Please understand that
these efforts are not for the purpose of attacking the president. This is not a
personal thing against him. I simply regard it as my duty as an American
citizen, sworn to the support and defense of the Constitution, to know when our
political leaders are feeding us lines intended to subvert it.
In the interest of fair
comparison and logical evaluation it becomes necessary to compare these numbers
with the numbers of other presidents in similar circumstances. The only
president which I’d ever done something similar was Abraham
Lincoln, and even that wasn’t a rated evaluation.
So in the interest of
providing comparisons I decided to do several other president’s speeches,
starting with Ronald Reagan’s First Address to Congress on the 18th
of February, 1981. I also intend to do at least one of President Obama’s just
to get the radical left wing comparison.
******************************************************************************************************************
Mr. Speaker, Mr.
President, distinguished Members of Congress, honored guests, and fellow
citizens:
Only a month ago I was your guest in this historic
building, and I pledged to you my cooperation in doing what is right for this
Nation that we all love so much. I'm here tonight to reaffirm that pledge and
to ask that we share in restoring the promise that is offered to every citizen
by this, the last, best hope of man on Earth.
All of us are aware of the punishing inflation which has
for the first time in 60 years held to double-digit figures for 2 years in a
row. Interest rates have reached absurd levels of more that 20 percent and over
15 percent for those who would borrow to buy a home. All across this land one
can see newly built homes standing vacant, unsold because of mortgage interest
rates.
Almost 8 million Americans are out of work. These are
people who want to be productive. But as the months go by, despair dominates
their lives. The threats of layoff and unemployment hang over other millions,
and all who work are frustrated by their inability to keep up with inflation.
One worker in a Midwest city put it to me this way: He
said, "I'm bringing home more dollars than I ever believed I could
possibly earn, but I seem to be getting worse off." And he is. Not only
have hourly earnings of the American worker, after adjusting for inflation, declined
5 percent over the past 5 years, but in these 5 years, Federal personal taxes
for the average family have increased 67 percent. We can no longer
procrastinate and hope that things will get better. They will not. Unless we
act forcefully—and now—the economy will get worse. [10A]
[There are a lot of things he mentioned here that
are not, strictly speaking, issues under the power of the federal government.
Things like jobs and layoffs, for example, are none of their business directly
but can be indirect consequences of government overreach and poor fiscal
policy. I’m not counting these against them at this point because he is only
noting statistical facts rather than suggesting federal programs.]
Can we, who man the ship of state, deny it is somewhat
out of control? Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. [A1S8C2] A few weeks ago I called such a figure, a
trillion dollars, incomprehensible, and I've been trying ever since to think of
a way to illustrate how big a trillion really is. And the best I could come up
with is that if you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4
inches high, you'd be a millionaire. A trillion dollars would be a stack of
thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high. The interest on the public debt this year
we know will be over $90 billion, and unless we change the proposed spending
for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, we'll add another almost $80 billion
to the debt. [A1S8C2] [The
national debt is controlled by Congress.]
Adding to our troubles is a mass of regulations imposed
on the shopkeeper, the farmer, the craftsman, professionals, and major industry
that is estimated to add $100 billion to the price of the things we buy, and it
reduces our ability to produce. The rate of increase in American productivity,
once one of the highest in the world, is among the lowest of all major
industrial nations. Indeed, it has actually declined in the last 3 years. [10A] [I’m giving him a
point here because he sounds like he wants to use federal power to remove such
regulations, most, if not all, of which are unconstitutional in the first place
under the 10th Amendment.]
Now, I've painted a pretty grim picture, but I think I've
painted it accurately. It is within our power to change this picture, and we
can act with hope. There's nothing wrong with our internal strengths. There has
been no breakdown of the human, technological, and natural resources upon which
the economy is built.
Based on this confidence in a system which has never
failed us, but which we have failed through a lack of confidence and sometimes
through a belief that we could fine-tune the economy and get it tuned to our
liking, I am proposing a comprehensive four-point program. Now, let me outline
in detail some of the principal parts of this program. You'll each be provided
with a completely detailed copy of the entire program.
