Speech to Delaware Chamber of Commerce, Wilmington, 01/19/67, JJW, WDEL

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.

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.

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

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.

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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,

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

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.

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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,

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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.

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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,

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

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

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

$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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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%,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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