|
|
| |
| |
TV Address To The Nation By
President John F. Kennedy On Cuba - 10/22/62
Good evening, my fellow citizens: This Government, as promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of the Soviet military buildup on the island of Cuba. Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive Missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. The purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere.
Upon receiving the first preliminary hard information of this nature last Tuesday morning at 9 a.m., I directed that our surveillance be stepped up. And having now confirmed and completed our evaluation of the evidence and our decision on a course of action, this Government feels obliged to report this new crisis to you in fullest detail.
The characteristics of these new missile sites indicate two distinct types of installations. Several of them include medium range ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead for a distance of more than 1000 nautical miles. Each of these missiles, in short, is capable of striking Washington, D.C., the Panama Canal, Cape Canaveral, Mexico City, or any other city in the southeastern part of the United States, in Central America, or in the Caribbean area.
Additional sites not yet completed appear to be designed for intermediate range ballistic missiles capable of traveling more than twice as far-and thus capable of striking most of the major cities in the Western Hemisphere, ranging as far north as Hudson Bay, Canada, and as far south as Lima, Peru. In addition, jet bombers, capable of carrying nuclear weapons, are now being uncrated and assembled in Cuba, while the necessary air bases are being prepared.
This urgent transformation of Cuba into an important strategic base-by the presence of these large, long-range, and clearly offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction constitutes an explicit threat to the peace and security of all the Americas, in flagrant and deliberate defiance of the Rio Pact of 1947, the traditions of this Nation and hemisphere, the joint resolution of the 87th Congress, the Charter of the United Nations, and my own public warnings to the Soviets on September 4 and 13- This action also contradicts the repeated assurances of Soviet spokesmen, both publicly and privately delivered, that the arms buildup in Cuba would retain its original defensive character, and that the Soviet Union had no need or desire to station strategic missiles on the territory of any other nation.
The size of this undertaking makes clear that it has been planned for Some months. Yet only last month, after I had made clear the distinction between any introduction of ground-to- ground missiles and the existence of defensive anti-aircraft missiles, the Soviet Government publicly stated on September 11th that, and I quote, "the armaments and military equipment sent to Cuba are designed exclusively for defensive purposes," that, and I quote the Soviet Government, "there is no need for the Soviet Government to shift its weapons . . . for a retaliatory blow to any other country, for instance Cuba," and that, and I quote their government, "the Soviet Union has so powerful rockets to carry these nuclear warheads that there is no need to search for sites for them beyond the boundaries of the Soviet Union." That statement was false.
Only last Thursday, as evidence of this rapid offensive buildup was already in my hand, Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko told me in my office that he was instructed to make it clear once again, as he said his government had already done, that Soviet assistance to Cuba, and I quote, "pursued solely for the purpose of contributing to the defense capabilities of Cuba," that, and I quote him, "training by Soviet specialists of Cuban nationals in handling defensive armaments was by no means offensive, and if it were otherwise," Mr. Gromyko went on, "the Soviet Government would never become involved in rendering such assistance." That statement also was false.
Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents an efficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril. Nuclear weapons are so destructive and ballistic missiles are so swift, that any substantially increased possibility of their use or any sudden change in their deployment may well be regarded as a definite threat to peace.
For many years, both the Soviet Union and the United States, recognizing this fact, have deployed strategic nuclear weapons with great care, never upsetting the precarious status quo which insured that these weapons would not be used in the absence of some vital challenge. Our own strategic missiles have never been transferred to the territory of any other nation under a cloak of secrecy and deception; and our history-unlike that of the Soviets since the end of World War II-demonstrates that we have no desire to dominate or conquer any other nation or impose our system upon its people. Nevertheless, American citizens have become adjusted to living daily on the bull's-eye of Soviet missiles located inside the U.S.S.R. or in submarines.
In that sense, missiles in Cuba add to an already clear and present danger-although it should be noted the nations of Latin America have never previously been subjected to a potential nuclear threat.
But this secret, swift, and extraordinary buildup of Communist missiles-in an area well known to have a special and historical relationship to the United States and the nations of the Western Hemisphere, in violation of Soviet assurances, and in defiance of American and hemispheric policy-this sudden, clandestine decision to station strategic weapons for the first time outside of Soviet soil- is a deliberately provocative and unjustified change in the status quo which cannot be accepted by this country, if our courage and our commitments are ever to be trusted again by either friend or foe.
The 1930's taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war. This nation is opposed to war. We are also true to our word. Our unswerving objective, therefore, must be to prevent the use of these missiles against this or any other country, and to secure their withdrawal or elimination from the Western Hemisphere.
Our policy has been one of patience and restraint, as befits a peaceful and powerful nation, which leads a worldwide alliance. We have been determined not to be diverted from our central concerns by mere irritants and fanatics. But now further action is required-and it is under way; and these actions may only be the beginning. We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth-but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced.
Acting, therefore, in the defense of our own security and of the entire Western Hemisphere, and under the authority end trusted to me by the Constitution as endorsed by the resolution of the Congress, I have directed that the following initial steps be taken immediately:
First: To halt this offensive buildup, a strict quarantine on all offensive military in equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated. All ships of any kind bound for Cuba from whatever nation or port will, if found to contain cargoes of offensive weapons, be turned back. This quarantine will be extended, if needed, to other types of cargo and carriers. We are not at this time, however, denying the necessities of life as the Soviets attempted to do in their Berlin blockade of I948-
Second: I have directed the continued and increased close surveillance of Cuba and its military buildup. The foreign ministers of the OAS, in their communiqu of October 6th, rejected secrecy on such matters in this hemisphere. Should these offensive military preparations continue, thus increasing the threat to the hemisphere, further action will be justified. I have directed the Armed Forces to prepare for any eventualities; and I trust that in the interest of both the Cuban people and the Soviet technicians at the sites, the hazards to all concerned of continuing this threat will be recognized.
Third: It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.
Fourth: As a necessary military precaution., I have reinforced our base at Guantanamo, evacuated today the dependents of our personnel there, and ordered additional military units to be on a standby alert basis.
Fifth: We are calling tonight for an immediate meeting of the Organ of Consultation under the Organization of American States, to consider this threat to hemispheric security and to invoke articles 6 and 8 of the Rio Treaty in support of all necessary action. The United Nations Charter allows for regional security arrangements-and the nations of this hemisphere decided long ago against the military presence of outside powers. Our other allies around the world have also been alerted.
Sixth: Under the Charter of the United Nations, we are asking tonight that an emergency meeting of the Security Council be convoked without delay to take action against this latest Soviet threat to world peace. Our resolution will call for the prompt dismantling and withdrawal of all offensive weapons in Cuba, under the supervision of U.N. observers, before the quarantine can be lifted.