This plan is aimed at reducing the growth in government
spending and taxing, [A1S8, 10A] reforming and
eliminating regulations which are unnecessary and unproductive or
counterproductive, [10A] and encouraging a
consistent monetary policy aimed at maintaining the value of the currency. [A1S8C5] If enacted in full, this program can help
America create 13 million new jobs, nearly 3 million more than we would have
without these measures. It will also help us to gain control of inflation. [A1S8C5] [Again, it is not
a federal power to be concerned with jobs or their creation except as a natural
consequence of monetary power. This program, thus far, does not directly create
jobs but allows them to be created by the People through getting the government
out of the way.]
It's important to note that we're only reducing the rate
of increase in taxing and spending. [A1S8C1] We're
not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we
presently have. This plan will get our economy moving again, create
productivity growth, and thus create the jobs that our people must have.
And I'm asking that you join me in reducing direct
Federal spending by $41.4 billion in fiscal year 1982, and this goes along with
another $7.7 billion in user fees and off-budget savings for a total of $49.1
billion. And this will still allow an increase of $40.8 billion over 1981
spending. [A1S8C1, 2 and 5]
Now, I know that exaggerated and inaccurate stories about
these cuts have disturbed many people, particularly those dependent on grant
and benefit programs for their basic needs. Some of you have heard from
constituents, I know, afraid that social security checks, for example, were
going to be taken away from them. Well, I regret the fear that these unfounded
stories have caused, and I welcome this opportunity to set things straight. [10A] [There are some
issues here; Social Security for example, is unconstitutional. I’m not counting
it against him at this point because he’s not saying what he intends to do
about it yet. Also all “benefit programs for their basic needs” are not within
the authority of the federal government. See the next paragraph.]
We will continue to fulfill the obligations that spring
from our national conscience. [10A] Those
who, through no fault of their own, must depend on the rest of us—the poverty
stricken, the disabled, the elderly, all those with true need—can rest assured
that the social safety net of programs they depend on are exempt from any cuts.
[10A -4] [All of
these things are unconstitutional.]
The full retirement benefits of the more than 31 million
social security recipients will be continued, along with an annual
cost-of-living increase. [10A -2] Medicare
will not be cut, nor will supplemental income for the blind, the aged, and the
disabled. [10A -4] And funding will continue
for veteran’s pensions. [A1S8: various military clauses]
School breakfasts and lunches for the children of low-income families will
continue, as will nutrition and other special services for the aging. [10A -2] There will be no cut in Project Head
Start or summer youth jobs. [10A] [Under the 10th Amendment all social spending
is a power of the States and the People, not the federal government. This, of
course, doesn’t mean I am against these things, or for them. It’s just that
they are not a federal power, nor should they be.]
All in all, nearly $216 billion worth of programs
providing help for tens of millions of Americans will be fully funded. [10A] But government will not continue to
subsidize individuals or particular business interests where real need cannot
be demonstrated. [10A] And while we will
reduce some subsidies to regional and local governments, we will at the same
time convert a number of categorical grant programs into block grants to reduce
wasteful administrative overhead and to give local governments and States more
flexibility and control. [10A] We call for
an end in duplication to Federal programs and reform of those which are not
cost-effective. [A1S8] [Programs
for helping millions of Americans are all issues for the States rather than the
federal government. It is not within the authority of the federal government to
“give the States more flexibility and control” over anything since they shouldn’t
have had that power in the first place. The issue of “subsidize individuals or
particular business interests” is a good thing excepting that it is not the
federal government’s responsibility to give anything to anybody based on “need,”
demonstrated or not. So while it is good to cut these subsidizations, they
shouldn’t exist in the first place, so that one is ambiguous.]
Now, already some have protested that there must be no
reduction in aid to schools. Well, let me point out that Federal aid to
education amounts to only 8 percent of the total educational funding, and for
this 8 percent, the Federal Government has insisted on tremendously
disproportionate share of control over our schools. Whatever reductions we've
proposed in that 8 percent will amount to very little in the total cost of
education. They will, however, restore more authority to States and local
school districts. [10A] [I’m
giving him a point here because all federal involvement in education is
unconstitutional and he sounds like he wants to reduce that influence.]
