| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
| | <TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2"> | | <TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2"> |
| | === Transcript === | | === Transcript === |
| − | Conflicting goals in the president's energy proposals may cause the plan to flounder in Congress. There's another alternative. I'll be right back.
| + | Not Available yet. This code is a placeholder. |
| − | | |
| − | The president's tax reduction and energy proposal spelled out in the State of the Union message may add up to a case of the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away. On the one hand, he's called for a rebate on your 1974 taxes, up to a thousand dollars per return, and a permanent deduction in tax withholding rates beginning in June. This will generate huge new federal deficits of 30 billion dollars this fiscal year and at least 45 billion next year. Unless they're offset by deductions in federal spending, they'll cause a new steep round of inflation. The president called for a moratorium on new spending programs, but there should be an actual cut in present levels of spending.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The fee on imported oil, beginning in April, will be passed along to the customer at the pump in the form of a gasoline price increase of about 10 cents a gallon. If you drive a thousand miles a month and have a 15-mile-a-gallon car, you'll be spending about $7.50 more a month on gasoline and that's ninety dollars a year. It'd cut sharply into your tax reduction if you're in a low tax bracket. Some argue that the people who would benefit most from the tax reduction program would suffer most from the gasoline price increase. Complicating the argument is the president's desire to reduce, as quickly as possible, our dependence on foreign oil. He believes that higher gas prices via the oil import fees will bring about reduced consumption. I believe there's a better way to do that. I don't believe we've really tried voluntary conservation. Last year, the people showed a willingness to cut back and save on fuel when they were convinced there was a real need. With the lifting of the Arab boycott, no effort was made to make us realize the energy shortage is real, Even when we have Arab oil.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The American people can rise to the occasion if they're persuasively and regularly reminded of the problem and the need to solve it. Last year's shortages and resulting conservation measures have had some lasting effects. In some states, gasoline consumption is still below that of the pre-shortage months. Congress should act immediately on the president's proposals calling for deregulation of domestic fuel production. It is true this could have the effect of increasing prices somewhat and the oil companies could very possibly find profits going up because of it, but it would be very easy to tie a string to the deregulation, require the oil companies to plow the increased revenues into more research, exploration and development of domestic fuel sources to further hasten that day of independence.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Senator Jackson, Melvin Laird and the others who are calling for gasoline rationing have little faith in you and your neighbors. They assume that you won't cut back unless a government edict of some sort forces you to. We have only to look back to gasoline rationing in world war two to realize that it's no solution. We required an army of price monitors, inspectors, and watchers to watch the watchers, and still there was a black market and inequities in distribution. The president said he would veto any mandatory rationing bill presented to him and he should have our full support in that stand.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the meantime, a concerted campaign to enlist the people's support and saving energy should begin at once, with a direct appeal from the White House. The people should be given the facts; Congress should be looking for oil instead of scapegoats. There are vast pools of oil off our shores and we should be tapping those pools, increasing our domestic production as much as possible.
| |
| − | | |
| − | This is Ronald Reagan.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Thanks for listening.
| |
| | | | |
| | </TD> | | </TD> |
| Line 30: |
Line 16: |
| | <TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%"> | | <TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%"> |
| | <TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR> | | <TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR> |
| − | <TD>Production Date</TD><TD>02/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR> | + | <TD>Production Date</TD><TD>XX/YY/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR> |
| | <TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR> | | <TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR> |
| | <TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR> | | <TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR> |
| Line 38: |
Line 24: |
| | <TR><TD VALIGN="TOP"> | | <TR><TD VALIGN="TOP"> |
| | ===Added Notes=== | | ===Added Notes=== |
| − | * ?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson Senator Jackson]?
| + | |
| − | * [https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/06/archives/energy-plan-offered-by-jackson-would-let-president-ration-gas-warns.html NY Times article about Jackson's support for gas rationing]
| |
| − | * [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_Laird Melvin Laird]
| |
| | </TD></TR> | | </TD></TR> |
| | </TABLE> | | </TABLE> |