Seventh and finally: I call upon Chairman Khrushchev to halt and eliminate this clandestine, reckless, and provocative threat to world peace and to stable relations between our two nations. I call upon him further to abandon this course of world domination, and to join in an historic effort to end the perilous arms race and to transform the history of man. He has an opportunity now to move the world back from the abyss of destruction-by returning to his government's own words that it had no need to station missiles outside its own territory, and withdrawing these weapons from Cuba- by refraining from any action which will widen or deepen the present crisis- and then by participating in a search for peaceful and permanent solutions.
This Nation is prepared to present its case against the Soviet threat to peace, and our own proposals for a peaceful world, at any time and in any forum-in the OAS, in the United Nations, or in any other meeting that could be useful-without limiting our freedom of action. We have in the past made strenuous efforts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. We have proposed the elimination of all arms and military bases in a fair and effective disarmament treaty. We are prepared to discuss new proposals for the removal of tensions on both sides- including the possibilities of a genuinely independent Cuba, free to determine its own destiny. We have no wish to war with the Soviet Union- for we are a peaceful people who desire to live in peace with all other peoples.
But it is difficult to settle or even discuss these problems in an atmosphere of intimidation. That is why this latest Soviet threat-or any oilier threat which is made either independently or in response to our actions this week-must and will be met with determination. Any hostile move any- where in the world against the safety and freedom of peoples to whom we are committed- including in particular the brave people of West Berlin- will be met by whatever action is needed.
Finally, I want to say a few words to the captive people of Cuba, to whom this speech is being directly carried by special radio facilities. I speak to you as a friend, as one who knows of your deep attachment to your fatherland, as one who shares your aspirations for liberty and justice for all. And I have watched and the American people have watched with deep sorrow how your nationalist revolution was betrayed- and how your fatherland fell under foreign domination. Now your leaders are no longer Cuban leaders inspired by Cuban ideals. They are puppets and agents of an international conspiracy which has turned Cuba against your friends and neighbors in the Americas-and turned it into the first Latin American country to become a target for nuclear war-the first Latin American country to have these weapons on its soil.
These new weapons are not in your interest. They contribute nothing to your peace and well-being. They can only undermine it. But this country has no wish to cause you to suffer or to impose any system upon you. We know that your lives and land are being used as pawns by those who deny your freedom.
Many times in the past, the Cuban people have risen to throw out tyrants who destroyed their liberty. And I have no doubt that most Cubans today look forward to the time when they will be truly from foreign domination, free to choose their own leaders, free to select their own system, free to own their own land, free to speak and write and worship without fear or degradation. And then shall Cuba be welcomed back to the society of free nations and to the association of nations of this hemisphere.
My fellow citizens: let no one doubt that this is a difficult and dangerous effort on which we have set out. No one can foresee precisely what course it will take or what costs or casualties will be incurred. Many months of sacrifice and self-discipline lie ahead-months in which both our patience and our will be tested-months in which many threats and denunciations will keep us aware of our dangers. But the greatest danger of all would be to do nothing.
The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are- but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world. The cost of freedom is always high-but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.
Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right-not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere, and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved. Thank you and good night.
Television Address On End of Crisis 11/2/62
My fellow citizens:
I want to take this opportunity to report on the conclusions which this Government has reached on the basis of yesterday's aerial photographs which will be made available tomorrow, as well as other indications, namely, that the Soviet missile bases in Cuba are being dismantled, their missiles and related equipment are being crated, and the fixed installations at these sites are being destroyed.
The United States intends to follow closely the completion of this work through a variety of means, including aerial surveillance, until such time as an equally satisfactory international means of verification is effected.
While the quarantine remains in effect, we are hopeful that adequate procedures can be developed for international inspection of Cuba-bound cargoes. The International Committee of the Red Cross, in our view, would be an appropriate agent in this matter.
The continuation of these measures in air and sea, until the threat to peace posed by these offensive weapons is gone, is in keeping with our pledge to secure their withdrawal or elimination from this hemisphere. It is in keeping with the resolution of the OAS, and it is in keeping with the exchange of letters with Chairman Khrushchev of October 27th and 28th.
Progress is now being made towards the restoration of peace in the Caribbean, and it is our firm hope and purpose that this progress shall go forward. We will continue to keep the American people informed on this vital matter.
Thank you.
NOTE: This address was broadcast at 5:30 p.m. from the Fish Room at the White House.
John F. Kennedy- Radio & TV Address to American People 1961 on the Vienna Summitt
Good evening, my fellow citizens:
I returned this morning from a weeklong trip to Europe and I want to report to you on that trip in full. It was in every sense an unforgettable experience. The people of Paris, of Vienna, of London, were generous in their greeting. They were heartwarming in their hospitality, and their graciousness to my wife is particularly appreciated.
We knew of course that the crowds and the shouts were meant in large measure for the country that we represented, which is regarded as the chief defender of freedom. Equally memorable was the pageantry of European history and their culture that is very much a part of any ceremonial reception to lay a wreath at the Arc de Triomphe, to dine at Versailles, and Schonbrunn Palace, and with the Queen of England. These are the colorful memories that will remain with us for many years to come. Each of the three cities that we visited-Paris, Vienna, and London-have existed for many centuries, and each serves as a reminder that the Western civilization that we seek to preserve has flowered over many years, and has defended itself over many centuries. But this was not a ceremonial trip. Two aims of American foreign policy, above all others, were the reason for the trip: the unity of the free world, whose strength is the security of us all, and the eventual achievement of a lasting peace. My trip was devoted to the advancement of these two alms.
To strengthen the unity of the West, our journey opened in Paris and closed in London. My talks with General de Gaulle were profoundly encouraging to me. Certain differences in our attitudes on one or another problem became insignificant in view of our common commitment to defend freedom. Our alliance, I believe, became more secure; the friendship of our nation, I hope-with theirs-became firmer; and the relations between the two of us who bear responsibility became closer, and I hope were marked by confidence. I found General de Gaulle far more interested in our frankly stating our position, whether or not it was his own, than in appearing to agree with him when we do not. But he knows full well the true meaning of an alliance. He is after all the only major leader of World War II who still occupies a position of great responsibility. His life has been one of unusual dedication; he is a man of extraordinary personal character, symbolizing the new strength and the historic grandeur of France. Throughout our discussions he took the long view of France and the world at large. I found him a wise counselor for the future, and an informative guide to the history that he has helped to make. Thus we had a valuable meeting.