Historically, the American people have supported by
voluntary contributions more artistic and cultural activities than all the
other countries in the world put together. I wholeheartedly support this
approach and believe that Americans will continue their generosity. Therefore,
I'm proposing a savings of $85 million in the Federal subsidies now going to
the arts and humanities. [10A] [Exactly right! There is no constitutional authority for
arts and humanities being funded by the federal government.]
There are a number of subsidies to business and industry
that I believe are unnecessary, not because the activities being subsidized
aren't of value, but because the marketplace contains incentives enough to
warrant continuing these activities without a government subsidy. [10A] One such subsidy is the Department of Energy's
synthetic fuels program. We will continue support of research leading to
development of new technologies and more independence from foreign oil, [10A] but we can save at least $3.2 billion by
leaving to private industry the building of plants to make liquid or gas fuels
from coal. [10A] [There
is no “Energy Clause” in the Constitution.]
We're asking that another major industry—business subsidy
I should say, the Export-Import Bank loan authority, be reduced by one-third in
1982. [10A] We're doing this because the primary
beneficiaries of taxpayer funds in this case are the exporting companies
themselves—most of them profitable corporations. [Where
is the “Lend Money Clause” in the Constitution?]
This brings me to a number of other lending programs in
which government makes low-interest loans, some of them at an interest rate as
low as 2 percent. What has not been very well understood is that the Treasury
Department has no money of its own to lend; it has to go into the private
capital market and borrow the money. So, in this time of excessive interest
rates, the government finds itself borrowing at an interest rate several times
as high as the interest it gets back from those it lends the money to. And this
difference, of course, is paid by your constituents—the taxpayers. They get hit
again if they try to borrow, because government borrowing contributes to
raising all interest rates. [10A] [I’m giving him a point here because I can’t find the “Lend
Money Clause” in the Constitution and it sounds like he’s against this kind of
thing.]
By terminating the Economic Development Administration,
we can save hundreds of millions of dollars in 1982 and billions more over the
next few years. There's a lack of consistent and convincing evidence that EDA
and its Regional Commissions have been effective in creating new jobs. They
have been effective in creating an array of planners, grantsmen, and
professional middlemen. We believe we can do better just by the expansion of
the economy and the job creation which will come from our economic program. [10A] [I can’t find the “Economic
Development Administration Clause” either.]
The Food Stamp program will be restored to its original
purpose, to assist those without resources to purchase sufficient nutritional
food. [10A] We will, however, save $1.8
billion in fiscal year 1982 by removing from eligibility those who are not in
real need or who are abusing the program. [10A]
But even with this reduction, the program will be budgeted for more than $10
billion. [10A] [I
also cannot find the “Food Stamp Clause.” It is not a power of the federal
government to feed people using other people’s money to fund it. Plus one point
for reducing the program, minus one point for its continuance, minus another
point for spending 10B on it.]
We will tighten welfare and give more attention to
outside sources of income when determining the amount of welfare that an
individual is allowed. This, plus strong and effective work requirements, will
save $520 million in the next year. [10A] [I’m giving him a point for heading in the right
direction.]
I stated a moment ago our intention to keep the school
breakfast and lunch programs for those in true need. [10A]
But by cutting back on meals for children of families who can afford to pay, the
savings will be $1.6 billion in the fiscal year 1982. [10A]
Now, let me just touch on a few other areas which are
typical of the kind of reductions we've included in this economic package. The
Trade Adjustment Assistance program provides benefits for workers who are
unemployed when foreign imports reduce the market for various American
products, causing shutdown of plants and layoff of workers. The purpose is to
help these workers find jobs in growing sectors of our economy. There's nothing
wrong with that, but because these benefits are paid out on top of normal
unemployment benefits, we wind up paying greater benefits to those who lose
their jobs because of foreign competition than we do to their friends and
neighbors who are laid off due to domestic competition. Anyone must agree that
this is unfair. Putting these two programs on the same footing will save $1.15
billion in just 1 year. [10A] [The whole thing is unconstitutional. There is no “Unemployment
Benefits Clause” in the Constitution, thus unemployment is a States and People
issue. However it is a reduction so I’m going to give him a point for heading
in the right direction.]
