government workers to positions in his Administration. Well, I don't
believe
that those who have been part of the problem are necessarily the best qualified to solve those problems.
The truth is, Washington has taken over functions that don't truly belong to it. In almost every case it has
been a
failure. Now, understand, I'm speaking of those programs which logically should be administered at state
and local
levels. Welfare is a classic example. Voices that are raised now and then urging a federalization of
welfare don't
realize that the failure of welfare is due to federal interference. Washington doesn't even know how many
people
are on welfare—how many cheaters are getting more than one check. It only knows how many checks it's
sending
out. Its own rules keep it from finding out how many are getting more than one check.
Well, California had a welfare problem. Sixteen percent of all welfare recipients in the country were
drawing
their checks in our state. We were sending welfare checks to families who decided to live abroad. One
family was
receiving its check in Russia. Our caseload was increasing by 40,000 people a month. Well, after a few
years of
trying to control this runaway program and being frustrated by bureaucrats here in California and in
Washington,
we turned again to a citizens' task force. The result was the most comprehensive welfare reform ever
attempted.
And in less than three years we reduced the rolls by more than 300,000 people, saved the taxpayers S2
billion, and
increased the grants to the truly deserving needy by an average of 43 percent. We also carried out a
successful
experiment which I believe is an answer to much of the welfare problem in the nation. We put able-
bodied welfare
recipients to work at useful community projects in return for their welfare grants.
Now, let's look at housing. Washington has tried to solve this problem for the poor by building low-cost
houses.
So far it's torn down three and a half homes for every one it's built.
Schools—in America we created at the local level and administered at the local level for many years the
greatest public school system in the world. Now through something called federal aid to education, we
have
something called federal interference, and education has been the loser. Quality has declined as federal
intervention has increased. Nothing has created more bitterness, for example, than forced busing to
achieve racial
balance. It was born of a hope that we could increase understanding and reduce prejudice and
antagonism. And I'm
sure we all approved of that goal. But busing has failed to achieve the goal. Instead, it has increased the
bitterness
and animosity it was supposed to reduce. California's Superintendent of Public Instruction, Wilson Riles
(himself a
Black), says, "The concept that Black children can't learn unless they are sitting with white children is
utter and
complete nonsense. " Well, I agree. The money now being wasted on this social experiment could be
better spent to
provide the kind of school facilities every child deserves. Forced busing should be ended by legislation if
possible—
by constitutional amendment if necessary. And, control of education should be returned to local school
districts.
The other day Mr. Ford came out against gun control. But back in Washington, D.C., his Attorney
General has
proposed a seven-point program that amounts to just that: gun control. I don't think that making it
difficult for
law-abiding citizens to obtain guns will lower the crime rate— not when the criminals will always find a
way to get
them. In California I think we found an answer. We put into law what is practical gun control. Anyone
convicted
of having a gun in his possession while he committed a crime: add five to fifteen years to the prison
sentence.
Sometimes bureaucracy's excesses are so great that we laugh at them. But they are costly laughs. Twenty-
five
years ago the Hoover Commission discovered that Washington files a million reports a year just reporting
there is
nothing to report. Independent business people, shopkeepers and farmers file billions of reports every
year required
of them by Washington. It amounts to some 10 billion pieces of paper each year, and it adds $50 billion a
year to
the cost of doing business. Now, Washington has been loud in its promise to do something about this
blizzard of
paperwork. And they made good. Last year they increased it by 20 percent.
But there is one problem which must be solved or everything else is meaningless. I am speaking of the
problem
of our national security. Our nation is in danger, and the danger grows greater with each passing day.
Like an echo
from the past, the voice of Winston Churchill's grandson was heard recently in Britain's House of
Commons
warning that the spread of totalitarianism threatens the world once again and the democracies are
wandering
without aim. "
"Wandering without aim" describes the United States' foreign policy. Angola is a case in point. We gave
just
enough support to one side to encourage it to fight and die, but too little to give them a chance of
winning. And
while we're disliked by the winner, distrusted by the loser, and viewed by the world as weak and unsure.