I believe that certain doubts and suspicions that might have come up in a long time-I believe were removed on both sides. Problems which proved to be not of substance but of wording or procedure were cleared away. No question, however sensitive, was avoided. No area of interest was ignored, and the conclusions that we reached will be important for the future-in our agreement on defending Berlin, on working to improve the defenses of Europe, on aiding the economic and political independence of the underdeveloped world, including Latin America, on spurring European economic unity, on concluding successfully the conference on Laos, and on closer consultations and solidarity in the Western alliance.
General de Gaulle could not have been more cordial, and I could not have more confidence in any man. In addition to his individual strength of character, the French people as a whole showed vitality and energy which were both impressive and gratifying. Their recovery from the postwar period is dramatic, their productivity is increasing, and they are steadily building their stature in both Europe and Africa, and thus, I left Paris for Vienna with increased confidence in Western unity and strength.
The people of Vienna know what it is to live under occupation, and they know what it is to live in freedom. Their welcome to me as President of this country should be heartwarming to us all. I went to Vienna to meet the leader of the Soviet Union, Mr. Khrushchev. For 2 days we met in sober, intensive conversation, and I believe it is my obligation to the people, to the Congress, and to our allies to report on those conversations candidly and publicly.
Mr. Khrushchev and I had a very full and frank exchange of views on the major issues that now divide our two countries. I will tell you now that it was a very sober 2 days. There was no discourtesy, no loss of tempers, no threats or ultimatums by either side; no advantage or concession was either gained or given; no major decision was either planned or taken; no spectacular progress was either achieved or pretended.
This kind of informal exchange may not be as exciting as a full-fledged summit meeting with a fixed agenda and a large corps of advisers, where negotiations are attempted and new agreements sought, but this was not intended to be and was not such a meeting, nor did we plan any future summit meetings at Vienna.
But I found this meeting with Chairman Khrushchev, as somber as it was, to be immensely useful. I had read his speeches and of his policies. I had been advised on his views. I had been told by other leaders of the West, General de Gaulle, Chancellor Adenauer, Prime Minister Macmillan, what manner of man he was.
But I bear the responsibility of the Presidency of the United States, and it is my duty to make decisions that no adviser and no ally can make for me. It is my obligation and responsibility to see that these decisions are as informed as possible, that they are based on as much direct, firsthand knowledge as possible.
I therefore thought it was of immense importance that I know Mr. Khrushchev, that I gain as much insight and understanding as I could on his present and future policies. At the same time, I wanted to make certain Mr. Khrushchev knew this country and its policies, that he understood our strength and our determination, and that he knew that we desired peace with all nations of every kind.
I wanted to present our views to him directly, precisely, realistically, and with an opportunity for discussion and clarification. This was done. No new aims were stated in private that have not been stated in public on either side. The gap between us was not, in such a short period, materially reduced, but at least the channels of communications were opened more fully, at least the chances of a dangerous misjudgment on either side should now be less, and at least the men on whose decisions the peace in part depends have agreed to remain in contact.
This is important, for neither of us tried to merely please the other, to agree merely to be agreeable, to say what the other wanted to hear. And just as our judicial system relies on witnesses appearing in court and on cross-examination, instead of hearsay testimony or affidavits on paper, so, too, was this direct give-and-take of immeasurable value in making clear and precise what we considered to be vital, for the facts of the matter are that the Soviets and ourselves give wholly different meanings to the same words-war, peace, democracy, and popular will.
We have wholly different views of right and wrong, of what is an internal affair and what is aggression, and, above all, we have wholly different concepts of where the world is and where it is going.
Only by such a discussion was it possible for me to be sure that Mr. Khrushchev knew how differently we view the present and the future. Our views contrasted sharply but at least we knew better at the end where we both stood. Neither of us was there to dictate a settlement or to convert the other to a cause or to concede our basic interests. But both of us were there, I think, because we realized that each nation has the power to inflict enormous damage upon the other, that such a war could and should be avoided if at all possible, since it would settle no dispute and prove no doctrine, and that care should thus be taken to prevent our conflicting interests from so directly confronting each other that war necessarily ensued. We believe in a system of national freedom and independence. He believes in an expanding and dynamic concept of world communism, and the question was whether these two systems can ever hope to live in peace without permitting any loss of security or any denial of the freedom of our friends. However difficult it may seem to answer this question in the affirmative as we approach so many harsh tests, I think we owe it to all mankind to make every possible effort. That is why I considered the Vienna talks to be useful. The somber mood that they conveyed was not cause for elation or relaxation, nor was it cause for undue pessimism or fear. It simply demonstrated how much work we in the free world have to do and how long and hard a struggle must be our fate as Americans in this generation as the chief defenders of the cause of liberty. The one area which afforded some immediate prospect of accord was Laos. Both sides recognized the need to reduce the dangers in that situation. Both sides endorsed the concept of a neutral and independent Laos, much in the manner of Burma or Cambodia.
Of critical importance to the current conference on Laos in Geneva, both sides recognized the importance of an effective cease-fire. It is urgent that this be translated into new attitudes at Geneva, enabling the International Control Commission to do its duty, to make certain that a cease-fire is enforced and maintained. I am hopeful that progress can be made on this matter in the coming days at Geneva for that would greatly improve international atmosphere.
No such hope emerged, however, with respect to the other deadlocked Geneva conference, seeking a treaty to ban nuclear tests. Mr. Khrushchev made it clear that there could not be a neutral administrator-in his opinion because no one was truly neutral; that a Soviet veto would have to apply to acts of enforcement; that inspection was only a subterfuge for espionage, in the absence of total disarmament; and that the present test ban negotiations appeared futile. In short, our hopes for an end to nuclear tests, for an end to the spread of nuclear weapons, and for some slowing down of the arms race have been struck a serious blow. Nevertheless, the stakes are too important for us to abandon the draft treaty we have offered at Geneva.
But our most somber talks were on the subject of Germany and Berlin. I made it clear to Mr. Khrushchev that the security of Western Europe and therefore our own security are deeply involved in our presence and our access rights to West Berlin, that those rights are based on law and not on sufferance, and that we are determined to maintain those rights at any risk, and thus meet our obligation to the people of West Berlin, and their right to choose their own future.
Mr. Khrushchev, in turn, presented his views in detail, and his presentation will be the subject of further communications. But we are not seeking to change the present situation. A binding German peace treaty is a matter for all who were at war with Germany, and we and our allies cannot abandon our obligations to the people of West Berlin.
Generally, Mr. Khrushchev did not talk in terms of war. He believes the world will move his way without resort to force. He spoke of his nation's achievements in space. He stressed his intention to outdo us in industrial production, to outtrade us, to prove to the world the superiority of his system over ours. Most of all, he predicted the triumph of communism in the new and less developed countries.
