00:00:04.580 - 00:00:13.280

Male voice 1: Thank you Ross. Male voice 1: I mentioned to the Senator Male voice 1: that his introduction would be Male voice 1: very brief and he was very much relieved.

00:00:13.280 - 00:00:22.230

Male voice 1: When asked if he would speak for Male voice 1: this state chamber annual meeting, Male voice 1: Senator John J. Williams gave us Male voice 1: an enthusiastic and affirmative response.

00:00:22.230 - 00:00:31.230

Male voice 1: The feeling is mutual. Male voice 1: As is indicated by your attendance tonight. Male voice 1: All of us are well acquainted with Male voice 1: our speaker and his talents as

00:00:31.230 - 00:00:42.180

Male voice 1: a senator representing Delaware. Male voice 1: His work and energy are Male voice 1: recognized from coast to coast. Male voice 1: He is a man who can tackle problems and produce results.

00:00:42.180 - 00:00:50.480

Male voice 1: He has spoken and acted as few men have dared. Male voice 1: It is an honor and privilege to Male voice 1: introduce our guest Male voice 1: speaker and senior senator,

00:00:50.480 - 00:01:23.840

Male voice 1: Senator John J. Williams. [Applause] Senator John J. Williams: Thank you, President Crum. Senator Williams: Governor and Mrs. Tribbitts. Congressman Roth,

00:01:23.840 - 00:01:32.070

Senator Williams: other distinguished guests, Senator Williams: ladies and gentlemen. I want to thank you for this opportunity of appearing before

00:01:32.070 - 00:01:42.410

this distinguished group here tonight. Would be only fair to tell you that when I first received the invitation from Ross Anderson,

00:01:42.410 - 00:01:51.590

my first reaction was to decline the invitation. Afterward, and I felt that it would be rather presumptuous for me, a small town peat dealer

00:01:51.590 - 00:01:59.540

from Sussex, [Crowd chuckles} to stand before these captains of industry and talk to you about the budget and

00:01:59.540 - 00:02:09.470

the question of taxes in Washington. Then on second thought, I reason well, why not? By virtue of my position in Washington,

00:02:09.470 - 00:02:16.380

I automatically places me as a director of one of the largest natural gas companies in the world.

00:02:16.380 - 00:02:38.400

[Applause and laughter] Our only difficulty is we're having a little trouble finding any commercial market or value for our product. [crowd chuckles]

00:02:38.650 - 00:02:48.770

We first tried to distribute it throughout the Northeast as furnishing fuel or energy for the generating capacity of

00:02:48.770 - 00:02:54.950

the north eastern cities. But we were advised that nothing that's coming out of the Senate has any power of

00:02:54.950 - 00:03:04.340

illumination whatsoever. So it was discarded. So that leaves us back to just the choice of continuing to

00:03:04.340 - 00:03:10.370

distribute it as hot air in Washington are using it as a byproduct for some fertilizer factory.

00:03:10.370 - 00:03:26.060

[Laughter] I do appreciate being here tonight though, and I listened with a great deal of interest and

00:03:26.060 - 00:03:35.130

pleasure with the report of your treasurer Mr. Anderson. I wish that we could borrow him in Washington because it's been a long time

00:03:35.130 - 00:03:48.290

since I heard any treasurer report that his company was in the black. [Some laughter] And I might say that I before getting, I I could join all

00:03:48.290 - 00:03:55.340

of you in congratulating Russ Peterson and all of the other gentleman who had been honored here tonight with

00:03:55.340 - 00:04:02.900

these various awards and presents. I will say though that as they were passing out all of this loot here tonight,

00:04:02.900 - 00:04:12.380

I was reminded of somewhat of a complaint that was filed by my grand daughter with her mother on one occasion. She came home,

00:04:12.380 - 00:04:20.170

she said Mother, it isn't fair. We have Father's Day. What did he get? Presents. We are Mother's Day.

00:04:20.170 - 00:04:32.930

What do you get? More presents. Next Sunday is Children's Day, what do I get? A speech. [Laughter] But really though we do have a great country,

00:04:32.930 - 00:04:40.970

we may be somewhat eccentric and peculiar in Washington, but after all, we're a great nation, a great people.

