Advanced Search
President Carter's Cairo Arrival Speech
President Carter continues: "Our hope is to achieve an agreement which is honorable, just, and which provides security for each of the negotiating parties. But above all, our purpose is to achieve a peace that will last. If the promise of peace is to be fully realized for the people of Israel and Egypt, then others must be encouraged to join the process of resolving differences through negotiations and accommodations. The United States will work with any and all parties who are committed to these principles of genuine peace and security. As the relations among us grow stronger, we can all work more effectively to bring stability to the Middle East region as a whole. President Sadat has written, and I quote, No problem should ever be regarded as insuperable. (MCU President Anwar Sadat and Jehan Sadat.) In recent months, we've overcome many problems that once seemed insurmountable. I pray that, with God's help, we may remove the remaining obstacles to the conclusion of a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel and continue the negotiations with great determination on other issues, in accordance with the Camp David agreements. The most important condition for success has already been met, the sincere conviction on both sides that peace is preferable to war, that differences can better be settled by the exercise of reason than by the spilling of blood. The people of Egypt have spilled much blood. And in the eyes of the women, in particular, on the streets and in the balconies in the last few minutes, we've seen a desire and a hunger and a prayer that their sons and their husbands would never again have to suffer in a cause of combat and war. President Sadat and I, in the car together, repledged ourselves not to disappoint those here, in Israel, among the Palestinians, among the countries also presently in a state of war, who depend on us and others to bring the long unrealized but deeply desired state of peace to this region. Like you, Mr. President, I am dedicated to the cause of peace. Like you, Mr. President, I'm determined to persevere. Our common dedication, our common determination is rooted in the soil of common religious truth. Many signs said, We believe in God. You and I, Mr. President, believe in God. We believe in truth, that truth takes different forms. But its underlying message is the same, it's a message of love, of faith, and of peace. As we work together in the crucial discussions that are about to begin, let us pray God, in the words of the Christian Gospel, to guide our feet into the way of peace. " President Anwar Sadat and President Jimmy Carter shake hands while their wives watch smilingly.
President Carter's Speech to the Israeli Parliament
DO NOT USE CBS News anchor Bob Schieffer & commentary.
President Carter's Speech to the Israeli Parliament
MSs President JIMMY CARTER speaking to Israeli Parliament, the Knesset. "I've come to Cairo and also here to Jerusalem to try to enhance the bold, brave, and historic efforts of President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin (C/A of Prime Minister MENACHEM BEGIN and his cabinet, Minister of Foreign Affairs MOSHE DAYAN among them, sitting on parliamentary floor.) I've come to Cairo and also here to Jerusalem to try to enhance the bold, brave, and historic efforts of President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin and to demonstrate that the United States of America is as determined as these two leaders are to create lasting peace and friendship between Egypt and Israel and to put an end to war and the threat of war throughout the Middle East. No people desire or deserve peace more than the Jewish people. None have wanted it so long. None have spoken of it more eloquently. None have suffered so much from the absence of peace. Pogrom after pogrom, war after war, Israel has buried its sons and its daughters. Yesterday morning, at Yad Vashem, I grieved in the presence of terrible reminders of the agony and the horror of the Holocaust. Modern Israel came into being in the wake of that historic crime, the enormity of which is almost beyond human comprehension. I know that Israel is committed and determined, above all, that nothing like it must ever, ever be permitted to happen again on Earth. Americans respect that determination, and we fully share that determination with you. And Americans recognize that for Jews over the centuries, as for Israel since its independence, caution and wariness have been a practical and a moral necessity for survival. (Panning C/A of Knesset parliamentary members listening.) And yet, in these past months, you've made enormous sacrifices and you've taken great risks for peace. This sacred dedication to peace, born and fostered in Jerusalem and in Cairo, has given to men and women everywhere renewed sense of hope that human reason, good will, and faith can succeed, can break down barriers between peoples who, in our lifetimes, have only known war. As Prime Minister Begin said after the Camp David summit, the agreements reached there proved that any problem can be solved if there is some, and he repeated, just some wisdom. Those are truthful and also reassuring words. I know from my intense, personal involvement in these negotiations that President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin have not wavered from their often-expressed commitment to peace. President Sadat told me in Cairo that he will let nothing stand in the way of our shared goal of finishing the treaty of peace between Israel and Egypt and of making it a living testament of friendship between the two neighboring peoples. I believe him, and I know in my heart that Prime Minister Begin and the Government of Israel are no less fervently committed to the same noble objective."
