"Mommie Dearest"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42273

The American Presidency Project

Ronald Reagan

XL President of the United States: 1981 - 1989

Interview in Oklahoma City With Reporters From the Daily Oklahoman

March 16, 1982

Soviet President Brezhnev's Offer of a "Unilateral Moratorium"

Mr. Gaylord. Mr. President, I wonder if you have any reaction to President Brezhnev's statement of pulling back some Soviet missiles?

The President. Well, yes, I do. It's one more of sorrow than irritation. I think it's time to stop playing these political games. You know, a unilateral freeze leaves them with 300 missiles and 900 warheads aimed at Western Europe—against nothing. And what we're talking about in Geneva and what I spoke about on November 18th, I really mean. We can erase and eliminate that entire threat for both the Soviet Union and the Bloc, the Soviet Bloc, and Western Europe, by a reduction of those missiles down to zero. I'm ready and willing to-well, we are meeting on that—I'm ready and willing to meet him on the discussion of the other, the strategic missiles at any time on the same thing.

It just doesn't make sense for the world to be sitting here with these weapons aimed at each other—the possibility of human error and the thing that can happen. But, as I say, this is a pretty easy freeze. You know, there were 250 of those missiles when we started to negotiate—when I made my speech on November 18th. There are now 300. And it's pretty easy to freeze when you're 300-0.

Decontrol of Natural Gas

Mr. Cromley. Mr. President, we have to ask you a question that particularly pertains to our part of the country. You're saying that the phase-in of complete decontrol of natural gas is a remaining goal. I wonder if you could tell us possibly when you might recommend that or push for it?

The President. Well, as soon as it would be practicable. Right now, the information we have from up on the Hill is—with this battle over the budget and the taxes and so forth—they just are very reluctant to even approach this or let it be touched. So, we're kind of waiting for signals there.

President's Veto Power and the Budget

Mr. Standard. You mentioned yesterday that you wouldn't hesitate to use your veto power. Were you referring specifically to any attempt by Congress to repeal the tax cuts of last year?

The President. Well, any attempt to do away with what I think are the three basic fundamentals that are part of the program. Now I'm not fixed in concrete as to every specific in our program, if someone can come up and show me better ways of approaching the cut idea, or if there are better ways of meeting the incentive thing that I think the tax cuts are aimed at in restoring the economy. When I was Governor, I always refused to talk about vetoes until it was there on my desk, because I said what starts out to be an apple might end up an orange before it gets there.

But what I meant the other day was, I would not hesitate to use that veto if it is a case of gutting either one of these three fundamentals; in other words, reducing our inability to redress the imbalance in national security, if it's one that's going to reverse the course of incentive taxation to get the economy going again, or if it's one that is not going to legitimately approach the need of reducing the cost and size of government.

And I still think, as I say, there's some room in there for flexibility if someone's got some practical suggestions that will help all this. You know, one suggestion that's been made is cutting defense spending by, say, $10 billion. Well, you could totally eliminate every one of the major weapons programs that are in the defense budget, and you'd only cut the budget by $6 1/2 billion next year. You wouldn't have reached that $10 billion. So where are they going to get it? Now I think a much more practical thing with regard to defense spending is what we have started already putting together.

You know, when I was Governor we went for a very unusual thing in State government-the task forces, businessmen's task forces in which we got 250 or more of the most successful people in our State in their lines of activity to come in on task forces and go through government and, as I described it to them, "Look at it as if you're thinking of merging; that is, a business you're thinking of taking over. What would you change? What are the business practices that could be employed to make it better and more efficient and more effective?" And they came back after an average of 117 days with more than 2,000—or almost 2,000, I should say—recommendations. We implemented 1,600 of those. Well, I'm going to do something like the same thing at the Federal level. We've asked Peter Grace of the Grace Company to chair these task forces, and the first place they're going to go is Defense.

Now they're not going to go in there to see whether you should do away with a weapon program or not. They're going to go in and see down through that vast structure what no Secretary from up on top can see for himself, by the way—are there business practices that you wouldn't put up with in private business?

Federal Reserve Board

Mr. Gaylord. I want to ask about Mr. Volcker and the Federal Reserve Board. Don't you think he's a liability now instead of an asset to this country?

The President. Well, we've.-

Mr. Gaylord. Of course, he was appointed by Carter, I realize.