Earlier I made mention of changing categorical grants to
States and local governments into block grants. Now, we know of course that the
categorical grant programs burden local and State governments with a mass of
Federal regulations and Federal paperwork. Ineffective targeting, wasteful
administrative overhead—all can be eliminated by shifting the resources and
decision-making authority to local and State government. This will also
consolidate programs which are scattered throughout the Federal bureaucracy,
bringing government closer to the people and saving $23.9 billion over the next
5 years. [10A] [Moving
such unconstitutional federal powers to the States, where they properly belong,
is always a good thing.]
Our program for economic renewal deals with a number of
programs which at present are not cost-effective. An example is Medicaid. Right
now Washington provides the States with unlimited matching payments for their
expenditures; at the same time, we here in Washington pretty much dictate how
the States are going to manage those programs. We want to put a cap on how much
the Federal Government will contribute, but at the same time allow the States
much more flexibility in managing and structuring the programs. I know from our
experience in California that such flexibility could have led to far more
cost-effective reforms. Now, this will bring a savings of $1 billion next year.
[10A] [There is no “Medicaid
Clause” so the whole thing is unconstitutional; however, he’s moving that power
in the right direction—towards the States.]
The space program has been and is important to America,
and we plan to continue it. [10A] We
believe, however, that a reordering of priorities to focus on the most
important and cost-effective NASA programs can result in a savings of a quarter
of a million dollars. [10A] [On a personal basis I’m a HUGE fan of NASA and space
exploration. That said I can’t find the “NASA Clause” in the Constitution so I’m
taking a point. I’m giving the point back because he’s reducing the spending
which is perfectly okay.]
Now, coming down from space to the mailbox, the Postal
Service has been consistently unable to live within its operating budget. It is
still dependent on large Federal subsidies. We propose reducing those subsidies
by $632 million in 1982 to press the Postal Service into becoming more
effective, and in subsequent years the savings will continue to add up. [A1S8C7]
The Economic Regulatory Administration in the Department
of Energy has programs to force companies to convert to specific fuels. It has
the authority to administer a gas rationing plan, and prior to decontrol it ran
the oil price control program. With these and other regulations gone we can
save several hundreds of millions of dollars over the next few years. [10A] [Can’t find the “Energy
Clause.”]
I'm sure there's one department you've been waiting for
me to mention, the Department of Defense. It's the only department in our
entire program that will actually be increased over the present budgeted
figure. But even here there was no exemption. The Department of Defense came up
with a number of cuts which reduce the budget increase needed to restore our
military balance. These measures will save $2.9 billion in 1982 outlays, and by
1986 a total of $28.2 billion will have been saved—or perhaps I should say,
will have been made available for the necessary things that we must do. The aim
will be to provide the most effective defense for the lowest possible cost. [A1S8: military clauses +3, also A2S1: military.]
I believe that my duty as President requires that I
recommend increases in defense spending over the coming years. I know that
you're all aware—but I think it bears saying again—that since 1970 the Soviet
Union has invested $300 billion more in its military forces than we have. As a
result of its massive military buildup, the Soviets have made a significant
numerical advantage in strategic nuclear delivery systems, tactical aircraft,
submarines, artillery, and anti-aircraft defense. To allow this imbalance to
continue is a threat to our national security. Notwithstanding our economic
straits, making the financial changes beginning now is far less costly than
waiting and having to attempt a crash program several years from now. [A1S8: military clauses +3, also A2S1: military]
We remain committed to the goal of arms limitation
through negotiation. I hope we can persuade our adversaries to come to
realistic balanced and verifiable agreements. But, as we negotiate, our
security must be fully protected by a balanced and realistic defense program. [A2S2: treaties, A2S1: military]
Now, let me say a word here about the general problem of
waste and fraud in the Federal Government. One government estimate indicated
that fraud alone may account for anywhere from 1 to 10 percent-as much as $25
billion of Federal expenditures for social programs. If the tax dollars that
are wasted or mismanaged are added to this fraud total, the staggering
dimensions of this problem begin to emerge. [A2S1]
[The president, as the head of the executive branch,
controls the waste and fraud within the federal government as an executive
power.]
