Ronald Reagan Speech Wiki - User contributions [en]

79-14-A6

2026-08-11T14:19:23Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1979|1979]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[79-14-A5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[79-14-A7|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Defectors =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
When the [[wikipedia:Lacy-Zarubin_Agreement|Cultural Exchange Program]] between the United States and the Soviet
Union there was concern on the part of many Americans that the Soviets might try
to use it for espionage purposes. Whether they did or not I don't know, but as
it turned out the Soviets did get more than they bargained for. Or perhaps I
should say they lost more than they bargained for.

Artists and entertainers in the Soviet Union are a special class in the
"classless" society of the "Workers Paradise." They live at a higher standard
than the average Russian and have privilege's matched or exceeded by only the
hierarchy. Even so, there must be something lacking. Could it be something so
simple as individual freedom?

Late August and early September found the cultural exchange a losing deal for
the Kremlin. On August 22nd the superstar of the touring [[wikipedia:Bolshoi_Ballet|Bolshoi Ballet]], [[wikipedia:Alexander_Gudonov|Alexander
Gudonov]], walked off the stage in New York City and asked for sanctuary in this
country. On September 22nd the Bolshoi was in Los Angeles, Godunuv's replacement
[[wikipedia:Leonid_Kozlov|Leonid Kozlov]] did the same thing taking his ballerina wife [[wikipedia:Valentina_Kozlova|Vallentina]] with him.
The very next day in Switzerland where a Soviet ice show was appearing the
[[nyt:1979/09/25/archives/soviet-60s-olympic-skating-couple-defect-to-swiss-top-soviet-figure.html|top two Russian skating stars]], both Olympic champions, defected.

Of course, there have been other defections in years past, but spaced out at
greater intervals. We nave in our country the former conductor of the Soviet
national symphony, [[wikipedia:Kirill_Kondrashin|Kirin Kondrashin]], and the world renowned ballet stars [[wikipedia:Rudolf_Nureyev|Nureyev]],
[[wikipedia:Natalia_Makarova|Natalia Makarova]] and the inimitable [[wikipedia:Mikhail_Baryshnikov|Baryshnikov]]. The Kremlin theme song these days
could very well be that old World War I ditty, "[[wikipedia:How_Ya_Gonna_Keep_%27em_Down_on_the_Farm_(After_They%27ve_Seen_Paree)%3F|How You Going to Keep Them Down on
Farm After They've Seen Paris?]]"

On September 27th the shaken leaders in the Kremlin came up with something of
an answer to that musical question. They [https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/09/28/soviets-cancel-symphonys-american-tour/337d599a-069b-41af-b5f3-677c3a80ccd5/ cancelled the 24 city United States tour]
of the [[wikipedia:Moscow_State_Symphony_Orchestra|Moscow symphony]], [[nyt:1979/09/27/archives/moscow-symphonys-us-tour-in-doubt-over-fear-of-defection-soviet.html|scheduled to open in New York City]] October 2nd at [[wikipedia:Carnegie_Hall|Carnegie
Hall]]. The symphony was also scheduled to officially open the season at the [[wikipedia:Kennedy_Center|Kennedy
Center]] in Washington, D.C. Some 3,500 tickets had already been sold.

This would have been the fifth U.S. tour for the orchestra. There has only
been one defection from that group and that one in 1969. Apparently the Soviet
leaders had reason to believe things might be different this time for they asked
our government to refuse sanctuary to any of the musicians fi they tried to defect.
This, of course, we could not do.

You see there are those words engraved on the [[wikipedia:Statue_of_Liberty|Statue of Liberty]] which the men
in the Kremlin can never understand, "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The
wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed
to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>10/02/[[Radio1979|1979]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-476]]</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>

79-14-A6

2026-08-11T14:18:19Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1979|1979]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[79-14-A5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[79-14-A7|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Defectors =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
When the [[wikipedia:Lacy-Zarubin_Agreement|Cultural Exchange Program]] between the United States and the Soviet
Union there was concern on the part of many Americans that the Soviets might try
to use it for espionage purposes. Whether they did or not I don't know, but as
it turned out the Soviets did get more than they bargained for. Or perhaps I
should say they lost more than they bargained for.