The President. Yes, but I must say we've had some talks, and I think they hold to what—they are legitimately trying to join with us in a path that we're taking. The trouble in the past has been that roller coaster. And the funny thing is, when they increase the money supply—and this last time, the little spurt after the interest rates had started down, was because there was a spike going up. But now they are coming and trying to come close to their path between 2 1/2- and 5 1/2-percent increase and stay near the upper level because of this recession thing in that 5-percent frame. But there was a spike that shot up there in the last 10 weeks or so of the year, and with it went the—as I say, a little spurt in the interest rates started up.

I think now, the real thing that is holding the interest rates up can be found outside of the Fed and outside of government. There had been so much over the last 40 years—this is the eighth recession since the war—there had been so much of that roller coaster, and every time that we've had a problem like the unemployment—the money market out there has seen them do this money thing and then they've seen the resulting raise in inflation.

And I believe that what we're really up against—and I talked to some business leaders the other day back there from the Roundtable, and they affirm this—that there just is a lack of confidence that it isn't going to be the same old game, that Congress won't go through with the budget reductions, that they will see the same pattern. And so they're not going to lend that money with the possibility that inflation is then going to shoot up.

By every indication, our inflation rate is such that the interest rates should be much lower than they are. Last month, inflation was only running at 3 1/2 percent.

Mr. Gaylord. Well, the interest rate shouldn't be over—three points above that, should it?

The President. That's right, 3 or 4 percent above that.

Mr. Gaylord. Right.

The President. And it's averaged, since October 1st, the beginning of the fiscal year, it's averaged less than 5 percent. So, we think that we're doing—but again, out there, they don't believe it's going to last. So they say they're waiting to see, that inflation's going to go up, or they're going to charge interest rates accordingly on the basis that they think it will.

News Leaks and Media Coverage

Mr. Cromley. Mr. President, what is your reaction to the leaks in the Washington Post in the Haig matter and also in the covert operations in Nicaragua? Is this damaging to our foreign policy?

The President. Yes, I think it is. Forgive me, but I think even more so perhaps where we get to the network news. I think there is a lack of responsibility that, on the basis of leaks—and who knows where those are from or what motivates them—they print things that actually can set us back.

Now, way back when the AWACS thing was going on, one such story, if I hadn't gotten on the phone, if there hadn't been a member of the Saudi royal family in the country to tip us off, all our efforts—we're trying to recognize, we're trying to establish a bond with the Arab States, the more moderate Arab States, to where we can bring them into the peacemaking process with Israel. I don't think it does any good for us to be seen as just Israel and the United States on the one side and all of them on the other. Then we don't have any persuasive power. And this was what part of the AWACS was based on. And fortunately for this tip-off, I got on the phone. But it was a news story, just the kind you're talking about, in the same place. I got on the phone, and just in time, because in Saudi Arabia they were ready to call in the press and blast the United States, and that was the end of that.

But those things, and when I mentioned the network news—in a time of recession like this, there's a great element of psychology in economics. And you can't turn on evening news without seeing that they're going to interview someone else who's lost his job, or they're outside the factory that has laid off workers and so forth—the constant downbeat that can contribute psychologically to slowing down a new recovery that is in the offing.

Mr. Cromley. Can you attribute this to anything, Mr. President?

The President. Well, with regard to the network news, I wonder sometimes if it isn't the battle of the ratings, the Nielsen ratings, and if they aren't more concerned with entertainment than they are with delivering news. It's an entertainment medium, and they're looking for what's eye-catching and spectacular, not necessarily-is it news that some fellow out in South Succotash someplace has just been laid off, that he should be interviewed nationwide? Or someone's complaint that the budget cuts are going to hurt their present program?

As a matter of fact, one station put a family on television some months ago, a man obviously disabled somewhat because he was limping, had been dropped from social security disability payments, and his wife was crying and didn't know what they were going to do, and the children were there all disconsolate, and so forth. Well, I saw that on television, I went storming into the office in the morning, and I said, "Look, this guy's disabled. What are we doing?"

We hadn't taken him off. He'd been taken off disability in 1980 because it was found then that he was holding a job and had been holding a full-time job for 3 years while he was drawing disability payments. And yet, they ran it as if it was something that we had just done.

Mr. Cromley. Do you feel that there's a danger that your image, and rightful image as a compassionate, kind, generous man could be eroded by this sort of thing?

The President. I think there's not only a possibility, I think they've done a pretty good job of it. I'm Scrooge to a lot of people, and if they only knew it, I'm the softest touch they've had for a long time.

