Editing 78-02-B7 (section)

= Miscellaneous =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Today I have several items from the marble halls of government.

Here's one for starters. In the last two years business and industry in
the U.S. have actually created seven million new jobs. The Federal Government
is still talking about an $8.8 Billion job program to put one million four
hundred thousand people to work in jobs the government will create. That pro-rates
out to about 6300 tax dollars per job. Yet, the seven million I first mentioned
didn't cost the tax payers anything.

It's nice to hear the Administration talking about a tax cut. That is, after
they've raised the Social Security tax and added on the new energy taxes. It's
hard to envision government costing less when the Equal Employment Opportunity
commission, which started out in 1965 with a budget of Two-and-a-half million
dollars now has one of $66,850,000.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (O.S.H.A.) has only been
a round seven years. It's budget has gone up 758%--from a little over $15 million
to more than 130 million. The Environmental Protection agency is a bureaucratic
piker by comparison. It only increased its budget 114% in seven years. Of course
it raised the price of things we purchase by tens of billions of dollars with
it's sometimes nonsensical rulings.

Here are a couple of quotes that may explain why there have been some meetings
in Washington lately about simplifying bureaucratic language. The Internal Revenue
service is still trying to explain how to fill out our income tax returns.
Somehow I don't think the following quote from the Tax Code will help - "For
purposes of paragraph 3, an organization described in paragraph 2 shall be
deemed to include an organization described in Section 501 (C) - 4,5, or 6 -
which should be described in paragraph 2 if it were an organization described in
Section 501 (C) 3." And all this time you thought a tax return was complicated.

But if you are a farmer you might have trouble with this little number from
the Department of Agriculture, - QUOTE-"The failure of the private market to
internalize all the externalities in production and consumption associated with an
urban economy established the observed distribution of city sizes as an upper
bound on the range of socially optimism city sizes." -- UNQUOTE -- And that, I submit,
cannot possibly have any meaning at all--even for the fellow who wrote it.

Here's one thought to make you feel good. Last summer, it seems, there was
a big and lengthy coal mining strike in Rumania. The government suppressed all
news of this strike. But, thanks to one correspondent, the truth came out
recently, including the reason for the news blackout. The miners told the top
leader in Rumania they wanted to go back to capitalism. 

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>01/27/[[Radio1978|1978]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-007-2024.pdf#PAGE=32 Online PDF]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD></TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>