He was certain that the tide there was moving his way, that the revolution of rising peoples would eventually be a Communist revolution, and that the so-called wars of liberation, supported by the Kremlin, would replace the old methods of direct aggression and invasion.
In the I940's and early fifties, the great danger was from Communist armies marching across free borders, which we saw in Korea. Our nuclear monopoly helped to prevent this in other areas. Now we face a new and different threat. We no longer have a nuclear monopoly. Their missiles, they believe, will hold off our missiles, and their troops can match our troops should we intervene in these so-called wars of liberation. Thus, the local conflict they support can turn in their favor through guerrillas or insurgents or subversion. A small group of disciplined Communists could exploit discontent and misery in a country where the average income may be $6o or $7o a year, and seize control, therefore, of an entire country without Communist troops ever crossing any international frontier. This is the Communist theory.
But I believe just as strongly that time will prove it wrong, that liberty and independence and self-determination-not communism-is the future of man, and that free men have the will and the resources to win the struggle for freedom. But it is clear that this struggle in this area of the new and poorer nations Will be a continuing crisis of this decade.
Mr. Khrushchev made one point which I wish to pass on. He said there are many disorders throughout the world, and he should not be blamed for them all. He is quite right. It is easy to dismiss as Communist-inspired every anti-government or anti-American riot, every overthrow of a corrupt regime, or every mass protest against misery and despair. These are not all Communist-inspired. The Communists move in to exploit them, to infiltrate their leadership, to ride their crest to victory. But the Communists did not create the conditions which caused them.
In short, the hopes for freedom in these areas which see so much poverty and illiteracy, so many children who are sick, so many children- who die in the first year, so many families without homes, so many families without hope-the future for freedom in these areas rests with the local peoples and their governments.
If they have the will to determine their own future, if their governments have the support of their own people, if their honest and progressive measures-helping their people-have inspired confidence and zeal, then no guerrilla or insurgent action can succeed. But where those conditions do not exist, a military guarantee against external attack from across a border offers little protection against internal decay.
Yet all this does not mean that our Nation and the West and the free world can only sit by. On the contrary, we have an historic opportunity to help these countries build their societies until they are so strong and broadly based that only an outside invasion could topple them, and that threat, we know, can be stopped.
We can train and equip their forces to resist Communist-supplied insurrections. We can help develop the industrial and agricultural base on which new living standards can be built. We can encourage better administration and better education and better tax and land distribution and a better life for the people.
All this and more we can do because we have the talent and the resources to do it, if we will only use and share them. I know that there is a great deal of feeling in the United States that we have carried the burden of economic assistance long enough, but these countries that we are now supporting-stretching all the way along from the top of Europe through the Middle East, down through Saigon-are now subject to great efforts internally, in many of them, to seize control.
If we're not prepared to assist them in making a better life for their people, then I believe that the prospects for freedom in those areas are uncertain. We must, I believe, assist them if we are determined to meet with commitments of assistance our words against the Communist advance. The burden is heavy; we have carried it for many years. But I believe that this fight is not over. This battle goes on, and we have to play our part in it. And therefore I hope again that we will assist these people so that they can remain free.
It was fitting that Congress opened its hearings on our new foreign military and economic aid programs in Washington at the very time that Mr. Khrushchev's words in Vienna were demonstrating as nothing else could the need for that very program. It should be well run, effectively administered, but I believe we must do it, and I hope that you, the American people, will support it again, because I think it's vitally important to the security of these areas. There is no use talking against the Communist advance unless we're willing to meet our responsibilities, however burdensome they may be.
I do not justify this aid merely on the grounds of anti-Communism. It is a recognition of our opportunity and obligation to help these people be free, and we are not alone.
I found that the people of France, for example, were doing far more in Africa in the way of aiding independent nations than our own country was. But I know that foreign aid is a burden that is keenly felt and I can only say that we have no more crucial obligation now.
My stay in England was short but the visit gave me a chance to confer privately again with Prime Minister Macmillan, just as others of our party in Vienna were conferring yesterday with General de Gaulle and Chancellor Adenauer. We all agreed that there is work to be done in the West and from our conversations have come agreed steps to get on with that work. Our day in London, capped by a meeting with Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip was a strong reminder at the end of a long journey that the West remains united in its determination to hold to its standards.
May I conclude by saying simply that I am glad to be home. We have on this trip admired splendid places and seen stirring sights, but we are glad to be home. No demonstration of support abroad could mean so much as the support which you, the American people, have so generously given to our country. With that support I am not fearful of the future. We must be patient. We must be determined. We must be courageous. We must accept both risks and burdens, but with the will and the work freedom will prevail.
Good night, and thank you very much.
President Kennedy's Attack On The Steel Companies 10/22/62
The President: I have several announcements to make.
[I.] Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steel corporations increasing steel prices by some $6 a ton constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest. In this serious hour in our Nation's history, when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking reservists to leave their homes and families for months on end and servicemen to risk their lives- and four were killed in the last 2 days in Vietnam-and asking union members to hold down their wage requests at a time when restraint and sacrifice are being asked of every citizen, the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans.
If this rise in the cost of steel is imitated by the rest of the industry, instead of rescinded, it would increase the cost of homes, autos, appliances, and most other items for every American family. It would increase the cost of machinery and tools to every American businessman and farmer. It would seriously handicap our efforts to prevent an inflationary spiral from eating up the pensions of our older citizens, and our new gains in purchasing power.
It would add, Secretary McNamara informed me this morning, an estimated $1 billion to the cost of our defenses, at a time when every dollar is needed for national security and other purposes. It would make it more difficult for American goods to compete in foreign markets, more difficult to withstand competition from foreign imports, and thus more difficult to improve our balance of payments position, and stem the flow of gold. And it is necessary to stem it for our national security, if we're going to pay for our security commitments abroad. And it would surely handicap our efforts to induce other industries and unions to adopt responsible price and wage policies. The facts of the matter are that there is no justification for an increase in steel prices. The recent settlement between the industry and the union, which does not even take place until July 1st, was widely acknowledged to be non-inflationary, and the whole purpose and effect of this administration's role, which both parties understood, was to achieve an agreement which would make unnecessary any increase in prices. Steel output per man is rising so fast that labor costs per ton of steel can actually be expected to decline in the next 12 months. And in fact, the Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics informed me this morning that, and I quote, "employment costs per unit of steel output in 1961 were essentially the same as they were in 1958." The cost of the major raw materials, steel scrap and coal, has also been declining, and for an industry which has been generally operating at less than two-thirds of capacity, its profit rate has been normal and can be expected to rise sharply this year in view of the reduction in idle capacity. Their lot has been easier than that of one hundred thousand steel workers thrown out of work in the last 3 years. The industry's cash dividends have exceeded $600 million in each of the last 5 years, and earnings in the first quarter of this year were estimated in the February 28th Wall Street Journal to be among the highest in history. In short, at a time when they could be exploring how more efficiency and better prices could be obtained, reducing prices in this industry in recognition of lower costs, their unusually good labor contract, their foreign competition and their increase in production and profits which are coming this year, a few gigantic corporations have decided to increase prices in ruthless disregard of their public responsibilities. The Steelworkers Union can be proud that it abided by its responsibilities in this agreement, and this Government also has responsibilities which we intend to meet. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are examining the significance of this action in a free, competitive economy. The Department of Defense and other agencies are reviewing its impact on their policies of procurement. And I am informed that steps are under way by those members of the Congress who plan appropriate inquiries into how these price decisions are so quickly made and reached and what legislative safeguards may be needed to protect the public interest. Price and wage decisions in this country, except for a very limited restriction in the case of monopolies and national emergency strikes, are and ought to be freely and privately made. But the American people have a right to expect, in return for that freedom, a higher sense of business responsibility for the welfare of their country than has been shown in the last 2 days. Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer.