Budget Deficits

Mr. Cromley. Could I ask you about deficits for a minute, Mr. President? It seems that everybody from the right to the left is saying that your deficit is too high. I'm sure you think it's too high, too. Yet, it seems to be a "Catch-22" situation—that is, they say they're not going to do anything about it, about anything in your economic program, until there's a lower deficit. Is there anything that can be done that you see?
The President. Yes.

Mr. Cromley. Beyond what you recommend?

The President. Yes. If the people will stand firm and make it plain the Congress, as they did last year—we've asked for $31 billion in additional cuts. Now, there's been no sign yet that we're getting those cuts in the Congress.

Mr. Cromley. That brings it down to $91 [billion], the $31 billion that you've asked be cut?

The President. Yes, the deficit is based on that, bringing down that spending. Now, there may be additional areas where we can reduce further, and we should be definitely thinking about it, but I'm just wondering if we can get that kind of bipartisan action with an election coming up or whether one side is willing to accept the situation in return for having some campaign issues.

Now, here we are, asking for $31 billion cut. The other side is trying to make an issue out of the deficit. Now, the deficit went up simply because of the recession. If you add one percentage point of unemployment, you add $27 billion to the deficit. It isn't that we had goofed in the estimates we had originally made, we made the estimates based on the situation at that time. And then when the interest rates persisted as long as they did—and incidentally, then the money supply was way below the target mark—if those persist, and then we have the unemployment that we've had, up had to go this deficit.

Right now, they think that we're being rosy. Stockman added a few billion dollars to the deficit the other day. Now, what was he doing it on? He was doing it because he felt conscience-bound, as we all do, on the projection—now, it's purely a projection, a drought could change all this—that we're going to have bumper crops to the point that the projection is that prices are going to be lower for the farmers, which is going to increase the government's payments to the farmers.

Now, at this very time that we're asking for these, and asking—look, we'll talk to them about any additional cuts that can further bring this down—an informal poll of subcommittee chairmen in the House the other day found that among them—totals $29 billion in additional spending that they're discussing in their committees.

Now, I think someone should begin to ask now—the '82 budget was our version of the budget that we had inherited, that had been laid out before us. And we cut that by around $49 billion. Now, where would the deficit for '82 have been if we'd gone with the budget that we had inherited? And where will that deficit that they're talking about be in '83 if they refuse to make the $31 billion in cuts?

So, I don't think they can have it both ways—that the deficit is an issue at the same time they refuse to take any action or support us in any action that would reduce it.

1982 Congressional Campaigns

Mr. Standard. Mr. President, how active do you plan to be personally in the congressional campaigns this year?

The President. How active in the congressional campaigns? Well, all that I can do. I know that there's no way that a person could probably intervene. But I think in fund-raising, I think the making of commercials, radio and TV, for candidates—I want to do all I can, because I think it's all important. We've had here, last night, and in the two stops yesterday before here, Alabama and Tennessee, both instances, they had fund-raisers in connection with that after I'd spoken with the legislatures. And so I'm going to do all that I can in that regard.

Mr. Gaylord. Mr. President, we've run out of time. Thank you very much, Mr. President. We appreciate it.










From 3/3/1959 ( the birthdate in Hawaii of my biological brother Thomas Reagan ) To 3/16/1982 is 8414 days

8414 = 4207 + 4207

From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official Deputy United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 5/10/1977 ( Joan Crawford deceased ) is 4207 days





http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42271

The American Presidency Project

Ronald Reagan

XL President of the United States: 1981 - 1989

Address Before a Joint Session of the Oklahoma State Legislature in Oklahoma City

March 16, 1982

I thank you for that genuine Oklahoma welcome. Governor Nigh, [Lieutenant] Governor Bernard, Speaker Draper, President York, the minority leaders, the distinguished members of the legislature, and honored guests:

Before I begin my planned remarks this morning, I would like to speak again to the question of controlling nuclear arms, a subject of deep concern to all Americans, to our allies, and to the people of the world. The hope of all men everywhere is peace-peace not only for this generation but for generations to come. To preserve peace, to ensure it for the future, we must not just freeze the production of nuclear arms, we must reduce the exorbitant level that already exists.

Those who are serious about peace, those who truly abhor the potential for nuclear destruction must begin an undertaking for real arms reduction. President Brezhnev has proposed a unilateral moratorium on further deployment of SS-20 missiles in Western Europe. Well, I say today, as I said yesterday, and as I made clear on November 18th, a freeze simply isn't good enough, because it doesn't go far enough. We must go beyond a freeze.