If détente
were the two-way street it's supposed to be, we could have told the Soviet Union to stop its trouble-
making and
leave Angola to the Angolans. But it didn't work out that way.
Now, we are told Washington is dropping the word "détente, " but keeping the policy. But whatever it's
called,
the policy is what's at fault. What is our policy? Mr. Ford's new Ambassador to the United Nations
attacks our
longtime ally, Israel. In Asia, our new relationship with mainland China can have practical benefits for
both sides.
But that doesn't mean it should include yielding to demands by them, as the administration has, to reduce
our
military presence on Taiwan where we have a longtime friend and ally, the Republic of China.
And, it's also revealed now that we seek to establish friendly relations with Hanoi. To make it more
palatable,
we're told that this might help us learn the fate of the men still listed as Missing in Action. Well, there's
no doubt
our government has an obligation to end the agony of parents, wives and children who've lived so long
with
uncertainty. But, this should have been one of our first demands of Hanoi's patron saint, the Soviet
Union, if
détente had any meaning at all. To present it now as a reason for friendship with those who have already
violated
their promise to provide such information is hypocrisy.
In the last few days, Mr. Ford and Dr. Kissinger have taken us from hinting at invasion of Cuba, to
laughing it
off as a ridiculous idea. Except, that it was their ridiculous idea. No one else suggested it. Once again—
what is
their policy? During this last year, they carried on a campaign to befriend Castro. They persuaded the
Organization
of American States to lift its trade embargo, lifted some of the U.S. trade restrictions. They engaged in
cultural
exchanges. And then, on the eve of the Florida primary election, Mr. Ford went to Florida, called Castro
an outlaw
and said he'd never recognize him. But he hasn't asked our Latin American neighbors to reimpose a
single
sanction, nor has he taken any action himself. Meanwhile, Castro continues to export revolution to Puerto
Rico, to
Angola, and who knows where else?
As I talk to you tonight, negotiations with another dictator go forward— negotiations aimed at giving up
our
ownership of the Panama Canal Zone. Apparently, everyone knows about this except the rightful owners
of the
Canal Zone—you, the people of the United States. General Omar Torrijos, the dictator of Panama, seized
power
eight years ago by ousting the duly-elected government. There have been no elections since. No civil
liberties. The
press is censored. Torrijos is a friend and ally of Castro and, like him, is pro-Communist. He threatens
sabotage and
guerrilla attacks on our installations if we don't yield to his demands. His foreign minister openly claims
that we
have already agreed in principle to giving up the Canal Zone.
Well, the Canal Zone is not a colonial possession. It is not a long-term lease. It is sovereign United States
Territory every bit the same as Alaska and all the states that were carved from the Louisiana Purchase.
We should
end those negotiations and tell the General: We bought it, we paid for it, we built it, and we intend to
keep it.
Mr. Ford says détente will be replaced by "peace through strength." Well now, that slogan has a—a nice
ring to
it, but neither Mr. Ford nor his new Secretary of Defense will say that our strength is superior to all
others. In one
of the dark hours of the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "It is time to speak the truth
frankly
and boldly." Well, I believe former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger was trying to speak the truth
frankly
and boldly to his fellow citizens. And that's why he is no longer Secretary of Defense.
The Soviet Army outnumbers ours more than two-to-one and in reserves four-to-one. They out-spend us
on
weapons by 50 percent. Their Navy outnumbers ours in surface ships and submarines two-to-one. We're
outgunned
in artillery three-to-one and their tanks outnumber ours four-to-one. Their strategic nuclear missiles are
larger,
more powerful and more numerous than ours. The evidence mounts that we are Number Two in a world
where it's
dangerous, if not fatal, to be second best. Is this why Mr. Ford refused to invite Alexander Solzhenitsyn
to the
White House? Or, why Mr. Ford traveled halfway 'round the world to sign the Helsinki Pact, putting our
stamp of
approval on Russia's enslavement of the captive nations? We gave away the freedom of millions of
people—
freedom that was not ours to give.