00:04:40.970 - 00:04:49.340

We have our peculiarities. I was interested the other day to pick up the Wall Street Journal, read how a rather successful businessman

00:04:49.340 - 00:04:57.480

had decided that he would enter into the brokerage business. And he paid $68 thousand for a seat on the New York Stock Exchange.

00:04:57.480 - 00:05:03.500

Now just imagine his surprised when he gets there and finds that there isn't a single chair, stool, box

00:05:03.500 - 00:05:12.290

or anything to sit on. But that isn't half is puzzling as it was the fact that I saw the other day a report on how to gauge

00:05:12.290 - 00:05:18.740

in the trend of the stock market and how that you can really make money. And this report had gone through

00:05:18.740 - 00:05:26.510

extensive research to determine what made the market go up, what made the market go down. And at the same time,

00:05:26.510 - 00:05:33.290

how you could project and determine the future trends of the market. He came to the conclusion that the best barometer was

00:05:33.290 - 00:05:42.980

to watch the hemlines of the ladies skirts. And I understand that that gentleman is now down in Miami as a beach from apartment

00:05:42.980 - 00:05:54.200

and you're making a barrel of money. [Laughter] But seriously with it all, we do have one of the best forms of government that was ever

00:05:54.200 - 00:06:02.850

conceived by mankind. Under this form of government, the capitalistic system of private enterprise has prospered,

00:06:02.850 - 00:06:15.770

until today the American people are enjoying the highest standard of living of any nation in the world. For 175 years under this capitalistic system

00:06:15.770 - 00:06:23.470

of private ownership, new industries and new products have been developed. Our factories and our farms have

00:06:23.470 - 00:06:34.890

modernized and expanded, until today, their productive capacity stands out as the envy of the entire world. And I get a little impatient

00:06:34.890 - 00:06:45.050

occasionally when we find some of the so-called millionaire playboys who adopt politics as a hobby. And then in order to portray

00:06:45.050 - 00:06:54.350

themselves as liberal friend of the common man, they go around the country denouncing the same capitalistic system under which

00:06:54.350 - 00:07:02.090

their fathers and grandfathers made the money that they themselves are supporting their family with today. I think that rather than

00:07:02.090 - 00:07:09.770

denounced the system, we should be proud of it and recognize that it is a system of private ownership, free

00:07:09.770 - 00:07:21.630

enterprise system which has given to our people the greatest standard of living that any nation has ever enjoyed. Now I want to discuss tonight briefly,

00:07:21.630 - 00:07:31.400

not to briefly because we have just defeated yesterday an effort to throttle this length of speeches in the Senate. And we determined that we

00:07:31.400 - 00:07:41.600

could speak at unlimited. My train doesn't leave till late anyway. So enjoy yourselves. [Laughter] But I will mention the

00:07:41.600 - 00:07:52.220

couple of problems that we do have confronting us in Washington. One is the, to touch briefly, the problem in Vietnam and the other is

00:07:52.220 - 00:08:01.490

one that is close to the hearts of all of us. And that's the question of budget deficit and will or will there not be a tax increase.

00:08:01.490 - 00:08:11.030

Now, you can't altogether ignore the question of Vietnam when you discuss the budget, or deficits, because it does represent

00:08:11.030 - 00:08:20.490

a major part of the cost of operating our government. And I want to say that as one who has supported the administration

00:08:20.490 - 00:08:30.410

and it's policy in Vietnam, I think that the President is right that we have no choice at this moment. We could not afford and it's out of

00:08:30.410 - 00:08:41.540

question to discuss withdrawing. Therefore, since we're not going to withdraw. We have no choice except as members of Congress or as American citizens,

00:08:41.540 - 00:08:51.530

except to pledge to the President our full support of all the resources of this country. We have four to five hundred thousand men in

00:08:51.530 - 00:09:01.450

that area who are risking their lives daily. And certainly we're not going to measure their needs in terms of dollars against human lives.