[2.] I've got one other statement here. Mr. Hatcher is going to release a statement in regard to the release of the Guards. Let me say in summary that Secretary McNamara and I have carefully reviewed our progress in achieving permanent increases in our military strength. We have concluded that the rate of progress of this effort is such that if there is no serious deterioration in the international situation between now and August, we shall be able in that month to release all those who were called involuntarily. Our continuing strength after this release will be much increased over what it was a year ago. Just as an example, the number of our combat-ready Army divisions in active service after the release will be 16, as against 11 a year ago. The release is not the result of any marked change in the international situation, which continues to have many dangers and tensions. It is the result, rather, of our successful buildup of permanent instead of emergency strength. The units we release will remain available, in a new and heightened state of combat readiness if a new crisis should arise requiring their further service. I know that I speak for all of our countrymen in expressing our appreciation to all those who've served under the adverse conditions of living in camps and being taken away from their families. And their service and the willingness of the great, great majority of all of them to do this uncomplainingly, I think, should be an inspiration to every American.
[3.] And lastly, last Saturday I issued an Executive order creating a Board of Inquiry to inquire into the issues involved in the current labor dispute in the west coast maritime industry. The Board of Inquiry filed its written report with me today. In its unanimous report, the Board stated:
"The current strike, if continued, will affect approximately 130 cargo and passenger ships, including those which constitute the principal mode of transportation of passengers and vital cargo to and from the State of Hawaii."
Other reports I have received clearly manifest that a continuation of this strike imperils the national health and safety. I have therefore instructed the Attorney General to seek an injunction against this strike under the national emergency provisions of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947- While an injunction will restore the west coast maritime industry to full operation and return the striking members to work for 8o days, it should not, and I hope will not, interfere in any way with efforts towards full settlement. I call upon the parties to make that effort, to achieve that settlement quickly. However, the public interest does not permit further delay in applying for an injunction. Consequently, I have made the decision to direct the Attorney General to apply for an appropriate order.
[4.] Q. Mr. President, the unusually strong language which you used in discussing the steel situation would indicate that you might be considering some pretty strong action. Are you thinking in terms of requesting or reviving the need for wage-price controls?
THE PRESIDENT. I think that my statement states what the situation is today. This is a free country. In all the conversations which were held by members of this administration and myself with the leaders of the steel union and the companies, it was always very obvious that they could proceed with freedom to do what they thought was best within the limitations of law. But I did very clearly emphasize on every occasion that my only interest was in trying to secure an agreement which would not provide an increase in prices, because I thought that price stability in steel would have the most far-reaching consequences for industrial and economic stability and for our position abroad, and price instability would have the most far-reaching consequences in making our lot much more difficult. When the agreement was signed, and the agreement was a moderate one and within the range of productivity increases, as I've said, actually, there will be reduction in cost per unit during the next year-I thought, I was hopeful, we'd achieved our goal. Now the actions that will be taken will be- are being now considered by the administration. The Department of Justice is particularly anxious, in view of the very speedy action of the companies who have entirely different economic problems facing them than did United States Steel-the speed with which they moved, it seems to me, to require an examination of our present laws, and whether they're being obeyed, by the Federal Trade Commission and particularly the Department of Justice. I'm very interested in the respective investigations that will be conducted in the House and Senate, and whether we shall need additional legislation, which I would come to very reluctantly. But I must say the last 24 hours indicates that those with great power are not always concerned about the national interest.
Q. In your conversation with Mr. Blough yesterday, did you make a direct request that this price increase be either deferred or rescinded?
THE PRESIDENT. I was informed about the price increase after the announcement had gone out to the papers. I told Mr. Blough of my very keen disappointment and what I thought would be the most unfortunate effects of it. And of course we were hopeful that other companies who, as I've said, have a different situation in regard to profits and all of the rest than U.S. Steel, they're all-have a somewhat different economic situation.
I was hopeful particularly in view of the statement in the paper by the president of Bethlehem in which he stated-though now he says he's misquoted- that there should be no price increase, and we are investigating that statement. I was hopeful that the others would not follow the example, that therefore the pressures of the competitive marketplace would bring United States Steel back to their original prices. But the parade began. But it came to me after the decision was made. There was no prior consultation or information given to the administration.
[5.] Q. Mr. President, now that General Clay is coming home from Berlin, don't you think that the service wives have borne the brunt of our gold shortage long enough, and should be permitted to join their soldier husbands in Europe? After all, you can almost say that service couples have had to bear a cross of gold alone, and in a very lonely way. And spring is here and every. one knows that the Gl's-[Iaughterl get into much less trouble and do their jobs better if their wives and kids are with them.
THE PRESIDENT. I agree. And, we're very sympathetic. We are trying to make an analysis of how important this saving is to our general problem. As I've said, it costs us $3 billion to maintain our forces and bases overseas. That money must be earned by a surplus of exports over imports. And that's I've asked Secretary McNamara to try to reduce that in the next 12 to 18 months by $1,100,000,000, in order to try to bring this gold flow into balance. And that means taking a third out of the Defense Department without reducing its strength. So that's why these women are bearing hard. ships-and these families. And that's why I contrasted such unhappiness to the last 24 hours, because the fact of the matter is, if we're not able to compete, this results in a larger increase of imports from foreign markets, and therefore lowers our dollar values-and those wives are going to have to stay home.
[6.] Q. Mr. President, when the Strategic Air Command had a false alarm for a few moments last fall, were you notified? And if not, do you think you should have been? And have you made arrangements to be, if there are any cases in the future?