President Carter's Speech to the Israeli Parliament
Jimmy Carter: "But we've not yet fully met our challenge. Despite our unflagging determination, despite the extraordinary progress of the past 6 months, we still fall short. It's now the somber responsibility of us all to exert our energies and our imaginations once again to contemplate the tragedy of failure and the legitimate exultation if we bring peace. (C/A of Israeli Prime Minister MENACHEM BEGIN & Foreign Minister MOSHE DAYAN in audience.) In this effort, the support of the members of the Knesset will obviously be crucial. Our vision must be as great as our goal. (Panning LS Knesset Plenum during session.) Wisdom and courage are required of us all, and so, too, are practicality and realism. We must not lose this moment. We must pray as if everything depended on God, and we must act as if everything depends on ourselves. What kind of peace do we seek? Spinoza said that peace is not an absence of war; it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, for confidence, for justice. Americans share that vision and will stand beside Israel to be sure that that vision is fulfilled. In Egypt, I saw vivid evidence of this deep longing for peace among the Egyptian people, millions of them. But like you, they worry about the uncertainties of that first crucial stage in the broad task of pounding Middle East swords into plowshares. Like you, they hope to banish forever the enmity that has existed between the neighbors, the permanent neighbors of Egypt and of Israel. Like you, they want this peace, and like you, they want it to be real and not just a sham peace. My friends, from my own experience as President of the United States, I understand all too well that historic decisions are seldom easy, seldom without pain. Benjamin Franklin, who negotiated the treaty of peace between England and America after our own War of Independence, once said that he had never seen a peace made, even the most advantageous, that was not censured as inadequate. Throughout the peace process, both Israel and Egypt have understood that no treaty can embody every aim of both nations. What a treaty can do, what it can do far better than the fragile status quo, and infinitely better than the insidious tensions that will build if our efforts are further stalled or fail, is to protect the vital interests of both Israel and Egypt and open up the possibility of peace for all the states and all the peoples of this troubled region. Doubts are the stuff of great decisions, but so are dreams. We are now at the very edge of turning Israel's eternal dream of peace into reality. I will not pretend that this reality will be free from further challenges. It will not. And better than most, the Jewish people know that life is seldom easy. But we must make this beginning. We must seize this precious opportunity."
Toronto, Ontario - Merrill & Lambie
Jumpy, dull in contrast and imagery - blurry Plane landing. 2 pilots pose with an unknown passenger.
President Carter's Speech on the Panama Canal Treaty
Do not use audio of news commentary. MSs President JIMMY CARTER delivering national address while sitting in the White House Library, fire crackling in fireplace.
President Carter's Speech on the Panama Canal Treaty
MSs President JIMMY CARTER delivering national address while sitting in the White House Library, fire crackling in fireplace. "Good evening. Seventy-five years ago, our Nation signed a treaty which gave us rights to build a canal across Panama, to take the historic step of joining the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The results of the agreement have been of great benefit to ourselves and to other nations throughout the world who navigate the high seas. The building of the canal was one of the greatest engineering feats of history. Although massive in concept and construction, it's relatively simple in design and has been reliable and efficient in operation. We Americans are justly and deeply proud of this great achievement. The canal has also been a source of pride and benefit to the people of Panama, but a cause of some continuing discontent. Because we have controlled a 10 mile-wide strip of land across the heart of their country and because they considered the original terms of the agreement to be unfair, the people of Panama have been dissatisfied with the treaty. It was drafted here in our country and was not signed by any Panamanian. Our own Secretary of State who did sign the original treaty said it was vastly advantageous to the United States and not so advantageous to Panama. In 1964, after consulting with former Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, President Johnson committed our Nation to work towards a new treaty with the Republic of Panama. And last summer, after 14 years of negotiation under two Democratic Presidents and two Republican Presidents, we reached and signed an agreement that is fair and beneficial to both countries. The United States Senate will soon be debating whether these treaties should be ratified. Throughout the negotiations, we were determined that our national security interests would be protected; that the canal would always be open and neutral and available to ships of all nations; that in time of need or emergency our warships would have the right to go to the head of the line for priority passage through the canal; and that our military forces would have the permanent right to defend the canal if it should ever be in danger. The new treaties meet all of these requirements."
President Carter's Speech on the Panama Canal Treaty
Jimmy Carter: "Let me outline the terms of the agreement. There are two treaties, one covering the rest of this century, and the other guaranteeing the safety, openness, and neutrality of the canal after the year 1999, when Panama will be in charge of its operation. For the rest of this century, we will operate the canal through a nine person board of directors. Five members will be from the United States and four will be from Panama. Within the area of the present Canal Zone, we have the right to select whatever lands and waters our military and civilian forces need to maintain, to operate, and to defend the canal. About 75 percent of those who now maintain and operate the canal are Panamanians; over the next 22 years, as we manage the canal together, this percentage will increase. The Americans who work on the canal will continue to have their rights of employment, promotion, and retirement carefully protected. We will share with Panama some of the fees paid by shippers who use the canal. As in the past, the canal should continue to be self-supporting. This is not a partisan issue. The treaties are strongly backed by President Gerald Ford and by Former Secretaries of State Dean Rusk and Henry Kissinger. They are endorsed by our business and professional leaders, especially those who recognize the benefits of good will and trade with other nations in this hemisphere. And they were endorsed overwhelmingly by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which, this week, moved closer to ratification by approving the treaties, although with some recommended changes which we do not feel are needed. And the treaties are supported enthusiastically by every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General George Brown, the Chairman, General Bernard Rogers, Chief of Staff of the Army, Admiral James Holloway, Chief of Naval Operations, General David Jones, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and General Louis Wilson, Commandant of the Marine Corps, responsible men whose profession is the defense of this Nation and the preservation of our security. The treaties also have been overwhelmingly supported throughout Latin America, but predictably, they are opposed abroad by some who are unfriendly to the United States and who would like to see disorder in Panama and a disruption of our political, economic, and military ties with our friends in Central and South America and in the Caribbean. I know that the treaties also have been opposed by many Americans. Much of that opposition is based on misunderstanding and misinformation. I've found that when the full terms of the agreement are known, most people are convinced that the national interests of our country will be served best by ratifying the treaties. Tonight, I want you to hear the facts. I want to answer the most serious questions and tell you why I feel the Panama Canal treaties should be approved. The most important reason, the only reason, to ratify the treaties is that they are in the highest national interest of the United States and will strengthen our position in the world. Our security interests will be stronger. Our trade opportunities will be improved. We will demonstrate that as a large and powerful country, we are able to deal fairly and honorably with a proud but smaller sovereign nation. We will honor our commitment to those engaged in world commerce that the Panama Canal will be open and available for use by their ships, at a reasonable and competitive cost, both now and in the future."