00:09:01.450 - 00:09:16.320

So... [Applause] When we speak of that page of the budget, certainly we're not going to unnecessarily economize in that direction,

00:09:16.320 - 00:09:25.400

and I respect the right of anyone else who differs with the administration in each policies in Vietnam.

00:09:25.400 - 00:09:34.190

That is our system of government where men have the right of free speech. But I do think that those who differ with the administration,

00:09:34.190 - 00:09:45.040

particularly those members of Congress, would be well to keep their criticism on a constructive basis and not utter it in a manner which would lend

00:09:45.040 - 00:09:52.370

comfort and to our enemies and at the same time lower the morale of our fighting men who are in that area.

00:09:52.370 - 00:10:06.020

[Applause] Continuing as one who supports the administration in that area. I also want to add that I think

00:10:06.020 - 00:10:13.110

that it is time that we recognize that having made the decision that we have to stay in that area

00:10:13.110 - 00:10:21.050

until we can reach a peaceful settlement at an honorable settlement to the differences that we should go

00:10:21.050 - 00:10:27.310

all out and put enough in there to do the job and win it so that we can come home and call the job done.

00:10:27.310 - 00:10:39.900

[Applause] And in that direction, I think that it is time that we could very properly remind our allies,

00:10:39.900 - 00:10:47.910

those whom we have helped in the past when they have been in trouble in a conflict that we expect at least some degree

00:10:47.910 - 00:11:00.770

of reciprocity on their part. And I'm at a loss to understand how we can justify our, or how great Britain, for example, can justify expecting us to

00:11:00.770 - 00:11:10.040

join her in an economic blockade of Rhodesia. At the same time, she's insisting upon furnishing a new fertilizer plant,

00:11:10.040 - 00:11:17.210

a financing and for Mr. Castro. And at the same time, we find the British ships hauling some supplies in North Vietnam.

00:11:17.210 - 00:11:30.770

[Applause] I think we can tell those friends, and they are our friends, we respect their friendship,

00:11:30.770 - 00:11:39.230

but friendship works both ways. And as for Mr. de Gaulle, a man whom I respect and who has done great things for the French government.

00:11:39.230 - 00:11:45.320

I think that if he is so concerned about the value of the American dollar, that he wants to get rid of it,

00:11:45.320 - 00:11:52.110

I most respectfully suggest that he could use some of it to pay on the seven and a half billion unpaid war debts that he owes this country.

00:11:52.110 - 00:12:08.660

[Applause] Now I wish to discuss another phase of the federal budget with particular reference to

00:12:08.660 - 00:12:19.700

our mounting deficits and the question of whether or not where this is going to be a tax, increase. If in the course of my remarks,

00:12:19.700 - 00:12:26.480

anything that I say you can in any way be interpreted as critical of the spending policies of this administration.

00:12:26.480 - 00:12:36.590

I want to make it clear they will be so intended. [Laughter] However, in all fairness to the sponsors, I suppose I should add

00:12:36.590 - 00:12:46.480

the usual phrase that their remarks of the speaker represent his views and not necessarily the views of the sponsor. But in any event,

00:12:46.480 - 00:12:57.720

I am going to discuss what is the budget, what I think should be done along with what I think may be done. Now when you approach the question,

00:12:57.720 - 00:13:06.210

first, can spending, domestic spending, be cut and will taxes be increased or should they be increased?

00:13:06.210 - 00:13:14.810

There are two answers to that question. If I say can spending of domestic programs be curtailed and should it be

00:13:14.810 - 00:13:24.200

curtailed prior to consideration of a tax increase? The answer most emphatically is yes. Certainly we can roll back

00:13:24.200 - 00:13:33.430

or curtail some of our domestic spending. I've said on many occasions, there are only two items in the federal budget which are sacred.

00:13:33.430 - 00:13:42.350

That is the interest on the national debt, the obligation that we owe to those individuals who cannot take care of themselves.