THE PRESIDENT. That story, in my opinion, was overstated. There was a breach in the communications between the base at Thule and at-and our Continental Command. As you know, we were in a 15 minute alert. This lasted for a few seconds. General Power alerted those forces which were on a standby basis. There are constant drills. It was not that we were, as I saw in some papers-primarily those in Europe-a few seconds from war, because the fact of the matter is it would have taken many, many-several hours before they could have taken off and begun to fly, and we were always in control. So that I thought General Power took the right action before anything was done which would in any way have threatened the security of the United States. Of course, the communication would have come immediately. But there is always this problem of being on the alert.
[7.] Q. Mr. President, if I could get back to steel for a minute, you mentioned an investigation into the suddenness of the decision to increase prices. Did you-is the position of the administration that it believed it had the assurance of the steel industry at the time of the recent labor agreement that it would not increase prices?
THE PRESIDENT. We did not ask either side to give us any assurance, because there is a very proper limitation to the power of the Government in this free economy. All we did in our meetings was to emphasize how important it was that there be price stability, and we stressed that our whole purpose in attempting to persuade the union to begin to bargain early and to make an agreement which would not affect prices, of course, was for the purpose of maintaining price stability. That was the thread that ran through every discussion which I had or Secretary Goldberg had. We never at any time asked for a commitment in regard to the terms, precise terms, of the agreement from either Mr. McDonald or Mr. Blough, representing the steel company, because in our opinion that is-would be passing over the line of propriety. But I don't think that there was any question that our great interest in attempting to secure the kind of settlement that was finally secured was to maintain price stability, which we regard as very essential at this particular time. That agreement provided for price stability-up to yesterday.
[8.] Q. Mr. President, could you interpret for us the significance of General Clay's return? Does it mean that the administration now believes that the Berlin crisis is negotiable?
THE PRESIDENT. No, no. When he came with us, as you know, he was the responsible officer in the Continental Can Company. And he said he would take a leave of absence to January. And then in January we asked him to stay further. But he has said for several months now that he really felt that his obligation was to return. We have-he's recommended very highly the responsible Americans who are there. When he comes back tomorrow I'm going to ask him, and I'm sure he will respond, to continue to act as consultant to me on the matter of Berlin; to make periodic visits and to be available to return there at any time that we should conclude that his presence would be valuable. So that we have-I notice Mayor Brandt said that General Clay might be more helpful to the cause here than he would be even there. And I think what the Mayor meant was that his experience there and his work in the last 7 months would be very valuable to the administration. So his service continues and the problem of Berlin continues.
[9.] Q. In your statement on the steel industry, sir, you mentioned a number of instances which would indicate that the cost of living will go up for many people if this price increase were to remain effective. In your opinion, does that give the steelworkers the right to try to obtain some kind of a price-or a wage increase to catch up?
THE PRESIDENT. No. Rather interestingly, the last contract was signed on Saturday with Great Lakes, so that the steel union is bound for a year, and of course, I'm sure would have felt like going much further if the matter had worked out as we had all hoped. But they've made their agreement and I'm sure they are going to stick with it. It does not provide for the sort of action you've suggested.
Q. Still on steel, Senator Gore advocated today legislation to regulate steel prices somewhat in the manner that public utility prices are regulated and his argument seemed to be that the steel industry had sacrificed some of the privileges of the free market because it wasn't really setting its prices on a supply and demand, but what he called administered prices. Your statement earlier, and your remarks since, indicate a general agreement with that kind of approach. Is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't think that I'd stated that. I'd have to look and see what Senator Gore has suggested, and I'm not familiar with it. What I said was that we should examine what can be done to try to minimize the impact on the public interest of these decisions, but though we had, of course, always hoped that those involved would recognize that. I would say that what must disturb Senator Gore and Congressman Celler and others-Senator Kefauver-will be the suddenness by which every company in the last few hours, one by one as the morning went by, came in with their almost, if not identical, almost identical price increases, which isn't really the way we expect the competitive private enterprise system
[10.] Q. Mr. President, would you clarify, please, the United States position in the New Guinea dispute between the Netherlands and Indonesia? Recently there have been reports of displeasure from the Netherlands that proposals put forward by the United States were not fair to the Netherlands.
THE PRESIDENT. Well, I agree, I think everybody is displeased, really, with our role because our role is an attempt-Ambassador Bunker's role has been, under the direction of U Thant, to try to see if we can bring some adjustment to prevent a military action which would be harmful to the interests both countries, with which we desire to be friendly. So I suppose it's hard to think of any proposal that we could make which would be welcome on both sides.
I'm hopeful that if we can be useful, we' continue to try to be. If both sides feel that we cannot be, then perhaps others can take on this assignment, or perhaps it can be done bilaterally. But I-Ambassador Bunker is a diplomat of long experience and great skill and our only interest is to see if we can have a peaceful solution which we think is in the long-range interest of the free world, of our allies-with whom we're allied- the Dutch and the Indonesians, whom we would like to see stay free. So that the role the mediator is not a happy one, and we're prepared to have everybody mad, if it makes some progress.
[11.] Q. Mr. President, in connection with the steel situation again, is there not action that could be taken by the executive branch in connection with direct procurement of steel under the administration of the Agency for International Aid- I mean the aid agency. For example I think the Government buys about a million tons of steel. Now, could not the Government decide that only steel- that steel should be purchased only at the price, say, of yesterday, rather than today?
THE PRESIDENT. That matter was considered, as a matter of fact, in a conversation between the Secretary of Defense and myself.
Now, at no time did anyone suggest that if such an agreement was gained that it would be still necessary to put up prices. That word did not come until last night.
[12.] Q. Mr. President, there has bee a price increase in Cuba as well. Mr. Castro has increased the price that he's put on human life in the release or tentative release of the prisoners captured in the abortive invasion attempt last year. Would you comment on this, please?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that all of us had hoped that the day when men were put on the block had long ago passed from this hemisphere. And it had from every country, until very recently in Cuba. I think Mr. Castro knows that the United States Government cannot engage in a negotiation like that, and he knows very well that the families cannot raise these millions of dollars. It's rather interesting, so what he has done really in effect is sentence them to 30 years in prison. It's rather interesting that Castro himself, when he engaged in an operation under a dictator whom we've been harshly critical of- that he was let out of prison after an open trial in 15 months. He regards for his own countrymen- not the countrymen who from his point of view may have been wrong, but who fought in the open, and who took their chances, and were young men- he regards the appropriate treatment for them and for thousands of other Cubans to be this long prison sentence of 30 years which, in my opinion, is why Mr. Castro is increasingly isolated in the company of free men.