President Carter's Speech on the Panama Canal Treaty
Jimmy Carter: "Let me answer specifically the most common questions about the treaties. Will our Nation have the right to protect and defend the canal against any armed attack or threat to the security of the canal or of ships going through it? The answer is yes, and is contained in both treaties and also in the statement of understanding between the leaders of our two nations. The first treaty says, and I quote: The United States of America and the Republic of Panama commit themselves to protect and defend the Panama Canal. Each Party shall act, in accordance with its constitutional processes, to meet the danger resulting from an armed attack or other actions which threaten the security of the Panama Canal or ships transiting it. The neutrality treaty says, and I quote again: The United States of America and the Republic of Panama agree to maintain the regime of neutrality established in this Treaty, which shall be maintained in order that the Canal shall remain permanently neutral And to explain exactly what that means, the statement of understanding says, and I quote again: Under the Neutrality Treaty, Panama and the United States have the responsibility to assure that the Panama Canal will remain open and secure to ships of all nations. The correct interpretation of this principle is that each of the two countries shall, in accordance with their respective constitutional processes, defend the Canal against any threat to the regime of neutrality, and consequently will have the right to act against the Canal or against the peaceful transit of vessels through the Canal. It is obvious that we can take whatever military action is necessary to make sure that the canal always remains open and safe. Of course, this does not give the United States any right to intervene in the internal affairs of Panama, nor would our military action ever be directed against the territorial integrity or the political independence of Panama. Military experts agree that even with the Panamanian Armed Forces joined with us as brothers against a common enemy, it would take a large number of American troops to ward off a heavy attack. I, as President, would not hesitate to deploy whatever armed forces are necessary to defend the canal, and I have no doubt that even in a sustained combat, that we would be successful. But there is a much better way than sending our sons and grandsons to fight in the jungles of Panama. We would serve our interests better by implementing the new treaties, an action that will help to avoid any attack on the Panama Canal. What we want is the permanent right, to use the canal, and we can defend this right through the treaties, through real cooperation with Panama. The citizens of Panama and their government have already shown their support of the new partnership, and a protocol to the neutrality treaty will be signed by many other nations, thereby showing their strong approval. The new treaties will naturally change Panama from a passive and sometimes deeply resentful bystander into an active and interested partner, whose vital interests will be served by a well-operated canal. This agreement leads to cooperation and not confrontation between our country and Panama."
President Carter's Speech on the Panama Canal Treaty
Jimmy Carter: "Another question is: Why should we give away the Panama Canal Zone? As many people say, We bought it, we paid for it, it's ours. I must repeat a very important point: We do not own the Panama Canal Zone. We have never had sovereignty over it. We have only had the right to use it. The Canal Zone cannot be compared with United States territory. We bought Alaska from the Russians, and no one has ever doubted that we own it. We bought the Louisiana Purchases, Territories from France, and that's an integral part of the United States. From the beginning, we have made an annual payment to Panama to use their land. You do not pay rent on your own land. The Panama Canal Zone has always been Panamanian territory. The U.S. Supreme Court and previous American Presidents have repeatedly acknowledged the sovereignty of Panama over the Canal Zone. We've never needed to own the Panama Canal Zone, any more than we need to own a 10 mile-wide strip of land all the way through Canada from Alaska when we build an international gas pipeline. The new treaties give us what we do need, not ownership of the canal, but the right to use it and to protect it. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said, The strategic value of the canal lies in its use. There's another question: Can our naval ships, our warships, in time of need or emergency, get through the canal immediately instead of waiting in line? The treaties answer that clearly by guaranteeing that our ships will always have expeditious transit through the canal. To make sure that there could be no possible disagreement about what these words mean, the joint statement says that expeditious transit, and I quote, is intended to assure the transit of such vessels through the Canal as quickly as possible, without any impediment, with expedited treatment, and in case of need or emergency, to go to the head of the line of vessels in order to transit the Canal rapidly. Will the treaties affect our standing in Latin America? Will they create a so-called power vacuum, which our enemies might move in to fill? They will do just the opposite. The treaties will increase our Nation's influence in this hemisphere, will help to reduce any mistrust and disagreement, and they will remove a major source of anti-American feeling. The new agreement has already provided vivid proof to the people of this hemisphere that a new era of friendship and cooperation is beginning and that what they regard as the last remnant of alleged American colonialism is being removed."