00:13:42.350 - 00:13:53.590

Beyond that, any federal aid programs, or any federal program can be curtailed. Many federal projects which are meritorious when you've got the money,

00:13:53.590 - 00:14:01.760

can be postponed until we bring the fiscal policies of this government under control. And I think it would be

00:14:01.760 - 00:14:11.510

out of place for Congress to consider raising taxes prior to approaching the problem of at least reducing government spending

00:14:11.510 - 00:14:23.020

on the domestic front first. [Applause] But having said that, and as one who will support

00:14:23.020 - 00:14:31.550

the reduction of domestic spending, I want to say also that I do not think that we can roll back domestic spending to

00:14:31.550 - 00:14:39.480

the point where he would not still be necessary to increase taxes. I regret to say that, but I should say that as one

00:14:39.480 - 00:14:48.140

who think that we made a terrible mistake when we did not raise taxes this time last year. I think that even, it's going to

00:14:48.140 - 00:14:56.970

take a combination of both reduced expenses as well as some form of a tax increase. But I say again,

00:14:56.970 - 00:15:05.120

they must come in the proper order to raise taxes without first having reduced government spending would,

00:15:05.120 - 00:15:11.780

in my opinion, only further fan the fires of inflation and would only create a greater catastrophe and

00:15:11.780 - 00:15:20.620

I'd have no part of it. But I do think that we must recognize the extent to which we are living beyond our means.

00:15:20.620 - 00:15:29.240

It is time that the American people recognize that we cannot afford all of those programs which have been enacted and

00:15:29.240 - 00:15:38.000

which are being proposed. For example, we operated under the illusion for months that last year we closed our books

00:15:38.000 - 00:15:49.780

with a $2.3 billion deficit last year. And that this year's deficit for 67 would be around $1.8 billion. And having been told that,

00:15:49.780 - 00:15:58.220

I do not at all blame the American people who are today insisting that there will be no tax increase. They had every right to believe

00:15:58.220 - 00:16:04.700

those figures given to them by the government were given to them as factual and that they had some basis

00:16:04.700 - 00:16:12.470

for having been stated, but they are not factual reports. Our deficit for last fiscal year instead of being

00:16:12.470 - 00:16:23.860

$2.3, as they claimed, we actually spent over $10 billion in fiscal 66 over and beyond our income, or nearly 1 billion per month.

00:16:23.860 - 00:16:34.530

This year's deficit, which was first proclaim as $1.8 billion last year, and until last week, when the President addressed

00:16:34.530 - 00:16:43.370

the joint session of Congress, he revised that figure upward to $9.7 billion deficit this year. But that still does not

00:16:43.370 - 00:16:51.340

tell you the whole story. Our true deficit for this current fiscal year, if you use the same accounting policies

00:16:51.340 - 00:17:01.550

as have been in effect for a 175 years, shows that we spent eighteen and three quarter billion this year more than we're taking in.

00:17:01.550 - 00:17:09.230

And I'll show you where the difference comes in. We in addition to the $9.7 which is admitted, the acceleration

00:17:09.230 - 00:17:16.790

of the corporate taxes, we'll pick up $3.2 billion as you gentlemen, in the corporate field know. That is not

00:17:16.790 - 00:17:27.440

income that will forever be coming in. Once you get on a pay-as-you-go basis, it is non-recurring income. The signage on our coins, changing,

00:17:27.440 - 00:17:37.780

reducing the silver content from with the copper, we pick up an extra profit this year of $1 billion

00:17:37.780 - 00:17:49.070

that is being put in the general revenue. We've accelerated by executive order that payment by the corporations of your withheld payroll taxes where you pay a

00:17:49.070 - 00:17:59.900

twice a month instead of monthly, puts one more month, one more payment in the current fiscal year, and we pick up nine, seven hundred I mean seven hundred and seventy million

00:17:59.900 - 00:18:08.110

on that executive order. And then we sold our assets and liquidated those to the extent of $4.1 billion.

00:18:08.110 - 00:18:16.200

And put that in the general revenue as though it were normal income. And all together through these various gimmicks,

00:18:16.200 - 00:18:26.080

we put into the federal revenue, nine billion and seventy million dollars or it means we could consider it with the reported deficit,

00:18:26.080 - 00:18:35.290

we have a deficit of eighteen and three quarters billion for this current fiscal year. And I think that it is well for us to recognize

00:18:35.290 - 00:18:44.660

that that these run out and those are what we're having to face. And when we receive as members of Congress and

00:18:44.660 - 00:18:51.980

I know that Bill Roth will bare this out, our mail comes from the constituencies they saying, why does anybody

00:18:51.980 - 00:19:00.470

dare suggest a tax increase? Why is it necessary in the face of only a hundred and a half or two billion dollar deficit.