Let's consider some facts about the military balance in Europe. The Soviet Union now has 300 brand new SS-20 missiles with 900 warheads deployed. All can hit targets anywhere in Western Europe. NATO has zero land-based missiles which can hit the U.S.S.R.

When President Brezhnev offers to stop deployments in Western Europe, he fails to mention that these are mobile missiles. It doesn't matter where you put them, since you can move them anywhere you want, including back to Western Europe. And even if east of the Urals, they could still target most of Western Europe.

Our proposal, now on the table in Geneva, is that we not deploy any of the intermediate missiles in Europe, in exchange for Soviet agreement to dismantle what they now have there. And that's fair. That is zero on both sides. And if President Brezhnev is serious about real arms control-and I hope he is—he will join in real arms reduction.

Now, I come to you today as an American who shares many of the values for which Oklahomans are known. No other State better exemplifies the American experience than does Oklahoma. People from all over the world came here to claim a bit of land—their part of America—and to make a new life. These people confronted the most undeveloped country known to man with optimism, self-pride, and rugged independence.

Edna Ferber's epic "Cimarron" captured this spirit when her hero proclaimed, "Here everything's fresh. It's all to do, and we can do it. There's never been a chance like it in the world. We can make an... empire out of this Oklahoma country .... "Well, this is the vitality that captured the imagination of the world; it's the fabric of which Oklahoma and America are made.

The people who settled here not only endured, they triumphed. Some who've never lived in this State often wonder why, with a population of only 3 million, you can produce such great football teams. [Laughter] Well, after overcoming tornadoes, floods, drought, and Oklahoma winters, totin' a ball down a held a hundred yards just isn't such a hard job, even if there are 11 guys in front of you trying to stop you. [Laughter]

Standing here today, it's easy to forget the pessimism—so uncharacteristic of America-that swept this country only a short while ago. Two decades of economic folly had brought our people to the edge of despair.

In the closing months of 1980, our once-proud economy was gasping for breath. Inflation had been running at double-digit levels for 2 consecutive years, with no relief in sight. At the same time, unemployment was near 8 million. The savings rate had plummeted to the lowest of any industrial country, and interest rates were the highest that they'd been since the War Between the States—21 1/2 percent.

The very character traits that built our country were under attack as never before. Instead of job-creating investment, people put their money into nonproductive inflation hedges. And who could blame them? High taxes and inflation, meanwhile, undermined the incentive to work or save. Quick deals became safer than long-term, economy-building projects.

Oklahoma's State motto, "Labor Conquers All Things," is right on target. Yet, in the last two decades, the last thing our system encouraged was labor progress. And progress ground to a halt.

We couldn't have stayed on the path we were on. You know it, and I know it. With some fine bipartisan cooperation in the Congress, including most of Oklahoma's congressional delegation, we've charted a course that will lead to a better life for all Americans. We've come a long way already.

Federal growth is being brought under control. And with the backing of Republicans and concerned Democrats from Oklahoma, we have cut the rate of annual growth in spending nearly in half.

Ever increasing taxation was bleeding the economy dry. But we've set in place a 3-year tax reduction program that will, if we've got the courage to stick with it, give new life to the economy.

Vice President Bush is directing an energetic attack on excessive Federal regulation that strangles progress at every turn. Already, the number of new pages in the Federal Register, the book which lists new regulations, has been cut by a third. Two hundred million hours of filling out Federal forms and records by individuals, businesses, local officials, and State employees will be eliminated this year. That's the equivalent to 95,000 people working on red tape 40 hours a week for the entire year.

May I pause just a second to interject a little experience of my own that I knew about before I got there—I got to do something if it still is going on. But just to show you how ridiculous things can be, there was a fellow there whose job was sitting in a particular department, and all the papers came to his desk. And he looked at them and then initialed them and routed them on to the particular area that they should go to. And one day a classified paper arrived there, but it came to his desk so he looked at it, figured out where it should go, put on his initials, and sent it on its way. Two days later it arrived back at his desk. The note with it said, "You were not supposed to see this. Erase your initials and initial the erasure." [Laughter]

But we think the fundamental problems have been addressed, and the gloom and doomers notwithstanding, our country is ready to move into high gear. Two years ago the American people seemed resigned to high levels of inflation, even during economic downturns. It was called stagflation. Last year we were able to bring the inflation rate down to an annual rate of 8.9 percent and an average of 4.8 percent for the last 3 months. And last month, it was only 3 1/2 percent. Now that drop in inflation meant that an average family of four in Oklahoma with an income of $22,600 was better off by $701 in purchasing power. Now this year, even more purchasing power will be saved. In short, we're well on our way to licking inflation, and that's the first big step toward getting the economy back on its feet.