Artists and entertainers in the Soviet Union are a special class in the
"classless" society of the "Workers Paradise." They live at a higher standard
than the average Russian and have privilege's matched or exceeded by only the
hierarchy. Even so, there must be something lacking. Could it be something so
simple as individual freedom?

Late August and early September found the cultural exchange a losing deal for
the Kremlin. On August 22nd the superstar of the touring [[wikipedia:Bolshoi_Ballet|Bolshoi Ballet]], [[wikipedia:Alexander_Gudonov|Alexander
Gudonov]], walked off the stage in New York City and asked for sanctuary in this
country. On September 22nd the Bolshoi was in Los Angeles, Godunuv's replacement
[[wikipedia:Leonid_Kozlov|Leonid Kozlov]] did the same thing taking his ballerina wife [[wikipedia:Valentina_Kozlova|Vallentina]] with him.
The very next day in Switzerland where a Soviet ice show was appearing the
[[nyt:1979/09/25/archives/soviet-60s-olympic-skating-couple-defect-to-swiss-top-soviet-figure.html|top two Russian skating stars]], both Olympic champions, defected.

Of course, there have been other defections in years past, but spaced out at
greater intervals. We nave in our country the former conductor of the Soviet
national symphony, [[wikipedia:Kirill_Kondrashin|Kirin Kondrashin]], and the world renowned ballet stars [[wikipedia:Rudolf_Nureyev|Nureyev]],
[[wikipedia:Natalia_Makarova|Natalia Makarova]] and the inimitable [[wikipedia:Mikhail_Baryshnikov|Baryshnikov]]. The Kremlin theme song these days
could very well be that old World War I ditty, "[[wikipedia:How_Ya_Gonna_Keep_%27em_Down_on_the_Farm_(After_They%27ve_Seen_Paree)%3F|How You Going to Keep Them Down on
Farm After They've Seen Paris?]]"

On September 27th the shaken leaders in the Kremlin came up with something of
an answer to that musical question. They [https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/09/28/soviets-cancel-symphonys-american-tour/337d599a-069b-41af-b5f3-677c3a80ccd5/ cancelled the 24 city United States tour]
of the Moscow symphony, [[nyt:1979/09/27/archives/moscow-symphonys-us-tour-in-doubt-over-fear-of-defection-soviet.html|scheduled to open in New York City]] October 2nd at [[wikipedia:Carnegie_Hall|Carnegie
Hall]]. The symphony was also scheduled to officially open the season at the [[wikipedia:Kennedy_Center|Kennedy
Center]] in Washington, D.C. Some 3,500 tickets had already been sold.

This would have been the fifth U.S. tour for the orchestra. There has only
been one defection from that group and that one in 1969. Apparently the Soviet
leaders had reason to believe things might be different this time for they asked
our government to refuse sanctuary to any of the musicians fi they tried to defect.
This, of course, we could not do.

You see there are those words engraved on the [[wikipedia:Statue_of_Liberty|Statue of Liberty]] which the men
in the Kremlin can never understand, "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The
wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed
to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>10/02/[[Radio1979|1979]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-476]]</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>

79-14-A6

2026-08-11T14:07:10Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1979|1979]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[79-14-A5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[79-14-A7|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Defectors =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
When the [[wikipedia:Lacy-Zarubin_Agreement|Cultural Exchange Program]] between the United States and the Soviet
Union there was concern on the part of many Americans that the Soviets might try
to use it for espionage purposes. Whether they did or not I don't know, but as
it turned out the Soviets did get more than they bargained for. Or perhaps I
should say they lost more than they bargained for.

Artists and entertainers in the Soviet Union are a special class in the
"classless" society of the "Workers Paradise." They live at a higher standard
than the average Russian and have privilege's matched or exceeded by only the
hierarchy. Even so, there must be something lacking. Could it be something so
simple as individual freedom?