00:19:00.470 - 00:19:11.940

It's hard to explain to them why we have this large deficit. Now to get back to the next question, will spending be cut by this Congress

00:19:11.940 - 00:19:19.190

or should it be cut? Certainly the spending should be cut. But I'm not at all sure that we're going to have

00:19:19.190 - 00:19:28.550

too much success in cutting the expenditures. We have a management of news which is going out, which is giving the American people

00:19:28.550 - 00:19:36.410

again the impression that we're cutting and that the budget that we're going to act on this year in the Congress is going to

00:19:36.410 - 00:19:45.640

be a conservative budget. But that is far from being the facts. I go back to last December when the first reports of

00:19:45.640 - 00:19:53.780

the President was calling together all of his executive cabinet officials in Texas to prepare this year's budget.

00:19:53.780 - 00:20:05.370

And all of the press leaks that came out. And of statements from the various officials as they left were to the effect that we would have a $140 billion expenditures

00:20:05.370 - 00:20:12.470

for the next fiscal year. And the American people were cushioned for this, but the administration was trying

00:20:12.470 - 00:20:20.240

hard to roll it back. Last week, the President came before the Congress and announced the pleasant news that it would be

00:20:20.240 - 00:20:29.220

$135 billion and immediately was hailed as a $5 billion reduction or savings. But look at it another way.

00:20:29.220 - 00:20:40.130

A $135 billion expenditures projected for 1968 fiscal year is $8.3 billion over the projected expenditures

00:20:40.130 - 00:20:49.860

for this year. We were told the expenditures for Vietnam will be $5 billion higher than this year, this present year.

00:20:49.860 - 00:21:02.510

And that means that the domestic program as projected under the budget that we're getting year in Congress is $3.3 billion higher than it was last year.

00:21:02.510 - 00:21:10.840

So we've got to cut $3.3 billion off the budget in order to stand still before we ever get started in the reduction.

00:21:10.840 - 00:21:19.010

That's the reason that I say that it's going to take a lot of determined cuts as well as a sacrifice on the part of a lot of

00:21:19.010 - 00:21:27.290

people on some of our pet programs. Now we get suggested, why don't we cut out the, balance the budget by reducing or

00:21:27.290 - 00:21:36.230

eliminating foreign aid or cutting out the poverty program. Or somebody will mentioned a program with which they're not in full support

00:21:36.230 - 00:21:43.780

and as one who has not supported the past foreign aid program too enthusiastically, I've never felt that we could

00:21:43.780 - 00:21:53.760

buy friends with dollars. But nevertheless, I should point out that if we eliminated the foreign aid, all foreign aid image entirety,

00:21:53.760 - 00:22:03.880

if we eliminated the poverty program in its entirety, there would still be a deficit this next fiscal year between nine and ten billion dollars.

00:22:03.880 - 00:22:11.900

So let's face it, we're going to have to cut my program that I like. We're going to have to cut back on

00:22:11.900 - 00:22:22.270

your program as well. And I think it's well for all of us to recognize that in the months to come, and join together as we try to cut.

00:22:22.270 - 00:22:34.310

Another example of this inflated economy, in 1965, December 1965, we were told by the executive branch that

00:22:34.310 - 00:22:43.490

there was going to be a reduction of twenty five thousand in civilian employment during the remainder of the last fiscal year,

00:22:43.490 - 00:22:54.330

which ended June 30th, 1966. Instead or reducing that twenty five thousand, and I might say that statement was hailed throughout the country as a

00:22:54.330 - 00:23:02.870

great measure toward economy, I issued a statement appearing in our Delaware press commending the President on his action and got

00:23:02.870 - 00:23:12.010

a little criticism from some of my party colleagues for congratulating the President, but I said he needed it.