The Office of Management and Budget is now putting
together an interagency task force to attack waste and fraud. [A2S1] We're also planning to appoint as Inspectors
General highly trained professionals who will spare no effort to do this job. [A2S1] No administration can promise to immediately
stop a trend that has grown in recent years as quickly as government
expenditures themselves, but let me say this: Waste and fraud in the Federal
Government is exactly what I've called it before—an unrelenting national
scandal, a scandal we're bound and determined to do something about. [A2S1]
Marching in lockstep with the whole program of reductions
in spending is the equally important program of reduced tax rates. Both are
essential if we're to have economic recovery. It's time to create new jobs, to
build and rebuild industry, and to give the American people room to do what
they do best. And that can only be done with a tax program which provides
incentive to increase productivity for both workers and industry. [A1S8C1 and 5 +3] [It is
not within the direct power of the federal government to control or even be
concerned with jobs except as an indirect result of monetary power.]
Our proposal is for a 10-percent across the-board cut
every year for 3 years in the tax rates for all individual income taxpayers,
making a total cut in the tax-cut rates of 30 percent. This 3-year reduction
will also apply to the tax on unearned income, leading toward an eventual
elimination of the present differential between the tax on earned and unearned
income. [A1S8C1]
Now, I would have hoped that we could be retroactive with
this. But as it stands, the effective starting date for these 10-percent
personal income tax rate reductions will call for as of July 1st of this year. [A1S8C1]
Again, let me remind you that while this 30-percent
reduction will leave the taxpayers with $500 billion more in their pockets over
the next 5 years, it's actually only a reduction in the tax increase already
built into the system. Unlike some past "tax reforms," this is not
merely a shift of wealth between different sets of taxpayers. This proposal for
an equal reduction in everyone's tax rates will expand our national prosperity,
enlarge national incomes, and increase opportunities for all Americans. [A1S8C1]
Some will argue, I know, that reducing tax rates now will
be inflationary. A solid body of economic experts does not agree. And tax cuts
adopted over the past three-fourths of a century indicate these economic
experts are right. They will not be inflationary. I've had advice that in 1985
our real production in goods and services will grow by 20 percent and be $300
billion higher than it is today. The average worker's wage will rise in real
purchasing power 8 percent, and this is in after-tax dollars. And this, of
course, is predicated on a complete program of tax cuts and spending reductions
being implemented. [A1S8C1 and 5]
The other part of the tax package is aimed directly at
providing business and industry with the capital needed to modernize and engage
in more research and development. This will involve an increase in depreciation
allowances, and this part of our tax proposal will be retroactive to January
1st. [A1S8C1] [This
is a reduction in taxes, which they do have the authority to do.]
The present depreciation system is obsolete, needlessly
complex, and economically counterproductive. Very simply, it bases the
depreciation of plant machinery and vehicles and tools on their original cost,
with no recognition of how inflation has increased their replacement cost.
We're proposing a much shorter write-off time than is presently allowed—a
5-year-write-off for machinery, 3 years for vehicles and trucks, and a 10-year
write-off for plant. In fiscal year 1982 under this plan, business would
acquire nearly $10 billion for investment; by 1985, the figure would be nearly
45 billion. [A1S8C1]
These changes are essential to provide the new investment
which is needed to create millions of new jobs between now and 1985 [1986], and
to make America competitive once again in the world market. These won't be
make-work jobs. They are productive jobs, jobs with a future. [It is not within the direct power of the federal
government to control or even be concerned with jobs except as an indirect
result of monetary power.]
I'm well aware that there are many other desirable and
needed tax changes, such as indexing the income tax brackets to protect
taxpayers against inflation; the unjust discrimination against married couples
if both are working and earning; tuition tax credits; the unfairness of the
inheritance tax, especially to the family-owned farm and the family-owned
business; and a number of others. But our program for economic recovery is so
urgently needed to begin to bring down inflation that I'm asking you to act on
this plan first and with great urgency. And then, I pledge I will join with you
in seeking these additional tax changes at the earliest date possible. [A1S8C1 +4]
[I’m going to take this opportunity to comment on income taxes in general. The whole subject has become rather convoluted by the 16th Amendment. In my opinion almost all taxation is theft. I’ve also seen a lot of evidence that the 16th Amendment was improperly ratified and should never have been enforced. This, under Article One, Section Nine, Clause Four would make all income tax unconstitutional. The founding fathers wanted to protect the States and the People from overreaching federal power to tax them unequally, unfairly and into a state of economic oblivion from which their liberties could be regulated or entirely removed. You all remember “taxation without representation.” Thus any lowering of income tax for anybody will earn a point from me. There is no bottom limit on taxation. The top limits are expressed by Article One, Section Eight and Nine. Taxes can only be taken for purposes enumerated specifically within the Constitution.]