Furthermore, the savings picture is looking better and our main incentives are just coming on line. The interest rates are, of course, significant. Some would have you believe that high interest rates are a policy of this administration. Well, let's set the record straight on that. We inherited those interest rates, rates which were, as I said, running over 21 percent. We've decreased them by more than one-fifth, and that downward trend should continue. We're getting interest rates down, but what we will not do is resort to a quick fix that might unleash runaway inflation again.

Clearly, unemployment remains far too high in too much of the country. Not here. Returning America to steady economic growth is the answer, not quick fixes. And that's what our program is all about, and it will work if we give it time to take hold.

I know how frustrating these times are for so many who are living right on the ragged edge. I grew up in a family in the Great Depression that felt the pain of economic downturns. I saw what unemployment at that time did to my own father. Today, all of us must remain conscious of the suffering behind the statistics. This realization should give us the resolve to get to the heart of our economic ills.

One area of justifiable concern is the deficit. And believe me, we take it as seriously as any problem facing us. But let's recognize why such a huge deficit is projected. It is not, as some would have you believe, a product of our tax cuts. Our program went into effect October 1st, but the American people have yet to experience any real cut in their taxes. So far, we've simply decreased the size of the already scheduled tax increases that were passed in 1977.

During the last 20 years, just about any interest group with a high-sounding purpose and enough funds to hire a lobbyist was able to wangle a commitment of some kind from the Federal Government. Many on Capitol Hill were like that gal in the musical "Oklahoma" who just couldn't say no. [Laughter] The big spenders of the last two decades got us in a terrible fix by committing us to finance too many things we just can't afford. They always started easy, like a dollar down and pay later, and pay we did. And that's where this deficit came from.

The answer, of course, is reducing government spending. And to that end, I'll talk to anyone with constructive suggestions. I hope to cooperate with the Congress to achieve this. But my first and foremost responsibility is to the American people who are still suffering from the failed policies of the past.

However, let me say this. Bringing down the Federal deficit cannot take priority over the security of the United States. The top priority of the Federal Government is the safety of this country. If the choice must be made between balancing the budget—and I want to do that—or national security, I must come down on the side of national security.

Now, I know there are some who disagree with that and what we're doing. But they don't have the information that goes with having this job. I would be irresponsible if I did not present a budget that would restore our ability to defend ourselves.

Another controversial decision was the decontrol of oil. One Senator—and not from Oklahoma—predicted that gasoline prices would top out at $2 a gallon because of that action. Other shrill voices crying doom were heard. Some of the media gleefully reported charges that we were contributing to inflation. But as Mark Twain once said of his reported death, it was greatly exaggerated. As you know, none of the catastrophic predictions came true.

Decontrol set off a stampede of exploration. Right here in Oklahoma, you've set a record for the number of rigs—881—drilling for new oil and gas last year. Maybe that's why unemployment is lower here than just about anywhere in the country. For the first time in a decade, the oil production of the lower 48 States did not significantly decline last year, and there are signs that production is increasing thanks to our reliance on the "magic of the market."

The last administration's moral equivalent of war, which depended on government planning, bureaucracy, and regulation, gave us higher prices and shortages. Decontrol unleashed the competitive powers of the marketplace and gave us more supply, more conservation, and lower prices. We've reduced our imports by nearly half.

Those who credit the world oil glut for stable energy prices miss the point. Unleashing our domestic oil industry and continued conservation by the American people have helped create this favorable world energy situation.

Oil control—or decontrol, was just a first step; other energy issues remain. The phase-in of complete decontrol of natural gas is one. I believe that, ultimately, decontrol would be good for the American people. In the meantime, we plan to move forward with the elimination of energy and the Energy Department and to further reduce the regulatory burden on energy producers.

One issue which required compromise, perhaps more than I'd have liked, was the windfall profits tax. Political reality prevented its elimination, but let me point out that our tax reform package, with the strong support of Senator Don Nickels and others in your delegation, did eliminate this tax for a great many royalty owners and independent producers. And there are 200,000 royalty owners and 5,000 independent producers running 66,000 stripper wells in the State of Oklahoma alone.