[13.] Q. Mr. President, the steel industry is one of a half dozen which has been expecting tax benefits this summer through revision of the depreciation schedules. Does this price hike affect the administration's actions in this area?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, it affects our budget. Secretary Dillon and I discussed it this morning. Of course, all this matter is being very carefully looked into now.
[14.] Q. The Presidents of Mexico and of Brazil announced a principle of adherence to non-intervention between the Communist and the capitalist blocs. Does this accord with what President Goulart told you when he was here in Washington?
THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I haven't seen the joint statement, but I'm sure it does. I think we are bound together through the Organization of American States, and it's difficult to comment on a joint statement that I've not read, but I think President Goulart says the same in Mexico as he does in Washington.
[15.] Q. Mr. President, General Lemnitzer has recently conferred our Legion of Merit on a Japanese officer who apparently planned the Pearl Harbor attack. Can you think of any particular reason for this award?
THE PRESIDENT. Yes. The reason given was that he had been a distinguished officer of the Japanese Air Force; that his relations with the United States had been extremely cooperative. He was acting as a military officer. And I- I think that this kind of the days of the war are over, and I thought that it was appropriate. He's a distinguished flyer, and while we all regret Pearl Harbor and everything else-but we are in a new era in our relations with Japan, fortunately.
[16.] Q. Sir, what are you going to do about the American soldiers getting killed in Viet-Nam?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, I'm extremely concerned about American soldiers who are in a great many areas in hazard. We are attempting to help Viet-Nam maintain its independence and not fall under the domination of the Communists. The Government has stated that it needs our assistance in doing it. It's very-and it presents a very hazardous operation, in the same sense that World War II, World War I, Korea- a good many thousands and hundreds of thousands of Americans died. So that these four sergeants are in that long roll. But we cannot desist in Viet-Nam. And I think that it is the fact that these men, operating very far from home, very far indeed from Saigon, under great danger-and there are many others-the fact of their contributions, as well as the Wisconsin and Texas National Guard, it is in that setting that I look at the present actions.
Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President.
NOTE: President Kennedy's thirtieth news conference was held in the State Department Auditorium at : o o'clock on Wednesday afternoon, April 11, 1962.
Kennedy's Address On The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty- 1963
Good evening my fellow citizens:
Peace around the world, and progress here at home, represent the hopes of all Americans. In the next 7 days the Congress will make crucial decisions in both areas. The United States Senate will vote on the treaty outlawing nuclear tests in the atmosphere. It is the first concrete limitation on the nuclear arms race since the bomb was invented. It enables all men and women, East and West, free and slave, now and in the future, to be free from radioactive fallout. It affords us all a small sign of hope that war can be averted; that the terrible destructive power of nuclear weapons can be abolished before they abolish us; that our children can inhabit a world in which freedom is secure, and the air is pure.
I have no doubt that the nuclear test ban treaty will be approved by the Senate, and by a margin large enough to show the world that the American people want a just peace.
The other crucial vote, which is in the House of Representatives, affects every individual and every business in the United States, and the taxes we pay to the Federal Government. No more important legislation will come before the Congress this year than the bill before the House next week to reduce Federal taxes. In fact, no more important domestic economic legislation has come before the Congress in some 15 years. It is urgently needed and I hope you will support it in the national interest.
The Federal income tax is one of those subjects about which we talk, about which we complain, but about which not very much is done. Perhaps we have heard too long about the certainty of "death and taxes." Perhaps other national and international issues now seem more pressing. Yet, the fact is that the high wartime and postwar tax rates we are now paying are no longer necessary. They are, in fact, harmful. These high rates do not leave enough money in private hands to keep this country's economy growing and healthy. They have helped to cause recessions in previous years, including 1958 and 1960, and unless they are reduced, they can cause recessions again.
The bill on which the House will vote next week is a sound bill and we need it for many reasons. First, a tax cut means more jobs for American workers; more after-tax money means more buying power for consumers and investors; and this means more production and the jobs our Nation needs. Merely to reduce unemployment to a more acceptable level in the next 21/2 years, we must create more than 10,000 new jobs every day. We cannot effectively attack the problem of teenage crime and delinquency as long as so many of our young people are out of work. We cannot effectively solve the problem of racial injustice as long as unemployment is high. We cannot tackle the problem of automation when we are losing 1 million jobs every year to machines.
Second, a tax cut means new protection against another tragic recession. I do not say that a recession is inevitable without a tax Cut, or impossible with one, but, excluding war years, we have had a recession on the average every 42 months since World War II, or every 44 months since World War I, and by next January it will be 44 months since the last recession began. Recessions mean high unemployment and high budget deficits. Of all kinds of waste, they are the worst. We need a tax cut to keep this present drive from running out of gas.
And third a tax cut means new markets for American business. American citizens will spend, as history shows us, an overwhelming percentage of the extra, after-tax dollars left in their pockets, and this spending will broaden markets for businessmen, put idle machines to work, and require new machines and new factories to be built. The multiplied effect of these new private consumption and investment expenditures released by the tax cut will create a new market right here at home nearly equal to the gross national product of Canada and Australia combined.
Fourth, a tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced Federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education, and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the Federal Government will ultimately end up with more revenues.
Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. Our tax rates are so high today that the growth of profits and pay checks in this country have been stunted. Our tax revenues have been depressed and our books for 7 out of the last 10 years have been in the red. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and bring finally our budget into balance, and to assist further in this effort we have pledged an even tighter rein on Federal expenditures, limiting our outlays to those activities which are fully essential to the Nation. Spending will be controlled and our deficit will be reduced.
Fifth, and finally, a tax cut means new strength around the world for the American dollar and for freedom. A tax cut can help us balance our international accounts and end the outflow of gold by helping make the American economy more efficient and more productive and more competitive, by enabling our goods to compete with those who are developing foreign factories, and by making investment in America more attractive than investment abroad. And a tax cut will help us convince other countries of the advantages of freedom by helping to end the long-term poverty, of chronic unemployment and depressed areas which mark our country.
For all these reasons, this bill deserves your support. I do not say it will solve all of our economic problems; no single measure can do that. We need to advance on many other fronts, on education, in job retraining, in area redevelopment, in youth employment, and the rest, but this bill is the keystone of the arch.
Of course, it is always possible to find fault with any bill, to suggest delays or to attach reservations. It is always possible for someone to say, "I am for the tax cut if other conditions are met, or when certain changes have been made, or some other versions at some future tune," but if we are to make the most of what this bill has to offer in creating jobs, in fighting recession, and balancing our international payments, it must not be diluted by amendments or conditions. It must not be sent back to the House Ways and Means Committee. It must not be put off until next year.