00:23:12.010 - 00:23:19.100

And I now say though, that I criticize him for not having carried it out. What happened? Instead of reducing the

00:23:19.100 - 00:23:28.130

twenty five thousand as were promised, we actually added during the seven intervening months up to June the 30th last year,

00:23:28.130 - 00:23:39.140

187,506 employees, or an average of twenty six thousand per month were added during that period when we were supposed to

00:23:39.140 - 00:23:50.510

be cutting back by twenty five thousand. And then on September the 20th, 1966, the President issued an executive order freezing employment at

00:23:50.510 - 00:24:00.320

the July eleventh of 1966. Since that executive order has been in effect freezing employment at the July level, we've added

00:24:00.320 - 00:24:14.520

96,692 employees to the federal payroll. Again, an average of nineteen thousand per month, 950 per day, picking the government on a 40 hour week or two

00:24:14.520 - 00:24:21.980

every minute since the time that order has been in affect, and we added 60 thousand of those in the last 60 days.

00:24:21.980 - 00:24:28.850

The President, recommended a truth in lending and truth in packaging. And I support the principle of

00:24:28.850 - 00:24:38.030

both of those propositions, but I say we need more truth telling the American taxpayers exactly where your money's going and

00:24:38.030 - 00:24:48.590

how fast it's leaving you. Social Security, if we received a proposal in the President's message, for increased Social Security benefits by

00:24:48.590 - 00:25:00.770

twenty percent at a total cost of $4.1 billion, which again, is very appealing because I recognize the plight of those who are living on these pensions,

00:25:00.770 - 00:25:07.600

particularly in the light of the inflation that is resulting from some of our deficit spending policies.

00:25:07.600 - 00:25:17.900

But at the same time, I think it should be emphasized that you cannot increase Social Security benefits one percent, twenty percent or whatever it may be

00:25:17.900 - 00:25:30.740

without a corresponding increase in taxes. The argument that the fund is solvent and has a surplus can pay it is without any foundation whatsoever.

00:25:30.740 - 00:25:39.460

And let's face it, if the benefits are to be included, increased by twenty percent and there may be merit to that,

00:25:39.460 - 00:25:47.600

but at the same time, let's face it, the Social Security tax ultimately is going to be increased by 20 percent,

00:25:47.600 - 00:25:53.990

to finance it or you will have complete bankruptcy of the fund, and then look where does the recipients and

00:25:53.990 - 00:26:02.480

the beneficiaries would be. The argument, despite the fallacy of this argument, that the fund has a surplus that can

00:26:02.480 - 00:26:14.180

finance these benefits without the tax. I called attention to that in fiscal 65, the income of the Social Security fund was around $17 billion.

00:26:14.180 - 00:26:25.550

We spent that year $16.6 billion or created a reserve surplus of $400 million. In fiscal year 66, the last one where our

00:26:25.550 - 00:26:36.070

income was $19.4 billion, but we spent $19.7 billion for a deficit of 3$00 million. The fund is just about holding its own.

00:26:36.070 - 00:26:46.540

It has enough reserve in the fund, around $21.9 billion to take care of one year's revenue. And when the Social Security Act was passed,

00:26:46.540 - 00:26:55.470

Congress very clearly stated that the funds should be built up until it had at least five years minimum payment in there,

00:26:55.470 - 00:27:03.350

and even then it would be far from being actuarially solvent. I'm not objecting to consideration of a

00:27:03.350 - 00:27:12.760

liberalization of these benefits, but I do think that Congress ought to adopt a policy, the very firm policy on this program and

00:27:12.760 - 00:27:21.380

all other programs that if those programs are considered meritorious enough to pass, then let's put on

00:27:21.380 - 00:27:31.090

that same bill, same package bill, a proposal to raise the taxes, sufficient to pay for the cost of the benefits we are

00:27:31.090 - 00:27:40.300

passing and let the effective date of the tax increase be the same effective date as the benefits that are being distributed.