Late August and early September found the cultural exchange a losing deal for
the Kremlin. On August 22nd the superstar of the touring [[wikipedia:Bolshoi_Ballet|Bolshoi Ballet]], [[wikipedia:Alexander_Gudonov|Alexander
Gudonov]], walked off the stage in New York City and asked for sanctuary in this
country. On September 22nd the Bolshoi was in Los Angeles, Godunuv's replacement
[[wikipedia:Leonid_Kozlov|Leonid Kozlov]] did the same thing taking his ballerina wife [[wikipedia:Valentina_Kozlova|Vallentina]] with him.
The very next day in Switzerland where a Soviet ice show was appearing the
[[nyt:1979/09/25/archives/soviet-60s-olympic-skating-couple-defect-to-swiss-top-soviet-figure.html|top two Russian skating stars]], both Olympic champions, defected.

Of course, there have been other defections in years past, but spaced out at
greater intervals. We nave in our country the former conductor of the Soviet
national symphony, Kirin Kondrashin, and the world renowned ballet stars Nureyev,
Natalia Makarova and the inimitable Baryshnikov. The Kremlin theme song these days
could very well be that old World War I ditty, "How You Going to Keep Them Down on
Farm After They've Seen Paris?"

On September 27th the shaken leaders in the Kremlin came up with something of
an answer to that musical question. They cancelled the 24 city United States tour
of the Moscow symphony, scheduled to open in New York City October 2nd at Carnegie
Hall. The symphony was also scheduled to officially open the season at the Kennedy
Center in Washington, D.C. Some 3,500 tickets had already been sold.

This would have been the fifth U.S. tour for the orchestra. There has only
been one defection from that group and that one in 1969. Apparently the Soviet
leaders had reason to believe things might be different this time for they asked
our government to refuse sanctuary to any of the musicians fi they tried to defect.
This, of course, we could not do.

You see there are those words engraved on the Statue of Liberty which the men
in the Kremlin can never understand, "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The
wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed
to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>10/02/[[Radio1979|1979]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-476]]</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>

79-14-A6

2026-08-11T14:06:51Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1979|1979]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[79-14-A5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[79-14-A7|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Defectors =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
When the [[wikipedia:Lacy-Zarubin_Agreement|Cultural Exchange Program]] between the United States and the Soviet
Union there was concern on the part of many Americans that the Soviets might try
to use it for espionage purposes. Whether they did or not I don't know, but as
it turned out the Soviets did get more than they bargained for. Or perhaps I
should say they lost more than they bargained for.

Artists and entertainers in the Soviet Union are a special class in the
"classless" society of the "Workers Paradise." They live at a higher standard
than the average Russian and have privilege's matched or exceeded by only the
hierarchy. Even so, there must be something lacking. Could it be something so
simple as individual freedom?

Late August and early September found the cultural exchange a losing deal for
the Kremlin. On August 22nd the superstar of the touring [[wikipedia:Bolshoi_Ballet|Bolshoi Ballet]], [[wikipedia:Alexander_Gudonov|Alexander
Gudonov, walked off the stage in New York City and asked for sanctuary in this
country. On September 22nd the Bolshoi was in Los Angeles, Godunuv's replacement
[[wikipedia:Leonid_Kozlov|Leonid Kozlov]] did the same thing taking his ballerina wife [[wikipedia:Valentina_Kozlova|Vallentina]] with him.
The very next day in Switzerland where a Soviet ice show was appearing the
[[nyt:1979/09/25/archives/soviet-60s-olympic-skating-couple-defect-to-swiss-top-soviet-figure.html|top two Russian skating stars]], both Olympic champions, defected.

Of course, there have been other defections in years past, but spaced out at
greater intervals. We nave in our country the former conductor of the Soviet
national symphony, Kirin Kondrashin, and the world renowned ballet stars Nureyev,
Natalia Makarova and the inimitable Baryshnikov. The Kremlin theme song these days
could very well be that old World War I ditty, "How You Going to Keep Them Down on
Farm After They've Seen Paris?"

On September 27th the shaken leaders in the Kremlin came up with something of
an answer to that musical question. They cancelled the 24 city United States tour
of the Moscow symphony, scheduled to open in New York City October 2nd at Carnegie
Hall. The symphony was also scheduled to officially open the season at the Kennedy
Center in Washington, D.C. Some 3,500 tickets had already been sold.

This would have been the fifth U.S. tour for the orchestra. There has only
been one defection from that group and that one in 1969. Apparently the Soviet
leaders had reason to believe things might be different this time for they asked
our government to refuse sanctuary to any of the musicians fi they tried to defect.
This, of course, we could not do.