This Nation needs a tax cut now, not a tax cut if and when, but a tax cut now, and for the future. This Nation needs a tax cut now that will benefit every family, every business, in every part of the Nation.
Some of you may not be fully aware of the problems of those who face unemployment. Most families are doing better than ever. Another recession or the pains of economic insecurity or deprivation may seem very far away tonight, but they are not so far away if you look around your neighborhood or this country of ours. If you live in a growing community or a prosperous neighborhood, see for yourself the conditions of those who cannot find work, those who live in depression. If your son is in high school or college, take a look at the plight of those who have dropped out and the millions of young people pouring into our labor markets. Seven million more young people will come into the labor market in the sixties than did in the fifties, and we have to find work for them. Your children will be aware of this when they go to find a job. Life looks rosy to those with highly trained skills that are in widespread demand, but we must not forget about the less trained and the less skilled who may not be in demand.
If we cannot create more jobs-and let me emphasize again, to get unemployment down to an acceptable level in the next 21/2 years we need 10 million new jobs-where are we going to find them? I think we can only find them if the economy of this country grows as it must, and that is why I propose this bill tonight.
If we permit unemployment to grow, if we move into another recession, then no worker can be sure of his job and no businessman can be sure of his future, and nobody can point to the United States as a vital, dynamic economy.
So I ask you to consider the hopes and fears of those out of work in your own community and in your country, whether they are very young or very old, Negro or white, in need of training or retraining. A tax cut will help them to find jobs. It will help everyone increase his income and it will help prevent the spread of unemployment.
There are, in fact, as many people out of work today, men and women in this country of ours, in a prosperous year, as there have been in some recession years. We are the only country, nearly, in the West which has such a large percentage of unemployed. We get properly excited about a labor dispute which idles thousands of workers, but our loss from excessive unemployment in recent years has been 20 times as great as our loss from strikes, and I say again in the next 21/2 years we need 10,000 new jobs every day for a total of 10 million jobs.
That is what this tax cut can help to give us. That is why this problem affects every citizen and that is why this bill provides, from top to bottom, across-the-board tax reduction on both personal and corporate income. Under this bill, every wage earner in the country will take home more money every week beginning January 1st. Every businessman will pay a lower tax rate. Low income families and small businessmen will get a special tax relief, and the unemployed worker who gets a new job will find his income going up many times.
Here is how it will work:
A factory earner with three dependents earning $90 a week will have his taxes reduced by a third. The typical American family, a father, mother, and two children, earning about $6,000 a year, now pays an annual tax of $600. This bill will cut that tax by 25 percent.
A salaried employee with a wife and two children who earns $8,000 a year will receive a tax cut of more than 20 percent that will enable him perhaps to pay the installments on a car or a dishwasher or some other necessary expense, thereby creating work for others.
These individual benefits, of course, are important, but the most important benefit goes to the Nation as a whole. As these typical families, and millions like them across our country, spend that extra money on dishwashers, or clothes, or a washing machine, or an encyclopedia, or a longer vacation trip, or a down payment on a new car or a new home, that is what makes jobs. The businesses which serve them need to hire more men and women. The men and women who are hired have more money to spend. The companies who sell these items have more incentive to invest, to improve, and to expand their operation. More young people out of school can find work an d the danger of recession then becomes less.
Recessions, as I have said, in this country have been too harmful and too frequent, and have become more so. Between the first and second postwar recession, we had 45 months of upturn. Between the second and third, 35 months. Between the third and fourth, 25 months. We have now had 31 months of steady upturn. I would like to see us skip a recession. I would like to see us release $11 billion of after-tax purchasing power into the private economy before another downturn can begin. That is why this bill is insurance for prosperity and insurance against recession.
Recessions are not inevitable. They have not occurred in Europe for 10 years, and I believe that some day in this country we can wipe them out. We already have the ability to reduce their frequency, their importance, and their duration, and this tax cut is the single most important weapon that we can now add.
The support in this country for a tax cut crosses political lines. It includes small businessmen, workers and farmers, economists, and educators. Very few are openly opposed, of course, to cutting taxes, but there are those who for one reason or another hope to delay this bill, or to attach ruinous amendments, or to water down its effects. They want to deny our country the full benefits of tax reduction because they say there is waste in Government. There may be, and we are working to get rid of it, but let us not forget the waste in 4 million unemployed men and women, with a prospect of still more unemployment if this bill does not pass.
There are those who talk about inflation when, in fact, prices have been steady, wholesale prices have been wholly steady for the last 5 yearsa record unmatched in our history and unmatched in any other countryand when persistent slack in our economy threatens us far more with recession than with inflation. Those who are opposed talk about the Federal debt, when the actual burden of that debt on our economy is being steadily reduced. Since World War II, the national debt has gone up 11 percent while our national output has gone up nearly 300 percent in contrast to State and local government, which has risen nearly 400 percenttheir debtin the same period as opposed to the Federal Government's 11 percent.
Those who are opposed to this bill talk about skyrocketing Federal employment when, in fact, we have steadily reduced the number of Federal employees serving every 1000 people in this country. In fact, there are fewer Federal civilian employees today than there were 10 years ago. We have reduced waste and improved efficiency at the Pentagon and in the Post Office, in the farm programs, and in other agencies throughout the Government.
Section I of this bill, as Chairman Mills of the House Ways and Means Committee pointed out, makes clear that voting for this bill is a choice of tax reduction, instead of deliberate deficits, as the principal means of boosting the economy and finding jobs for our people. No wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary Government activity will be tolerated. We are pledged to a course of true fiscal responsibility, leading to a balanced budget in a balanced, full-employment economy.
My fellow citizens, this is a matter which affects our country and its future. We are talking about more jobs; we are talking about the future of our country, about its strength and growth and stability as the leader of the free world. We are talking about helping people, people who have been looking for work for a long time in Eastern Kentucky, in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, the steel towns of Ohio, Gary, Indiana, Southern Illinois, other parts of our country, some of our mill towns; we are talking about a tax cut in the pockets of our people that will help create jobs and income for everyone.
We are talking, as I said at the start, about one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before the Congress this yearthe most important domestic economic measure to come before the Congress in 15 years. That bill could be weakened or deferred. It could be put off for another year. It could be cut down. It needs your support. This is not a question of party. It is a question of the growth of our country, of the jobs and security of our people. It is a question of whether our taxpayers and businessmen and workers will get the help they deserve.
As the Congress prepares next week to vote on this measure, I strongly urge you to support this bill for your family's sake and for your country's sake.
Thank you very much, and good night.
Return to John F. Kennedy Homepage
|
|
|
|
|
|
The U. S. Constitution