President Carter's Speech on the Panama Canal Treaty
Jimmy Carter: "Last fall, I met individually with the leaders of 18 countries in this hemisphere. Between the United States and Latin America there is already a new sense of equality, a new sense of trust and mutual respect that exists because of the Panama Canal treaties. This opens up a fine opportunity for us in goodwill, trade, jobs, exports, and political cooperation. If the treaties should be rejected, this would all be lost, and disappointment and despair among our good neighbors and traditional friends would be severe. In the peaceful struggle against alien ideologies like communism, these treaties are a step in the right direction. Nothing could strengthen our competitors and adversaries in this hemisphere more than for us to reject this agreement. What if a new sea-level canal should be needed in the future? This question has been studied over and over throughout this century, from before the time the canal was built up through the last few years. Every study has reached the same conclusion, that the best place to build a sea-level canal is in Panama. The treaties say that if we want to build such a canal, we will build it in Panama, and if any canal is to be built in Panama, that we, the United States, will have the right to participate in the project. This is a clear benefit to us, for it ensures that, say, 10 or 20 years from now, no unfriendly but wealthy power will be able to purchase the right to build a sea level canal, to bypass the existing canal, perhaps leaving that other nation in control of the only usable waterway across the isthmus. Are we paying Panama to take the canal? We are not. Under the new treaty, any payments to Panama will come from tolls paid by ships which use the canal."
President Carter's Speech on the Panama Canal Treaty
Jimmy Carter: "What about the present and the future stability and the capability of the Panamanian Government? Do the people of Panama themselves support the agreement? Well, as you know, Panama and her people have been our historical allies and friends. The present leader of Panama has been in office for more than 9 years, and he heads a stable government which has encouraged the development of free enterprise in Panama. Democratic elections will be held this August to choose the members of the Panamanian Assembly, who will in turn elect a President and a Vice President by majority vote. In the past, regimes have changed in Panama, but for 75 years, no Panamanian government has ever wanted to close the canal. Panama wants the canal open and neutral, perhaps even more than we do. The canal's continued operation is very important to us, but it is much more than that to Panama. To Panama, it's crucial. Much of her economy flows directly or indirectly from the canal. Panama would be no more likely to neglect or to close the canal than we would be to close the Interstate Highway System here in the United States. In an open and free referendum last October, which was monitored very carefully by the United Nations, the people of Panama gave the new treaties their support. The major threat to the canal comes not from any government of Panama, but from misguided persons who may try to fan the flames of dissatisfaction with the terms of the old treaty."
Feather Weight Boxing: Junior Boxing Championships
Junior Boxing Championships Junior brand....In dallas, texas, its a just-for-fun ring romp of the chippies with a punch. We see a terrific tangle between 9-year-old tomboy, pam sproule and ronnie bryant. Ronnie b. Doesn't quite know what hit him! but its the pungent punch of pam, that's what. Very young boys boxing. Little boy shadow boxing (?), quite enthusiastically. Boys box. Crowd, including many children, cheers them on. Young girl boxer (age 9?) warms up by punching man's hands. Same girl boxing against boy (her style is rather unorthodox; she looks something like the Taz devil). She knocks boy down once, knocks herself down another time. Battle of the sexes. Tomboy. Funny, humorous.
25 Years Ago Today
25 Years Ago Today. Various stories. Senatorial committee investigating air mail contracts, touches off national scandal. The dramatic story of the army air corp carrying the mail. Of its heroics and bitter frustrations. And its serious losses in a unique and memorable page in history. Apparently a U.S. Senate investigation into air mail. Press photographers swarm, flashbulbs popping at man standing with right hand raised (taking oath?). Crowd outside an airplane. Eddie Rickenbacker (?) (SP?). Group of men in uniform with right hands raised, as if being sworn in or taking oath. Pilots in gear including goggles. Old U.S. Army propeller planes. Plane crash site. Photographers snap photos of 2 men, apparently Charles Lindbergh and Secretary of War Dern (?). Loading sacks onto a plane. Cargo. Inventions that look great-with a backward glance...Man demonstrates aviation invention with the name "Waterman Whatsit." Air to air shot of this contraption. Then there was the 'Dymaxion' car. A streamlined bullet that could outperform many of today's models. This is a 3-wheeled car similar to the Davis car but with two wheels in front and one wheel in back. 3-wheeled car parallel parks, drives in circles around traffic cop.