You see there are those words engraved on the Statue of Liberty which the men
in the Kremlin can never understand, "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The
wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed
to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>10/02/[[Radio1979|1979]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-476]]</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>

79-14-A5

2026-08-11T13:56:52Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1979|1979]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[79-14-A4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[79-14-A6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Hollywood East =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Senator [[wikipedia:William_Roth|Bill Roth of Delaware]] has done some digging into one area of federal
spending and learned that a new "tinsel town" called Hollywood-on-the-Potomac may
be abuilding.

It's hard to picture eager young performers with stars in their eyes turning
their backs on California and rushing to Washington for that big break. Or, to
imagine what our national capital might be like if the lobbyists, bureaucrats and
"pols" found themselves elbowing theatrical agents for office space.

Can't you see some new starlet writing home and saying, "It's finally
happened! After my bit part in 'Sanitary Design for Drinking Fountains,' I have
the lead in a biggie called '[[yt:FQJ6wr0aYvA|Rhesus Monkeys of Santiago Island]]'."

Believe it or not those are titles of movies being made by our government in
Washington. Here are a few others, "Identification of Some Common Sucking Lice,"
"[https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED051677.pdf Days of a Tree]," and "[[yt:SUydTP0B_78|How to Succeed with Brunettes]]." Now that last one does sound
as if it might be worth seeing.

Senator Roth has caught our attention. The nearest estimate of government
spending on film making is $6,000,000,000 a year. But that is only a guess. The
truth is there is no central accounting system to control expenditures and help
eliminate useless spending.

"There is no accurate record," the Senator says, "of how many government films
are in circulation, or are in production, no single catalogue or guide listing
existing films and tapes, and no centralized process for contracting federal movies
and television advertisements. We simply have no way of knowing who is doing what,
for how much, and for what reason.

We learn that a half hour bicentennial film was made at a cost of $460,000
and seen by fewer than 500,000 people. By contrast, a half hour television show
produced commercially for $180,000 in 1977 had an audience estimated at 30 million.

In true Washington style many of the audio-visual productions are made toward
the end of the fiscal year to use up an agency's budgeted funds so they can ask for
more money in the next budge. And, like as not, many of those films are never
seen by anyone. The Senator learned that agency personnel stockpile projects so their
bosses can ask "What do you have that might cost X number of dollars before we have
to turn back our money?"

And many agencies spend money on films that simply glorify the agency's image,
thus enhancing the agency's potential for continued existence. One last point must
be made; very often the numerous agencies engaged in filming duplicate each others
product. No cross-check is made to see if someone else had made or is making the
picture an agency has listed for production.

I'm sure there is a legitimate reason for some government films. But wouldn't
it make more sense to farm that picture work out to Hollywood where there is the
greatest pool of technical and artistic talent to be found anywhere in the world?
And where there is also a considerable amount of unemployment.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>10/02/[[Radio1979|1979]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-475]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD></TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1979/01/22/uncle-sams-movie-world/b82ff56b-bb0f-4e3f-8490-40cd0b69551b/ 1979 Washington Post article, Uncle Sam's Movie World]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

79-14-A5

2026-08-11T13:48:13Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1979|1979]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[79-14-A4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[79-14-A6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Hollywood East =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Senator [[wikipedia:William_Roth|Bill Roth of Delaware]] has done some digging into one area of federal
spending and learned that a new "tinsel town" called Hollywood-on-the-Potomac may
be abuilding.

It's hard to picture eager young performers with stars in their eyes turning
their backs on California and rushing to Washington for that big break. Or, to
imagine what our national capital might be like if the lobbyists, bureaucrats and
"pols" found themselves elbowing theatrical agents for office space.

Can't you see some new starlet writing home and saying, "It's finally
happened! After my bit part in 'Sanitary Design for Drinking Fountains,' I have
the lead in a biggie called 'Rhesus Monkeys of Santiago Island."

Believe it or not those are titles of movies being made by our government in
Washington. Here are a few others, "Identification of Some Common Sucking Lice,"
"Days of a Tree," and "How to Succeed with Brunettes." Now that last one does sound
as if it might be worth seeing.