While we're talking about taxes, I'd like to mention a tax that I've always considered especially repugnant. It severely threatens survival of the family farm and the family-owned business. We didn't get the inheritance tax totally abolished, but I am proud to say that our tax bill did eliminate the inheritance tax for surviving spouses and raised the exemption on farms from $175,000 to $600,000 by 1987.

Now, few if any have been harder hit by the cost-price squeeze than American farmers. I am happy that we have helped stabilize their energy costs, and we're doing our best to open new markets for their products. The last thing they need is a tax that prevents them from passing on their farms to their family. I applaud your efforts to rid your State of this onerous tax on widows and farming families.

Washington has been on a several-decade taxing spree, usurping tax sources that might better be left to local and State governments. In the last 5 years, between 1976 and 1981, Federal taxes doubled, and Federal deficits increased to almost record levels.

One of your native sons, Will Rogers, had a lot to say about taxes. If he were alive today, one wonders what he would think, considering that he said that taxes were too high back in the 1930's. He said, "Lord, the money we do spend on government." And Will said, "It's not one bit better than the government we got for one-third the money 20 years ago." [Laughter] Well, this is once we can really say, "You can say that again."

The tax increase of these last 20 years, however, is a symptom of a far greater problem than Will Rogers knew. During the last two decades, we witnessed a centralization of power and authority totally alien to the American way. It has undermined the system of checks and balances and the division of powers that have long protected the freedom of our people.

Today, our citizens are far removed from those who make decisions that dramatically affect their lives. Often individuals are confronted with edicts issued thousands of miles away by people for whom no one has ever voted. This isn't freedom. It is not democracy. And it does not work.

The time is long overdue for honest men and women at all levels of government to begin a dialog about reversing this power flow. We must bring government back to the people.

Now, this is not a partisan issue, although some would use that tactic in order to distract us from our task. I believe that those who try to undercut or ignore this issue do so at their own peril. The people are justifiably frustrated and angry. A few years ago, they felt the same way about taxes. When the politicians didn't act, grass roots activity-like Proposition 13 in California and
Proposition 2 1/2 in Massachusetts—swept across America.

Undoubtedly, there are those who honestly believe that it's better to centralize power in Washington. They theorize that central planning is more efficient. With all due respect to that opinion, after nearly half a century of big government waste and blundering, it's kind of hard to take their argument seriously.

Others who oppose a transfer of authority back to the States claim the States are unable or unwilling to handle the responsibility. But isn't this just a nice way of saying that State governments are filled with heartless incompetence?

During my years as Governor of California, I found State and local government to be in the hands of conscientious people who are certainly more in tune with the desires and needs of local citizens than the Federal Government, 3,000 miles away, could possibly be, no matter how compassionate and well-intentioned it might be.

The argument, of course, is also made that it's easier to affect the Congress than a State legislature, that Congress is more responsive, or so they say. Well, that seems rather odd. It suggests that influencing 535 elected officials in Washington—men and women who must be concerned about the entire country—is easier than getting the attention of 149 legislators in Oklahoma City.

Well, after listening to that, one gets the impression that someone isn't being candid. Perhaps some oppose federalism not because the States are incompetent, but because they're too efficient; not because they're unresponsive, but because they're too responsible.

The truth may be that special interest groups enjoy dealing with unelected officials with the power to hand out tax money-officials far removed from localities, and all collected in one place, not in 50. It's the lack of responsiveness to the people paying the bill that makes this relationship with the Federal bureaucracy so attractive.

I believe that given the resources and flexibility, the State and local governments can more efficiently handle programs that have rightfully belonged under their authority all along.

Working out details for such a change of direction is never easy. Perhaps a starting point for the dialog can be the broad proposal that I outlined during my State of the Union message. Briefly, it suggests the transfer of 45 categorical programs to the States, along with the funding sources and authority to manage them. The list includes everything from education to community development, from transportation to social services.

What I've described as the centerpiece of the federalism initiative is the almost dollar-for-dollar swap of the two largest areas of welfare. The Federal Government would take on the cost of Medicaid and, in exchange, the States would assume the responsibility and authority for Aid to Families with Dependent Children and food stamps.

Now, this suggestion seems more than fair, considering that Medicaid's expected high growth is so great that AFDC and food stamps, on the other hand, which will not increase so quickly, will allow more of your tax resources to be devoted to that as time goes on. Now, we don't claim this proposal is perfect. Two centuries ago, Samuel Johnson, one of the wisest English philosophers of his day, observed that "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome."