00:27:40.300 - 00:27:48.050

And then if we as public officials want to go back home and boast of how we're given you something. at the same time,

00:27:48.050 - 00:28:03.110

you as taxpayers will know just what it's cost you and know who is doing the giving. [Applause] I am very much

00:28:03.110 - 00:28:10.010

disturbed that the present plan seems to be on these particular benefits to enact the program and make them

00:28:10.010 - 00:28:18.830

effective either July the 1st, our January, the 1st, at least, and postpone the impact of the tax that would be necessary to pay

00:28:18.830 - 00:28:31.190

for these additional benefits until January after January of 1969. And while I won't accuse anyone of looking at the date that the election comes in between,

00:28:31.190 - 00:28:40.250

but nevertheless, it should be considered maybe before we put these two effective dates. And I think that all of these programs should carry

00:28:40.250 - 00:28:49.670

the same effective date. And I should remind you that the tax increase on Social Security benefits that go into affect this January which you're

00:28:49.670 - 00:28:56.660

just paying amount to about a one to one and a quarter billion this year go to pay for the benefits that

00:28:56.660 - 00:29:02.940

were passed out a year ago. And I think that those programs should have had the same effective

00:29:02.940 - 00:29:17.930

date as all other programs. [Applause] We have another problem, the Medicare program which was enacted. We've been advised by the authorities

00:29:17.930 - 00:29:27.110

that there is a deficiency in this program based on their first estimate of its cost of around $3 billion, that it's going to cost more

00:29:27.110 - 00:29:36.380

than they estimated. And Congress is going to be confronted and the administration together with the choice, either cut back the benefits that had been

00:29:36.380 - 00:29:45.470

promised under the Medicare program, raised the charges which are being charged to the recipients, or you're going to have to increase

00:29:45.470 - 00:29:53.420

the government's contribution by around $3 billion a year, which again means increased taxes for the taxpayers.

00:29:53.420 - 00:30:05.240

And that too has to be faced by this same 90th Congress. I think it's time that we recognize that these deficit spending policies of

00:30:05.240 - 00:30:15.170

these various programs are creating this inflationary spiral, which is gradually undermining the security of our aged.

00:30:15.170 - 00:30:25.160

And I think the greatest contribution and the best contribution we can make to the elderly citizens of this country is to stop destroying the value of

00:30:25.160 - 00:30:33.050

their pensions and their life savings in order that they could better take care of themselves. So we have another proposal

00:30:33.050 - 00:30:41.810

which is being advanced. And I understand that this is being advanced as a great program under my own political party.

00:30:41.810 - 00:30:49.880

And that is the program of state sharing of the revenue of the federal government. I might want to say that as

00:30:49.880 - 00:31:00.020

a member of the party, I think that this is absurd. Let's face it. If the federal government, I think the federal government is taking

00:31:00.020 - 00:31:09.710

too much money from the various states, but if the federal government has 3% of its revenue that it can pass back and we've got to have

00:31:09.710 - 00:31:19.930

a revenue first before we can pass it back, why not just reduce taxes by 3% and let the people of the state spend their own money.

00:31:19.930 - 00:31:27.260

I think the average citizen in any state of the union, has got more sense on how that money should be spent than any bureaucracy

00:31:27.260 - 00:31:36.870

either at Washington or any combination of bureaucracies that are established at the national and state level. And let's face it, you cannot pass back

00:31:36.870 - 00:31:48.590

a three or five percent of the federal revenue, we have a deficit now, unless you're going to increase taxes further by an additional three to 5%,

00:31:48.590 - 00:31:54.710

they get this money to bring it to Washington, so that we in turn can siphon it back to you as

00:31:54.710 - 00:32:07.310

an indication of the benevolent of the great Santa Claus in Washington. [Applause] And as you consider

00:32:07.310 - 00:32:16.280

this money that's being brought from you as taxpayers to Washington and siphoned back to you, don't forget that we first must

00:32:16.280 - 00:32:23.450

establish a federal bureaucracy to handle this and a political brokerage will be deducted out of the part that

00:32:23.450 - 00:32:31.640

you think you're going to get back. So that is why we have this continuous addition of federal employees. I might

00:32:31.640 - 00:32:42.420

add that these extra employees that were added just this past 12 months, that are over and above what the administration said it needed,

00:32:42.420 - 00:32:54.230

all together totaling around two hundred and seventy thousand employees, are costing you as taxpayers over $1.5 billion to pay their annual salaries.