Senator Roth has caught our attention. The nearest estimate of government
spending on film making is $6,000,000,000 a year. But that is only a guess. The
truth is there is no central accounting system to control expenditures and help
eliminate useless spending.

"There is no accurate record," the Senator says, "of how many government films
are in circulation, or are in production, no single catalogue or guide listing
existing films and tapes, and no centralized process for contracting federal movies
and television advertisements. We simply have no way of knowing who is doing what,
for how much, and for what reason.

We learn that a half hour bicentennial film was made at a cost of $460,000
and seen by fewer than 500,000 people. By contrast, a half hour television show
produced commercially for $180,000 in 1977 had an audience estimated at 30 million.

In true Washington style many of the audio-visual productions are made toward
the end of the fiscal year to use up an agency's budgeted funds so they can ask for
more money in the next budge. And, like as not, many of those films are never
seen by anyone. The Senator learned that agency personnel stockpile projects so their
bosses can ask "What do you have that might cost X number of dollars before we have
to turn back our money?"

And many agencies spend money on films that simply glorify the agency's image,
thus enhancing the agency's potential for continued existence. One last point must
be made; very often the numerous agencies engaged in filming duplicate each others
product. No cross-check is made to see if someone else had made or is making the
picture an agency has listed for production.

I'm sure there is a legitimate reason for some government films. But wouldn't
it make more sense to farm that picture work out to Hollywood where there is the
greatest pool of technical and artistic talent to be found anywhere in the world?
And where there is also a considerable amount of unemployment.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>10/02/[[Radio1979|1979]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-475]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD></TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1979/01/22/uncle-sams-movie-world/b82ff56b-bb0f-4e3f-8490-40cd0b69551b/ 1979 Washington Post article, Uncle Sam's Movie World]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

79-14-A4

2026-08-11T13:39:33Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1979|1979]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[79-14-A3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[79-14-A5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Salt II =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
When negotiations began on the second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty with
the Soviet Union, five specific objectives were named as essential to protecting our
national interest. They were: to establish equal nuclear capabilities for the U.S.
and the Soviet Union; secure significant Soviet Arms reductions, especially in those
areas where Soviet offensive forces pose the greatest threat; stabilize the situation
between the two countries so that neither would be tempted to strike first during an
international crisis; reduce the effect of nuclear weapons on world politics; and,
enforce verifiable limitations to which both countries must adhere.

Those are reasonable terms and certainly fair to both the U.S. and the Soviet
Union. Whey then should our Senate waste even five minutes debating the SALT II
agreement? Because it meets none of the five specifics we listed as essential to
protect our national interest.

Point one called for equal nuclear capabilities. Note that word "capabilities".
We didn't say equal numbers. The Soviet missiles are far more powerful than ours and
the agreement permits them to go ahead with some 300 giant missiles, each armed with
a number of separately targeted warheads. We are not permitted to have anything
similar. Oh, we can have the same number of missiles but it's like comparing battleships to rowboats.
Then there is that point about stabilizing the situation so that neither side
would be tempted to settle an argument by launching a nuclear first strike. [[wikipedia:Harold_Brown_(secretary_of_defense)|Secretary
of Defense, Harold Brown]], has admitted that virtually all our I.C.B.M.'s, a
substantial number of nuclear missile carrying submarines and many of our B-52
bombers would be vulnerable to a Soviet first strike.

Even though some of our European allies express a hope that SALT II will be
ratified one can't help but wonder if they are sincere or if they are worried about
the Russian Bear sitting right on their borders. Privately they confess to many
misgivings. They had counted on the effectiveness of a new weapon -- the cruise missile
with at least a 1500 kilometer range -- for their own protection. We let the Soviets
bargain that down to a 600-kilometer range which puts most Soviet targets beyond its
reach.

Then there is the supersonic Russian Backfire Bomber minutes away from their
heartlands. WE agreed not to even include those bombers amount the weapons to be
limited by SALT II. We did likewise with an intermediate range nuclear missile,
the Soviet SS20, deployed and able to wreck every capitol city in Europe.