Ronald Reagan / George Bush Debate
MS National President of the League of Women Voters RUTH HEINERFELD introducing the program. "Good evening, I m Ruth Heinerfeld, National President of the League Of Women Voters. Welcome to the Huston forum. The third event in our 1980 Presidential Forum series. This series is part of a very important League tradition. Providing the public with non-partisan election information about issues and about candidates. Tonight I m particularly pleased to be able to tell you that the League of Women Voters is going to continue on with that tradition. We announced today that we are going to sponsor the 1980 Presidential Debates. A series of four debates that will be held next September and October. The enthusiastic response of the public to the 1976, Ford / Carter Presidential debate sponsored by the League and to our current forum series provides evidence to the fact that Americans will expect the candidates to participate in face to face debates next fall. Now, on with tonight s event and our moderator, the distinguished news correspondent, Howard K. Smith." TLS/MSs of 1980 Republican Presidential candidates GEORGE BUSH, RONALD REAGAN and moderator HOWARD K. SMITH standing on stage, League of Women Voters banner in BG. Mr. Smith introduces Mr. Bush & Mr. Reagan, then presents the rules of the debates. Howard K. Smith: Thank you Mrs. Heinerfeld. Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen we are very pleased tonight to have two candidates for the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States. Former Ambassador, George Bush of Texas. Former Governor, Ronald Reagan of California. Gentlemen before we began in response to the League of Women s Voters announcement today, that it will sponsor the Presidential Debates at the conventions as it did four years ago in 1976. Let me asked if nominated by your party, would you agreed to participate? George Bush: I d love to debate in the Rose Garden. I think I would be an extraordinary ah, ah, yes sir, I would. Howard K. Smith: Thank you Ronald Reagan: I can t wait. Howard K. Smith: This evening Forum will last just sixty-minutes. As you both agreed there will be no specific time limits on what you have to say. You ll have an open discussion on the issues. You can address comments and questions to one another. I will reserve the chairman s privilege of occasionally asking a question if I want to change the subject and think it s wise to do so. And towards the end of the forum we will accept questions from the audience, and after that, there will be brief closing statements by you.
Ronald Reagan / George Bush Debate
Howard K. Smith The first question, Ambassador Bush, everyone including your opponent has congratulated you on your stunning victory in Pennsylvania yesterday. In the course of the program, Face the Nation on Sunday, you said you hope to win, because you had adopted the strategy of hammering away at the differences between you and Mr. Reagan. And one difference you mentioned was, you said in your words was, Mr. Reagan was over promising the American people can you explain that, and when the spirit moves you, can you respond? George Bush: First it was Meet the Press , I don t want to put in a plug for the wrong outfit. And secondly, I also made the point that what we must do is defeat Jimmy Carter. I got that into focus and I wanted to get these differences out, with the Governor, so the voters could make a good determination. I hope that s what happened in Pennsylvania. A big difference, for example, that the governor and I have, regarded this tax cut. He feels, I don t want to put words in his mouth, and he s here to defend or explain his position, that you can cut taxes by 70 billion first year. The Wall Street Journal attributed the figure to that tax cut idea, to 90 billion the first year. Cut the inheritance and gift taxes. We ve computed that to 5.4 billion dollars, and still balance the budget and still increase defense spending. President Kennedy suggested this cut, it was implemented by Johnson. The cut was 11.4 billion. It resulted in a 4.4 billion dollar revenue loss. Inflation then was 1.8 %. Today it is 18%. Investor confidence was out there, today there s none. So in my judgment that economic program would exacerbate the deficit. It would result in less stimulation of the economy because of the conditions, and I believe that before we can have massive across the board tax cuts, we ve got to get budget in balance. So I am proposing a 20 million dollar, as opposed to 70 or 90, supply side tax cut, to stimulate savings for home and stimulate business. That is a major difference. There s plenty of other s but I do want to give the governor a chance to respond. Ronald Reagan: That is indeed a major difference and I still believe firmly and I think there is some difference of opinion about figures. Four times in this century we have had across the board tax cuts, all of which resulted in such an increase in prosperity that the government even in the first year got increased revenues not less. In the Kennedy year, the total revenues for government, and of course government was much smaller then, about 109 billion dollars instead of a 600 that will be coming up in 81, but according to the figures then federal government got some 5 billion dollars in additional revenue and got about 1.1 billion dollars additional revenue in the income tax. But let me point something out. George mentioned the differencs here. Under Jimmy Carter the tax burden is a percentage of the gross national product has reached the highest level in the history of our nation. It is also the highest percentage of personal income that it has ever been in our history. Now, under the President s revised 81 budget, total federal taxes are projected at 628 billion dollars. Of that 283.1 will be individual income tax. That s 115% increase in back tax, since he took office. Now over the next ten years if things aren t changed, it is estimated that the total tax increase and the people of America will be 1 1/2 trillion dollars. Now rather than the Kemp Roth Bill, which I support, the idea of a 10% cut across the board, the income tax, administered over a three year period to a total of 30%. I believe will stimulate the economy, will create jobs, but it will not reduce Federal incomes. It will only reduce the increase in taxes, because we re going to be faced with an increase in taxes that is far beyond our comprehension, right now. And if we figured that cut as a percentage of 628 billion dollars, you'd be reducing the first year less than 5% perhaps about 4% in the total tax revenue that the government will be getting. But I believe at the same time history has proven in all those other tax cuts, I believe that will stimulate the economy, more people will be working, and it will be contrary to the Carter policy now, of fighting inflation by adding millions to the unemployment roles. And so I support and stand by the idea of incentive taxes geared to the free enterprise system that will provide incentive to increase productivity so we can compete in the international market which we can t do on even terms today.