Now we must ask if someone is giving away our own freedom. Dr. Kissinger is quoted as saying that he
thinks
of the United States as Athens and the Soviet Union as Sparta. "The day of the U.S. is past and today is
the day of
the Soviet Union." And he added, ^. . . My job as Secretary of State is to negotiate the most acceptable
second-best
position available." Well, I believe in the peace of which Mr. Ford spoke—as much as any man. But
peace does not
come from weakness or from retreat. It comes from the restoration of American military superiority.
Ask the people of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary—all the others: East
Germany,
Bulgaria, Romania—ask them what it's like to live in a world where the Soviet Union is Number One. I
don't want
to live in that kind of world; and I don't think you do either. Now we learn that another high official of
the State
Department, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, whom Dr. Kissinger refers to as his "Kissinger," has expressed the
belief that, in
effect, the captive nations should give up any claim of national sovereignty and simply become a part of
the Soviet
Union. He says, "their desire to break out of the Soviet straightjacket" threatens us with World War III. In
other
words, slaves should accept their fate.
Well, I don't believe the people I've met in almost every State of this Union are ready to consign this, the
last
island of freedom, to the dust bin of history, along with the bones of dead civilizations of the past. Call it
mysticism, if you will, but I believe God had a divine purpose in placing this land between the two great
oceans to
be found by those who had a special love of freedom and the courage to leave the countries of their birth.
From our
forefathers to our modern-day immigrants, we've come from every corner of the earth, from every race
and every
ethnic background, and we've become a new breed in the world. We're Americans and we have a
rendezvous with
destiny. We spread across this land, building farms and towns and cities, and we did it without any
federal land
planning program or urban renewal.
Indeed, we gave birth to an entirely new concept in man's relation to man. We created government as our
servant, beholden to us and possessing no powers except those voluntarily granted to it by us. Now a self-
anointed
elite in our nation's capital would have us believe we are incapable of guiding our own destiny. They
practice
government by mystery, telling us it's too complex for our understanding. Believing this, they assume we
might
panic if we were to be told the truth about our problems.
Why should we become frightened? No people who have ever lived on this earth have fought harder, paid
a
higher price for freedom, or done more to advance the dignity of man than the living Americans—the
Americans
living in this land today. There isn't any problem we can't solve if government will give us the facts. Tell
us what
needs to be done. Then, get out of the way and let us have at it.
Recently on one of my campaign trips I was doing a question-and-answer session, and suddenly I
received a
question from a little girl—couldn't have been over six or seven years old—standing in the very front
row. I'd
heard the question before but somehow in her asking it, she threw me a little bit. She said, why do you
want to be
president? Well, I tried to tell her about giving government back to the people; I tried to tell her about
turning
authority back to the states and local communities, and so forth; winding down the bureaucracy. [It]
might have
been an answer for adults, but I knew that it wasn't what that little girl wanted, and I left very frustrated.
It was on
the way to the next stop that I turned to Nancy and I said I wish I had it to do over again because I—I'd
like to
answer her question.
Well, rnaybe I can answer it now. I would like to go to Washington. I would like to be president, because
I
would like to see this country become once again a country where a little six-year old girl can grow up
knowing the
same freedom that I knew when I was six years old, growing up in America. If this is the America you
want for
yourself and your children; if you want to restore government not only of and for but by the people; to
see the
American spirit unleashed once again; to make this land a shining, golden hope God intended it to be, I'd
like to
hear from you. Write, or send a wire. I'd be proud to hear your thoughts and your ideas.
Thank you, and good night.
Good evening to all of you from California. Tonight, I'd like to talk to you about issues. Issues which I
think are
involved-or should be involved in this primary election season. I'm a
candidate for the Republican nomination for
president. But I hope that you who are Independents and Democrats will let me talk to you also tonight
because the
problems facing our country are problems that just don't bear any party label.