[There is what I call the “Robin Hood” factor running rampant in our society. “Rob from the rich to give to the poor.” Those who express this point of view have forgotten that the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John, not to mention the Church—wielding power over the government itself—were all government officials who had run out of control. It was out of control government taking exorbitant amounts of money through over taxation that Robin Hood was fighting. In “robbing the rich” he was taking money from the government, and in “giving to the poor” he was returning money to the poor that was improperly taken from them in the first place.]
[I’m going to take this opportunity to comment on income taxes in general. The whole subject has become rather convoluted by the 16th Amendment. In my opinion almost all taxation is theft. I’ve also seen a lot of evidence that the 16th Amendment was improperly ratified and should never have been enforced. This, under Article One, Section Nine, Clause Four would make all income tax unconstitutional. The founding fathers wanted to protect the States and the People from overreaching federal power to tax them unequally, unfairly and into a state of economic oblivion from which their liberties could be regulated or entirely removed. You all remember “taxation without representation.” Thus any lowering of income tax for anybody will earn a point from me. There is no bottom limit on taxation. The top limits are expressed by Article One, Section Eight and Nine. Taxes can only be taken for purposes enumerated specifically within the Constitution.]
[There is what I call the “Robin Hood” factor running rampant in our society. “Rob from the rich to give to the poor.” Those who express this point of view have forgotten that the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John, not to mention the Church—wielding power over the government itself—were all government officials who had run out of control. It was out of control government taking exorbitant amounts of money through over taxation that Robin Hood was fighting. In “robbing the rich” he was taking money from the government, and in “giving to the poor” he was returning money to the poor that was improperly taken from them in the first place.]
[The “progressive” tax scale
of today is an abomination. It takes more money from the people who have done
the most to earn it, and demonstrated the most ability to handle it, giving it
to the people who have done the least to earn it, and demonstrated the least
ability to handle it. This does not bring the “bottom” people on the wage scale
up; it brings the top level down. Those who support the society by
demonstrating the ability to handle money and make it are reduced and are thus less
able to support the society because of it.]
American society experienced a virtual explosion in
government regulation during the past decade. Between 1970 and 1979,
expenditures for the major regulatory agencies quadrupled. The number of pages
published annually in the Federal Register nearly tripled, and the number of
pages in the Code of Federal Regulations increased by nearly two-thirds. The
result has been higher prices, higher unemployment, and lower productivity
growth. Overregulation causes small and independent business men and women, as
well as large businesses to defer or terminate plans for expansion. And since
they're responsible for most of the new jobs, those new jobs just aren't
created.
Now, we have no intention of dismantling the regulatory
agencies, especially those necessary to protect environment and assure the
public health and safety. [10A -3] However,
we must come to grips with inefficient and burdensome regulations, eliminate
those we can and reform the others. [A1S8 +2] [Can’t find the “Environment Clause,” “Public Health
Clause,” or the “Public Safety Clause.”]
I have asked Vice President Bush to head a Cabinet-level
Task Force on Regulatory Relief. [A2S1] Second,
I asked each member of my Cabinet to postpone the effective dates of the
hundreds of new regulations which have not yet been implemented. [A2S1] Third, in coordination with the Task Force,
many of the agency heads have already taken prompt action to review and rescind
existing burdensome regulations. [A2S1] And
finally, just yesterday I signed an Executive order that for the first time
provides for effective and coordinated management of the regulatory process. [A2S1]
Much has been accomplished, but it's only a beginning. We
will eliminate those regulations that are unproductive and unnecessary by
Executive order where possible and cooperate fully with you on those that
require legislation. [A2S1 +2]
The final aspect of our plan requires a national monetary
policy which does not allow money growth to increase consistently faster than
the growth of goods and services. In order to curb inflation we need to slow
the growth in our money supply. [A1S8C5 +2]
Now, we fully recognize the independence of the Federal
Reserve System and will do nothing to interfere with or undermine that
independence. We will consult regularly with the Federal Reserve Board on all
aspects of our economic program and will vigorously pursue budget policies
that'll make their job easier in reducing monetary growth. A successful program
to achieve stable and moderate growth patterns in the money supply will keep
both inflation and interest rates down and restore vigor to our financial
institutions and markets. [A1S8C5] [I should give this
an ambiguous rating but the controversy rages in my own mind. While it is
decidedly unconstitutional to use the Federal Reserve System we currently use to
coin money, it is within federal power to regulate the value of that money. As
part of this it is important to understand that he’s not saying he supports the
Federal Reserve System. He’s saying it is independent of the federal government;
this cannot be denied. He did not create this system and I can’t tell here if
he supported it. So in the end I’m giving him a point.]