The Porter Wagoner Show No. 137
Promo for Porter Wagoner Show #137 with special guest Jimmy C. Newman. Spot opens with Newman playing part of "Louisiana Saturday Night;" then camera pulls out to reveal rhinestone-studded, orange-Nudie-suit-wearing Porter Wagoner standing at a microphone, clapping along and introducing Newman and inviting us to "join us on the Porter Wagoner Show, we'll have a good time I'm-a-tellin' ya."
The Porter Wagoner Show No. 137
Introduction to Porter Wagoner show #137. Program opens with Wagoner and Wagonmasters Mack Magaha, Buck Trent, Speck Rhodes, Don Warden, and George McCormick as well as Norma Jean onscreen singing "Howdy Neighbor Howdy" in front of a set built to resemble a country barnyard. Over brightly colored title card decorated with drawing of Wagoner, announcer Don Howser exclaims: "And now, in color, it's The Porter Wagoner Show, starring Porter Wagoner and The Wagonmasters, with Speck Rhodes and Norma Jean. Special guest Jimmy C. Newman. Bringing you your favorite songs and stars of the Grand Ole Opry!" Howser enters and shakes hands with Porter, who wears an orange Nudie suit covered in rhinestone cacti and wagon wheels. To Porter's great amusement Howser mimes a golf swing, then Howser introduces Wagoner as "a real pro, whether on the golf course or singing a good country song." Backed by The Wagonmasters (in matching powder blue western-themed suits of their own), Porter plays guitar and sings "Ole Slew Foot" from his 1968 album "Green Green Grass Of Home." MCU Buck Trent electric banjo, and Mack Magaha on fiddle.
Ronald Reagan / George Bush Debate
George Bush: I agree with that, but the difference we have is that it is my understanding that the Kennedy tax cut implemented by Lyndon Johnson resulted in a 4.4 billion dollar deficit and inflation then was 1.8 not 18%, investors confidence was high not low. And it s my perception that tax cut applied today, in the same percentages would result in an inflation rate of in about 30 to 32%. And so I couldn t agree more about the percent of our gross national product taken by taxes. I believe the first thing we must do is get in balance, incidentally not the way Jimmy Carter proposes on higher and higher taxes, get in balance by reduction of expenditures, get in balance by a 20 billion dollar supply side tax cut and then began to reduce rates, but if we risk with investor confidence where it is, and a deficit that s going to be up already I think 37 billion, 30 billion on top of that, I m afraid we can t break inflation. And we ve got to do that and do that fast. Ronald Reagan: Well, George, we go to do that and of course it goes without saying. And I certainly believe in reducing the cost of government far more than the phony decrease that Mr. Carter has proposed, but when you suggest, as you have, about a twenty billion tax cut, that is less than the federal government is going to get in a single year, undeserved from people who just received cost of living pay raises and where pushed up into higher tax brackets, that amounts to more than 20 billion dollars. George Bush: But if we get that in balance and then do what I say, start reducing the rates that is the key thing. Your plan in my judgment and a judgment of many economists, would risk exasperating that deficit, and today our creditors abroad, our economy is linked to foreign economies, and they take a look at us, and see us living at, deficit after deficit, just like the Kennedy tax cut. There wasn t any surplus then, there was a deficit resulted from that scheme. Arthur Laiford the economist that proposed it, he himself said, I don t know whether it would work . I don t believe we can tale that kind of risk of it, and I would not propose it. Ronald Reagan: George how much more risk is there in just going along in what we been doing? George Bush: That s not what I proposed. I proposed something very different then going along. Ronald Reagan: Let me just say one other thing. I heard for a great many years and that we can t possibly reduce taxes, this is Washington s cry George Bush: I agree. Ronald Reagan: We can t reduce taxes until we reduce government spending. And I have to point out that government does not tax to get the money it needs, government always needs the money it gets. Now, your son can be extravagant with his allowance and you can lecture him day after day about saving money and not being extravagant or you can solve the problem by cutting his allowance. (Applause) George Bush: But, the program I m putting foreword cuts the allowance, cuts on the spending side but doesn t risk this promise everybody everything. Because you cut taxes 210 billion dollars and you favor increasing defense, and you favor cutting out inheritance and gift taxes. I believe that you re going to end up with a much bigger deficit, and that s where you and I differ, listen you talk to me about, gross national product and percentage taxes, my whole program is based on getting tax relief. But I m not going to do it in a way, popular though it may be, that in my view going to make that deficit unsupportive. Ronald Reagan: There s one last point I want to make though. There s one last point we haven t touched on. We re taking as if those dollars that are saved in taxes are not going to have any effect, a multiplier effect when their in the peoples pockets and their used out there in society. And it is been proven that there is a far greater multiplier effect, and creation of prosperity in money spent by the people and invested by the people, then there is when it is spent by government. And therefore we got to recognize that, that money is not to be buried in a tin can in the back yard. It s going to be used to buy things and when we buy things productivity is going to increase. People are going to put it in a savings account. And then we will have the capitol to invest in new plant and equipment, research and development. We have the highest percentage today of out moded industrial plant and equipment of any industrial of the industrial nations in the world. We can t compete evenly with them because we don t have the capitol investment to put into business George Bush: That s why my tax are based on supply side tax cut that will stimulate production, that s what I want you know
Sports Graebner
View of a press conference about to take place. A table of speakers is placed in front of television cameras. Closer view of the pannel. The group consists of three men and two women. Camera and pannel shot. CU of a young Causaian man with a moustache.(Clay Graebner?) CU of a young Caucasian woman with long brown 1970's hair, she smiles. CU of a second Caucasain woman. She has the Marlo Thomas "That Girl" (without the bangs) look about her. CU of an African-American man with big hair. View of pannel. CU of the Caucasain man with the moustache again. He talks about playing for a team. (Tennis?)