Our federalism plan is not airtight or infallible; it is designed to serve as a basis for discussion. We can certainly work out the details and meet the concerns that you may have here in Oklahoma. Already, I've met with a host of State and local officials, and much to the pundits' surprise, our meetings have been frank and productive. Mayor Jim Inhofe of Tulsa has been especially supportive. I look forward to working with Jim and with other Oklahomans during this sorting-out process, so that what is finally submitted is not my plan but is, instead, our plan.

Those who sincerely doubt that States have the capability to reassume their rightful role often point to incidents of mistakes or corruption uncovered at the State level. Well, I suggest that such disclosures and subsequent corrections are evidence that the system is working. When all you're hearing is good news, that's the time you should start to worry and wonder.

Certainly, taking government further away from the people is no solution. Instead, we must tap the innovation and creativity of our people that is just waiting to be brought into play. I can think of few better States that demonstrate America's potential than Oklahoma.

Recently, when Federal funds were cut for a glass-enclosed botanical garden in Oklahoma City, private business rushed forward with more than $5 million to complete the project. One of your Congressmen, Mickey Edwards, has told me about the Opportunities Industrialization Center, a former CETA program now generating private support in order to provide training for those who lack marketable skills.

That Oklahomans are willing to shoulder the cost of worthwhile programs is no surprise. Helping one another is instinctive in a frontier State. Your programs relating to the elderly, like the Foster Grandparents and the RSVP programs, are especially praiseworthy in this regard.

My friend from California, Bill Banowski, can't say enough good things about you folks. Recently you've raised almost $65 million, mostly from the private sector, to be used for an energy center at the University of Oklahoma. Upon completion, it will make that university a world leader in energy-related study. Similarly, Oklahoma State University is known for its outstanding contributions to the science of agriculture. In these two areas of utmost importance to the well-being of America—energy and agriculture-Oklahoma is setting the pace.

There are those who claim the spirit that built America is dead. They suggest that the traditional values of family, of neighbor helping neighbor, of pride in work and country are things of the past. Well, let them look to Oklahoma.

I appreciate having this opportunity to speak with you during the 75th year of your statehood. And it's not true that I was in the original land rush. [Laughter] I don't get too many chances to be around someone or something that's older than I am. [Laughter]

Your parents and grandparents knew that statehood was something of which to be proud. They weren't satisfied with being a territory of the Federal Government, and I don't think that you are either. Working together, and with God's help, we can rebuild a Federal system created by proud and independent pioneers. Together we can ensure that our children can be just as proud, independent, and free as those who came before us—free in this federation of sovereign States.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Note: The President spoke at 11:05 a.m. in the Capitol.

Following his address, the President returned to the Skirvin Hotel, where he spoke by phone with Governors William G. Milliken of Michigan and James A. Rhodes of Ohio, whose States had been affected recently by severe storms and flooding. The flood area included portions of southern Michigan, northern Ohio, and northern Indiana.

On departing Oklahoma, Air Force One flew over Bartlesville so that the President could view the damage caused by tornadoes which struck the area the previous day. The President then stopped in Fort Wayne, Ind., where he was met by Ohio Governor Rhodes, Governor Robert D. Orr of Indiana, and Mayor Winfield Moses of Fort Wayne. The President visited several sites in the flood area and spoke with local residents. He then returned to Washington and arrived at the White House late in the afternoon.










http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001076/bio

IMDb


Joan Crawford

Biography

Date of Birth 23 March 1905, San Antonio, Texas, USA

Date of Death 10 May 1977, New York City, New York, USA (heart attack)

Birth Name Lucille Fay LeSueur










http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082766/quotes

IMDb


Mommie Dearest (1981)

Quotes


Joan Crawford: No... wire... hangers. What's wire hangers doing in this closet when I told you: no wire hangers EVER? I work and work 'till I'm half-dead, and I hear people saying, "She's getting old." And what do I get? A daughter... who cares as much about the beautiful dresses I give her... as she cares about me. What's wire hangers doing in this closet? Answer me. I buy you beautiful dresses, and you treat them like they were some dishrag. You do. Three hundred dollar dress on a wire hanger. We'll see how many you've got if they're hidden somewhere. We'll see... we'll see. Get out of that bed. All of this is coming out. Out. Out. Out. Out. Out. Out. You've got any more? We're gonna see how many wire hangers you've got in your closet. Wire hangers, why? Why? Christina, get out of that bed. Get out of that bed. You live in the most beautiful house in Brentwood and you don't care if your clothes are stretched out from wire hangers. And your room looks like some two-dollar-a-week furnished room in some two-bit back street town in Okalahoma.










http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082766/quotes

IMDb


Mommie Dearest (1981)

Quotes


Adoption agency official: I'm afraid I have some difficult news for you, Miss Crawford. The agency has denied your application for adoption.

