TIME: Almanac of the 20th Century

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac of the 20th Century / TIME, Almanac of the 20th Century.ISO / election / 64elect / 64elect.001 next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-02-27 | 6.4 KB | 133 lines

<text> <title> (64 Elect) State of the Union </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1964 Election </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> January 17, 1964 THE PRESIDENCY State of the Union </hdr> <body> Every few words were underlined for emphasis. Notations in the text said "Pause," "Look right," and "Look left." And like the onetime high school elocution teacher that he is, President Johnson delivered his first State of the Union message in a style that had oratorical flourish without sounding strident. The President's aim was to convince Congress that his Administration will be frugal. As he revealed the big surprises of his speech, he stared straight out at such economy-minded legislators as Virginia's Senator Harry Byrd and House Republican Leader Charles Halleck. The fiscal 1965 budget that Johnson will send to Congress next week, he said slowly and stressing every word, will "call for total expenditures of $97.9 billion--compared to $98.4 billion for the current year, a reduction of more than $500 million. It will call for new obligational authority of $103.8 billion--a reduction of more than $4 billion below last year's request of $107.9 billion. It will cut our deficit in half, from $10 billion to $4.9 billion." All this depended, of course, on revenue gains expected from the economic growth to be spurred by the tax-cut bill still pending before Congress. "That tax bill," said the President, "has been thoroughly discussed for a year. Now we need action. The new budget clearly allows it." The Cutbacks. The budget had been Johnson's chief preoccupation since taking office. On Sunday, Nov. 24, just two days after he succeeded President Kennedy, he held the first of countless conferences with Budget Director Kermit Gordon. Several days later, the White House let it be known that because of built-in spending increases--about half of them required by legislation passed last year--it would be all but impossible to get next year's budget much below $103 billion. As late as New Year's Eve, while at his Texas ranch, the President indicated to reporters that his budget probably would come to about $100 billion. Where did the extra savings come from? The biggest whack, totaling about $1 billion, was in Defense Department spending, owing mostly to Defense Secretary McNamara's campaign for better procurement practices, the shutdown of unneeded military bases, etc. Civilian employment in the Defense Department will go down by 17,000 to 990,000; but because of increases elsewhere, total federal employment will only be cut by 1,200. The Atomic Energy Commission also gets hit. Said the President in his speech: "We are cutting back on our production of enriched uranium by 25%, shutting down four plutonium piles." It is widely agreed that the U.S. has enough enriched uranium to suit any foreseeable purpose. Still, one argument against such a cutback was that it would mean job losses in places where plants were closed. The President answered that one by telling aides, "We're not going to produce atom bombs as a WPA project." The Attack. While many other departments and agencies will lose money under the new budget, others inevitably will gain. Among these is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which will go up by $50 million to $4.5 billion--and even that is not what NASA Director James Webb wants in his effort to get to the moon by 1970. And then there is poverty in the U.S., against which the President announced a massive--and presumably costly--attack. Said he: "This Administration, today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America...The richest nation on earth can afford to win it. The program I shall propose will help that one-fifth of all American families with incomes too small to even meet their basic needs. Our chief weapons in a more pinpointed attack will be better schools and better health, better homes, better training and better job opportunities...Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it, and above all to prevent it." In other areas, President Johnson urged swift congressional passage of the civil rights bill. "It is a moral issue," he said. "Today, Americans of all races stand side by side in Berlin and in Vietnam. They died side by side in Korea. Surely they can work and eat and travel side by side in their own country." He spent relatively little time discussing foreign policy (though within a few days he was to face his major foreign crisis.) But he drew his longest, loudest applause by turning back on Nikita Krushchev those words the Soviet Premier must long since have wished he had swallowed. "We intend to bury no one," said President Johnson. "And we do not intend to be buried." The Test. Congressional reaction to the speech was, as always, divided. "Bravo!" cried loyal Democratic Senate Leader Mike Mansfield. "Great!" said House Democratic Leader Carl Albert. But others thought Johnson's budget was achieved more by mirrors than by meat ax. Said Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen: "I don't go in for financial legerdemain." Said House G.O.P. Leader Halleck: "I hope that the Administration's new-found enthusiasm for economy is as great in June as it is in January." Scoffed House Minority Whip Les Arends: "He promises to give everyone more of everything--at less cost." The President's speech, said Arends, was "patently a 1964 political campaign document." It was certainly that, and a masterful one. But it was much more. Even if Johnson's budget comes unstuck, as well it may, it will still stand as much-needed recognition of the fact that economy in government is a worthy, indeed a necessary aim. In his appeal to the voters next fall, President Johnson can (and will) claim a successful legislative record if Congress does nothing more than pass the tax cut and civil rights bill. But perhaps a more realistic test will be found in the way Congress actually follows up on his pledges of frugality. After all, as New York's Republican Senator Jacob Javits said last week, "There is an enormous gap between what a Democratic President says and what a Democratic-controlled Congress does." </body> </article> </text>