Weather
General views of kids playing at the playground. Segment begins with children climbing up the ladder of a slide. A blond haired boy is already at the top and eager to go down. He looks at the camera and makes a goofy face. Boy puts his hands up in the air and slides down. View of a second blond boy at the top of the slide. Camera follows him down. An elderly woman is at the bottom waiting for him. Shot of girls playing on a swing set. They have tangled the chains of their swings together and move in a circular motion. A third girl in plaid bellbottom pants stands by and watches. Shadow of kids playing on a jungle gym, cast on blacktop. Camera pans to reveal kids. Both boys and girls are climbing around on the playground equipment. Second shot of kids climbing on the jungle gym.
Ronald Reagan / George Bush Debate
Howard K. Smith: You re getting close on something you agree on, I want to try and keep you from agreeing. (Laughing) Governor Reagan there s a question I have to ask you. The front runner always get shot at more than anybody else because he s the point man and there s a volley I must ask you about and you should have a chance to answer. Many observers have said that many of the facts used in your arguments are wrong. You spoken about the Kennedy 30% tax cut when it was really 18%. Ronald Reagan: That was the first year. It was a two year tax cut, Howard, and it was 27% and I think that s close enough to round out to 30. (Applause) Howard K. Smith: You have spoken of a government accounting office that is showing either 11 billion or 50 billion wastes in government and GEO says it doesn t have such a survey. Ronald Reagan: It turned out it was the Justice Department that gave that figure. Howard K. Smith: You said it cost the government 3 dollars to provide 1 dollar worth of benefits and HEW say s it cost 12 cents for a dollar of benefits. Ronald Reagan: I wouldn t believe HEW if they were here in the room saying that. Howard K. Smith: There were several other facts like that cited, do you dispute those? Ronald Reagan: (He reaches into his suit pocket and takes out a piece of paper) Well, something just happened tonight. The UPI and a pretty good writer Don Lambrough just come out a story that has to do with one set of figures I used about how many employees the Carter administration added back. And it seems that one of the networks, which shall remain nameless, went on the air and they gone to a fellow in government to ask him, and he said, why there were only 6 thousand added in all these three years under the Carter administration. But Mr. Lambrough goes on to say that while my figures might have not been accurate at the time, I appear to be closer to the mark. He says in the last three years the total number of government workers has grown by at least 63,282 not 6,000. I have said 131,000. But then, he went on to point out that there are about 145,000 persons officially work for the department of HEW, however HEW is also paying the salaries of 1 million additional workers who labor for HEW and state and local governments, universities, consulting firms and other organizations. Moreover federal revenue pays the salary 77,000 state workers in the US employment and unemployment offices around the country. All of these workers who collectively add millions to the rolls are excluded from the government employee records. How much of their numbers increased over the last three years? No one knows because no official count has ever been taken. When this was added to the civilian and military employees on the government official rolls, we see that as many as 14 million people are working for the government, and this means at least one US worker out of eight owes his job to Washington and he concludes saying thus Reagan s 131,000 increase is perfectly possible and may in fact actually understate the real rise of federal government.