This, then, is our proposal—America's new beginning: a
program for economic recovery. I don't want it to be simply the plan of my administration.
I'm here tonight to ask you to join me in making it our plan. Together we can
embark on this road. [There was a lot of applause
here and a standing ovation.]
Thank you very much. I should have arranged to quit right
here. [Laughter] [Classic Reagan line! Five stars
of personal approval.]
Well, together we can embark on this road, not to make things
easy, but to make things better. Our social, political, and cultural, as well
as our economic institutions, can no longer absorb the repeated shocks that
have been dealt them over the past decades. Can we do the job? The answer is
yes. But we must begin now.
We're in control here. There's nothing wrong with America
that together we can't fix. I'm sure there'll be some who raise the old
familiar cry, "Don't touch my program; cut somewhere else." I hope
I've made it plain that our approach has been evenhanded, that only the
programs for the truly deserving needy remain untouched. The question is, are
we simply going to go down the same path we've gone down before, carving out
one special program here, another special program there? I don't think that's what
the American people expect of us. More important, I don't think that's what
they want. They're ready to return to the source of our strength.
The substance and prosperity of our nation is built by
wages brought home from the factories and the mills, the farms, and the shops.
They are the services provided in 10,000 corners of America; the interest on
the thrift of our people and the returns for their risk-taking. The production
of America is the possession of those who build, serve, create, and produce.
For too long now, we've removed from our people the
decisions on how to dispose of what they created. We've strayed from first
principles. We must alter our course.
The taxing power of government must be used to provide
revenues for legitimate government purposes. [A1S8]
It must not be used to regulate the the economy or bring about social change. [10A] We've tried that, and surely we must be able to
see it doesn't work.
Spending by government must be limited to those functions
which are the proper province of government. [A1S8]
We can no longer afford things simply because we think of them. Next year we
can reduce the budget by $41.4 billion, without harm to government's legitimate
purposes [A1S8] or to our responsibility to all
who need our benevolence. [10A] This, plus
the reduction in tax rates, will help bring an end to inflation. [A1S8C1 and 5 +2]
In the health and social services area alone, the plan
we're proposing will substantially reduce the need for 465 pages of law, 1,400
pages of regulations, 5,000 Federal employees who presently administer 7,600
separate grants in about 25,000 separate locations. [A1S8
+3] Over 7 million man and woman hours of work by State and local
officials are required to fill out government forms.
I would direct a question to those who have indicated
already an unwillingness to accept such a plan: Have they an alternative which
offers a greater chance of balancing the budget, reducing and eliminating
inflation, stimulating the creation of jobs, and reducing the tax burden? And,
if they haven't, are they suggesting we can continue on the present course
without coming to a day of reckoning? If we don't do this, inflation and the
growing tax burden will put an end to everything we believe in and our dreams
for the future.
We don't have an option of living with inflation and its
attendant tragedy, millions of productive people willing and able to work but
unable to find a buyer for their work in the job market. We have an
alternative, and that is the program for economic recovery.
True, it'll take time for the favorable effects of our
proposal to be felt. So, we must begin now. The people are watching and
waiting. They don't demand miracles. They do expect us to act. Let us act
together.
Thank you, and good night
President Reagan’s final score includes ninety-three total
references to federal power. Sixty-nine are constitutional. Twenty-four are
not. This gives him a total constitutional rating of 74.1%.
No comments:
Post a Comment