00:32:54.230 - 00:33:00.980

And if we roll it back to what the administration itself said were enough, we could say that would be a billion and a half

00:33:00.980 - 00:33:08.390

in the area of savings. I say there are are fields that we can reduce spending. There is no such thing as a budget

00:33:08.390 - 00:33:16.100

that can't be curtailed. I care not whether it's a federal budget, the state budget, your budget as businessmen or my budget

00:33:16.100 - 00:33:25.760

in a down in my own family. I well remember the experience in the 30s. In 1930, it was a rough year as many of you in this room are old

00:33:25.760 - 00:33:33.920

enough to remember. In our business down there we cut out all of the fat that we had in order to keep the books balanced.

00:33:33.920 - 00:33:41.730

1931 was worse than 30 and we cut out, we went over it again and we found some we had missed. We cut out again.

00:33:41.730 - 00:33:49.720

1932 was worse than 1931 and we went over it again. And every other businessman and every other family in America

00:33:49.720 - 00:33:58.340

did the same thing. We can do it if we have to do it, all the difference is we've got to recognize that it needs to be done.

00:33:58.340 - 00:34:05.660

My belt, it's got to be tightened. I've got to do with less and so does you. But on the other hand, let's remember

00:34:05.660 - 00:34:12.350

there's four to five hundred thousand men were standing to Vietnam and their doing with far less than you and I are going to be

00:34:12.350 - 00:34:23.000

asked to do with here at home. So I think that it is time that we cut these expenditures and I think it's time that we recognize and all get together.

00:34:23.000 - 00:34:31.040

I'd venture to say that if we conducted a poll here tonight, the overwhelming percentage of you people would all say cut expenditures,

00:34:31.040 - 00:34:39.090

but i expect that all of us, each one of us would come up with some particular program that we thought needed saving.

00:34:39.090 - 00:34:46.040

But let's all agree that we're willing to give up something. I have said on many occasions that we have never

00:34:46.040 - 00:34:53.870

lived to see the day that Congress under any political party, will enact laws passing this country into socialism.

00:34:53.870 - 00:35:01.490

I believe that. But on the other hand, it is possible that we can drift into a socialistic form of government

00:35:01.490 - 00:35:08.270

through the back door of deficit spending with the government more and more moving into your life and mine both at

00:35:08.270 - 00:35:17.700

the state and at our business and individual levels. And do we, have we ever stop to realize today, just how far the federal government has

00:35:17.700 - 00:35:26.510

gone in moving into controlling your life and mine. I see my time is running out and even though we do have

00:35:26.510 - 00:35:34.880

unlimited debate in the Senate, I get sleepy the same as you do. But I will conclude. They get asked the question,

00:35:34.880 - 00:35:44.540

what and how can we change these proposals? I've already said, I think that that depth, the budget could, I don't think it could be balanced

00:35:44.540 - 00:35:50.600

as far as it is, but I think we can move in the right direction. But what is the answer to this problem?

00:35:50.600 - 00:36:00.190

And I think it could be summed up in two simple proposals. First, we, as you're elected public officials,

00:36:00.190 - 00:36:08.210

whether we're serving at the national, state, or local level, we have all got to stop promising everything to

00:36:08.210 - 00:36:16.900

everybody for the sole purpose of getting ourselves reelected, or for the purpose of perpetuating our political party in power.

00:36:16.900 - 00:36:26.090

And second and last, and by far not the least, both you and I, as individuals, as representatives of

00:36:26.090 - 00:36:35.060

our state and local government, and as private citizens, we have all got to stop trying unload on the federal government

00:36:35.060 - 00:36:44.870

all of those responsibilities which were once recognized as being able to solve right here at home. Let us never forget that

00:36:44.870 - 00:36:54.260

wise words of that great American who, Benjamin Franklin, who years ago said that if any man will ever trade his freedom for security,

00:36:54.260 - 00:37:11.300

he will ultimately lose both. Thank you. [Applause]