Ronald Reagan / George Bush Debate
Howard K. Smith: All right, you covered that point, now how about the other points (Audience applauds) do you think occasionally you do make a mistake? Ronald Reagan: Certainly, any one that s standing up without notes and adlibbing answers to questions is going to slip up. One on some oil figures comparing Alaska and Saudi Arabia. The figures weren t wrong, but of all the things I read and studied and researched on that I attributed them to the wrong report. And gave US Geological Survey the responsibility for having used those figures, and so again they checked simply with US Geological Survey who said those figures weren t in our report, but I found that s all I had done, in that particular one What were some of those others you mentioned there, because I ve been waiting for an opportunity to do this? I have confidence in the facts and figures that I used. Howard K. Smith: I don t want to insist on them but you said it cost 3 dollars to deliver 1 dollar in benefits. Ronald Reagan: Well I ll tell you, this did appear in an account by an economist, and I will admit, not having a chance to check it the economist. I took the figure that was used for redistribution of income, outside of social security to people below the poverty level, and I took the figure of those below the poverty level and divided it into the total figure. And it came out, that if the people below the poverty level were getting all of the money in that budget, a family of four would be receiving 27 thousand dollars a year, which is about four times as much as their receiving and I figure that makes 3 to 1 overhead. (Applause.) George Bush: In my view what we ought to be doing something about the employee thing. You know, Jimmy Carter fought the Leech amendment that would of set a ceiling on federal employment through attrition. Nobody would have been thrown out of a job, but as people left, some of would not be replaced. He fought against that, he campaigned on less people employed. I drove by the EOB the other day and across from it is a building, I am told is staffed may be some on temporary assignment, by people really working for the White House. White House staff is drawn. They don t feel any of this recession. They don t feel any lay offs that the steel workers feel or felt or some of the people around here are beginning to feel. And so that s what I do on that one. On energy, I don t believe frankly that there s enough oil in Alaska within the reasonable future to replace the 9 million of barrels a day that we get from overseas. I believe a decline curve is already set in on Alaskan oil. Some companies already started pulling out of Alaska. And so my energy program is not just decontrol in figuring we can get it all in Alaska, but it s to use alternate sources of energy, go with decontrol, of course, but to use alternate sources of energy as well.
Ronald Reagan / George Bush Debate
Howard K. Smith: Let me ask you both something that is just developing now, and that is that famous recession we been waiting for and which is now at last beginning to happen. It may be there when either of you becomes President. What is your tendency to let a recession go its length in the hope that it will reduce inflation or try to halt recession by things like government expenditures or tax cuts that may stimulate inflation? Governor Reagan. Ronald Reagan: Well, I don t believe the alternative to inflation is recession. I think that s old fashioned economics. I don t think you have to trade unemployment, and incidentally, President Carter as a candidate, said he would never fight inflation by using unemployment. President Carter in his present economic message has said that as a part of his fight against inflation, unemployment is going to be allowed to go up 1, 1 and half or 2 percentage points. Now this is self destructive. Because for every single percentage point that you add to the unemployment rolls, you add 25 to 29 billion dollars to the federal deficit. Both in the loss of revenue from those no longer working and the benefits that goes out to them. No, I would do the things that I have talked about. Regard the cutting of government and I can point to some experience in the same situation. When I became governor of California it was just like the Federal Government, bankrupt, and with a deficit and a mounting deficit. And I know that some of these things work. I would even go back to an example that happened since I was Governor in California, Prop. 13. Everyone in the country heard the horrifying tales of what was going to happen if they cut the property tax as much as Proposition 13 said they were going to. Well it s been in effect about 18 months now, and the result is there are 100,000 fewer public workers, but the private sector in these 18 months has created 532,000 new jobs, and the state of California wound up with a 3 billion surplus. Howard K. Smith: Ambassador Bush. George Bush: I don t believe there is an economic total soft landing. I don t believe it, not my concept of economics. I believe you are going to see some increase in unemployment. I believe the way you fight back is to stimulate capital formation, risk taking in production. And the way you do that is in this kind of approach to cutting taxes I talked about as well as fighting the inflationary side by getting government spending under control. And I believe it would work. There are programs that will help with retraining. I like the idea of training people in the private sector for jobs that exist through tax credits rather than train them up in a SETA program that gets some kids hopes up. He really wants to work, gets his hopes up and there s no government job for him or any job for him. Train him for jobs that don t exist, so I m afraid you re going to see unemployment creep up. I would fight that by production, supply side tax cuts, stimulating the private sector. I believe that would work if you hold government under control, but you can t go and risk making the deficit bigger at the same time, otherwise you still would have that inflationary My problem with Jimmy Carter when he came in, he addressed himself to one thing, stimulation of employment sector and lowering unemployment. He did that to some degree for a while but inflation went right off the charts because of these reckless deficits. Ronald Reagan: Well, he did other things to create the reckless deficits. He said he was going to streamline government and he streamlined it, he created the energy industry that s got a budget as big as the total profits as the major oil companies. He s now created the cabinet level, National Department of Education with more billions of dollars. He s got the biggest staff, as you pointed out in the White House, I think of any President that we know of. I think that, he who is going to trim things. I laughed when he called Teddy Kennedy the biggest spender in the senate. Well he s the biggest spender that s ever been in the White House. I just feel when you said again, stimulate provide incentive for increased productivity. The American worker today is saving the lowest percentage of his earnings at any time in the last thirty odd years. And a Japanese worker can save 5 times the percentage of his earnings that an American can, West German worker 3 times. It s that money that is not going into savings accounts, not going to insurance premiums, that is not there as capital to invest in the private sector, and the only capital investment they ve been able to make has been mandated on them by this government to meet certain federal requirements, either in safety or environment or whatever, its added to production cost its reduced productivity. And I want to see an increase in productivity too. All I can say is I think the system your talking about we been trying for a lot of years really, off and on. And I think it s time for something new. And I think what is new is, let s believe in the people once again so they can spend their money smarter than the government can.