Joan Crawford: Why?

Adoption agency official: Well... you live alone. There are no other family members in the home. You have two previous divorces. You're a busy, active woman, and the candidate is found to be an unsuitable parent.

Joan Crawford: [suddenly enraged] UNSUITABLE?

Adoption agency official: Please, Miss Crawford!

Joan Crawford: Don't you dare judge me!

Adoption agency official: We have a moral and legal responsibility in this job.

Joan Crawford: Obviously you don't understand. What you're really doing is denying one of your children the opportunity to live a wonderful and advantaged life! How sad that is. Good afternoon.










http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082766/quotes

IMDb


Mommie Dearest (1981)

Quotes


Joan Crawford: You drove Al Steele to his grave, and now you're trying to stab me in the back? Forget it. I fought worse monsters than you for years in Hollywood. I know how to win the hard way.










http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082766/quotes

IMDb


Mommie Dearest (1981)

Quotes


Joan Crawford: Why do you deliberately defy me?

Christina: Why did you tell her I got expelled?

Joan Crawford: Because you DID get expelled.

Christina: That... is a LIE.

Joan Crawford: [Smacking Christina hard across the face twice] You love it, don't you? YOU LOVE TO MAKE ME HIT YOU.

Barbara Bennett: Joan.

Joan Crawford: Barbara, PLEASE. PLEASE, Barbara. Leave us alone, Barbara. If you need anything, ask Carol Ann.

[laughs bitterly]

Joan Crawford: This is wonderful. THIS IS WONDERFUL. YOU. You deliberately embarrassed me in front of a REPORTER.

[clutches herself]

Joan Crawford: A REPORTER. I told you how important this to me, I TOLD YOU.










http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082766/quotes

IMDb


Mommie Dearest (1981)

Quotes


Louis B. Mayer: Joan, my Joan, you're in a position to do me a favor that will be as big a favor for you as it is for me.

Joan Crawford: You don't have to ask! You only have to tell me.

Louis B. Mayer: Good. I want you to leave Metro.

Joan Crawford: Leave Metro? Leave Metro?

Louis B. Mayer: Your pictures one after another are losing money. Theater owners voted you "box office poison". Still for years I've paid no attention. You know me, Joan. I don't give up so easily. We'll pay you off on your contract. But you can't afford to make three or four more losers for us.

Joan Crawford: It's the scripts, L.B. Bad pictures, bad directors...

Louis B. Mayer: Bad with you, good with others.

Joan Crawford: No, listen to me L.B., I have been BEGGING YOU... begging you for a good script. Now you've always given me my share of bad movies because you knew I'd make them work. Well I can't keep doing it, L.B.!

Louis B. Mayer: Listen with your ears and not with your pride. With me, feeling is more important than money. You're a great star! You're Hollywood royalty! But styles change. You'll leave. We have 'creative differences'. Other studios will think they're smarter than L.B., they'll try to finesse me. You'll be offered two, three, four films. You may even get a hit!

Joan Crawford: Will you be sorry then?

Louis B. Mayer: I'm sorry now. But here there's no feeling, no hope. New faces, new voices, breath of fresh air, who knows. Don't do this to yourself.

Joan Crawford: I'll have my maid and studio people clear out my bungalow. I've got a lot of years to collect.

Louis B. Mayer: It's done, Joan. They've packed your things, they're loading your car.

Joan Crawford: You mean everybody already knows?

Louis B. Mayer: That we parted friends because we didn't agree.

Joan Crawford: Will you walk me to my car?

[L.B. doesn't answer]

Joan Crawford: "Hollywood royalty".










http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082766/quotes

IMDb


Mommie Dearest (1981)

Quotes


Joan Crawford: Why can't you give me the respect that I'm entitled to? Why can't you treat me like I would be treated by any stranger on the street?

Christina: Because I am NOT one of your fans.



- posted by H.V.O.M - Kerry Wayne Burgess 4:57 PM Pacific Time Spokane Valley Washington USA Thursday 12 March 2015