Editing 76-16-A2 (section)

=== Transcript ===
The House of Representatives has voted to eliminate the law known as the
Hatch Act. And, because this program is pre-recorded prior to my going out
on the mashed-potato circuit, it's possible that by the time you hear this
the U.S. Senate may have done likewise. With all my heart I pray it has not.

Eliminating the Hatch Act is one of the major features of the Administration's
so-called election reform proposals.

During the House debate, the Hatch Act has been portrayed as some kind of
monstrous restriction on the rights of federal employees. They have been
pitied as second-class citizens who are being denied the inalienable rights
available to the rest of us. And, if you didn't look very carefully to see
who was spouting this drivel, you probably never noticed that it wasn't coming
from those so-called "second-class citizens" at all. Public employees remember
better than the rest of us why the Hatch act was passed in 1939.

Well, it's time for a reminder; time to recall the massive scandals, the
coercion of government workers that was standard operating procedure at election
time. It was commonplace then for Federal employees to be ordered to attend
partisan political rallies, to switch their party registration and to be shaken
down for political contributions.

Congressman Joe Fisher of Virginia tried to tell his fellow House members
what it was like to be a government employee pre-1939. They should have
listened, because he spoke from experience. Representative Fisher was a civil
servant in Washington in 1939. He said government workers hailed the Hatch Act
as landmark legislation to protect them and to better their working conditions.
It banned political coercion and restricted employee's own activities in
campaigns, yet it did not prohibit them from supporting candidates of their
choice or wearing campaign buttons or contributing if they so desired.

A poll taken while Congress was debating the repeal causes one to wonder
who the Members of the House thought they were pleasing. Common Cause --
usually on the liberal side of any issue -- opposed eliminating the Hatch Act
and provided some public opinion poll results. Of the total respondents to the
poll by Decision Making Information, 74 per cent opposed changing the act,
as did 71 per cent of union members. That's significant, because the union
hierarchy was promoting the repeal. Among public employees, 81 per cent of the
non-unionized government workers and 61 per cent of those in unions did not want
the Hatch Act tampered with. But politicians and labor bosses did.

Government workers know better than anyone else the subtle pressures that
can be applied, so they aren't very impressed with promises they've heard that
they'll be protected. Those making the promises are the ones who voted to take
away their protection.

Forms of compulsion are many if someone wants to invoke the multitudinous
rules and regulations to make the civil servant's life miserable or to put a
"dead end" sign in the path of his career. It's very easy to let a government
employee know that if he or she wants to get along -- they'd better go along.

I saw enough examples of this when I was Governor and conscientious state
employees cooperated in economies displeasing to the entrenched bureaucracy.
It can be done so subtly that you are powerless to help the victim or even prove
it's going on.

If when you hear this, the Senate has not yet acted, write your Senator.

This is Ronald Reagan.

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