Editing 75-03-A1 (section)

=== Transcript ===
Does it matter whether the next federal budget is in the red by 52 billion dollars or 70 billion dollars? Yes, but not very much. I'll be right back.

[[wikipedia:Gerald_Ford|President Ford]]'s request for a budget deficit of 52 billion dollars in the next fiscal year, on top of the 35 billion dollar deficit estimated for this year, is bad news for all Americans. It means that the president has abandoned his pledge of a balanced budget for next year. A pledge he made a little more than four months ago, and has put his policy into sharp reverse. This in itself raises a deeply disturbing question. If last fall's central goal is already in this winter's ash heap, how much permanence and stability can Congress and the people read into the new or any future policy. More important, the president's request means that the debate between the administration and Congress on whether to bring runaway government spending under control has now ended.

Any debate that takes its place will not be whether the federal government must learn to live within its means but how profligate and irresponsible a government can be without either debauching the currency, squeezing business and consumers out of the money market, and heading toward the literal bankruptcy that already threatens [[wikipedia:1976_sterling_crisis|Great Britain]] and [[wikipedia:Economic_history_of_Italy#The_1970s_and_1980s:_from_stagflation_to_"il_sorpasso"|Italy]]. There'll be much hair pulling in Washington between Republicans and Democrats on whether the Congress, by refusing to enact the president's energy taxes and refusing to cut back growth on several government programs, will be ballooning the deficit from 52 billion to 70 billion or more, but even on this limited issue, President Ford may well have given away the ball game in advance.

His own projections on the continuing recession, which are much more pessimistic than the consensus of private economists, will make the democrats even more likely to add to the deficit than they were already. In the words of [[wikipedia:Murray_Weidenbaum|Murray Weidenbaum]], the former assistant secretary of the treasury, this is almost inviting the Congress to say that we need a more expansionary program. You almost wonder if they want Congress to do that. According to [[wikipedia:George_H._Mahon|Congressman George Mahon of Texas]], chairman of the [[wikipedia:United_States_House_Committee_on_Appropriations|House Appropriations Committee]], government borrowing not reflected in the budget could increase the national debt a total of between 150 billion and 170 billion dollars in the next eighteen months alone. This is borrowing on a scale almost too colossal to comprehend, about three hundred million dollars a day. Chairman predicts that such a course could, quote "heighten inflation raise interest rates and create more unemployment and further erode our confidence" unquote. As well as trigger another devaluation of the dollar. Sounding a similar theme [[wikipedia:Henry_Bellmon|Senator Henry Bellmon]] of Oklahoma has said, quote, "interest rates will go to historic highs industrial and agricultural production will stagnate export markets will be lost housing starts will be sharply reduced and jobs for American workers will be permanently destroyed." End quote.

The remarks of Dr. Weidenbaum, Congressman Mason, and Senator Bellman show that they've learned the lesson of the past several years, namely that the real root of our economic woes is imperial expansion of the federal government at the expense of producing Americans. The main cause of this mess is not business or labor but government engineered expansion and preemption of the nation's money. Until either the administration or Congress learns that lesson, the debate in Washington will be so much sound and fury signifying nothing.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">