And as for verifiability of whether they are keeping their part of the treaty --
it just doesn't exist. SALT II allows the Soviet Union military advantages which are
denied the U.S. SALT II will not increase the chance for world peace.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>10/02/[[Radio1979|1979]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH-90]]</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>

79-14-A3

2026-08-11T13:35:41Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1979|1979]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[79-14-A2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[79-14-A4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Department of Education =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
When the two houses of Congress each vote out a bill to create, say a new
agency, but the bills differ in some details, they are sent to a conference
committee. This committee of Senators and Representatives attempts to reconcile
the differences in the bills and send a comprehensive version back to each house
for another vote.

Some time ago both House and Senate approved the creation of a new cabinet
level [[wikipedia:United_States_Department_of_Education|Department of Education]]. This was in response to the President's pledge to
the [[wikipedia:National_Education_Association|National Education Association]] that he would try for such a new department.
It means, of course, federal regulation of our schools under the domination of
the National Education Association which is in truth a very powerful union.
Another union, the [[wikipedia:American_Federation_of_Teachers|American Federation of Teachers]], is opposed to such a department
-- as all of us should be. Is the government that administers the postal
service and Amtrak -- to say nothing of energy -- qualified to educate our
children?

If the conference committee hasn't acted before you hear this we should be
letting your elected representatives know you don't want it if you don't.

The House version of the bill is full of amendments. It now carries an
amendment forbidding federal funding of abortions. Another amendment would
require [[wikipedia:Engel_v._Vitale|voluntary prayers be permitted in public schools]]. I've never thought
they should have been stopped. An amendment forbids racial or sexual quotas
in institutions of higher learning that accept federal subsidies. One also
forbids the new department from directing school busing for racial integration.
And another removes nurses, medical trainees and Indians from the new department's
jurisdiction.

Our best hope is that this measure with all its attached baggage will linger
with the conference committee until the end of this session of Congress. Letters
to representatives and senators can help bring this about.

I've said before on these broadcasts, the National Education Association has
a long standing dream of a federal school system with everything from curriculum
to textbooks dictated by Washington. Of course the association has in mind that
Washington will look to it for guidance on setting policy. The N.E.A. has
contributed a half million dollars over the last five years to members of Congress
who have brought this dream to its present near reality.

A National Department of Education would extend its power to cover
independent and parochial schools. Indeed part of its dream is incorporation of
such schools in the public system. It would enlist thousands of employees and
have a budget some congressmen have said would top $10 billion.

This ugly blossom on the academic tree should be left to die of committee
neglect.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>10/02/[[Radio1979|1979]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-473]]</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>

79-14-A1

2026-08-11T12:50:52Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1979|1979]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[79-13-B8|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[79-14-A2|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Vlasenko =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
[https://www.rbth.com/history/333099-soviet-alfa-spec-ops-us-embassy-moscow Yuri Vlasenko], a Soviet citizen, tried to leave the Soviet Union. Yuri
Vlasenko is dead.

On March 28th one of our embassy officials went out of the embassy in Moscow
and led Vlasenko past the ever-present KGB agents into the embassy. Once inside,
Yuri asked for an exit visa so that he could leave the Soviet Union. Upon being told
that we couldn't do that he revealed a homemade bomb and threatened to blow
himself up.

Our Ambassador tried to negotiate with him and then turned the matter over to
the Soviet authorities who don't negotiate in cases of this kind. They attacked
with tear gas and a sharpshooter who got off two shots before Yuri Vlasenko detonated
his bomb. He died there in the embassy where he had sought refuge.

This tragic story is by way of introduction to the plight of seven other
Soviet citizens who were in the American embassy the day Yuri Vlasenko died. They
had been there, living in the reception room since June 27th, 1978.

There are five members of one family, two of another. All are Christians,
members of the largest religious group in Russia and all have other family members
outside the embassy who are undergoing the worst kind of persecution.

These seven made their way to Moscow from Siberia. They had tried in
every way to obtain, legally, exit visas from their own government. Finally in
desperation they had sought the counsel of our ambassador. The religious group to
which they belong is the largest in the Soviet Union. It is also the most persecuted
and not one member has ever been allowed to emigrate from Russia.

These seven courageous and desperate people have a promise of sponsorship in
American from Reverend Cecil Williamson, Jr. of Selma, Alabama. Over the past 10
years they and other members of their families have been imprisoned, tortured, found
insane and some have died. Thousands of Americans, knowing of their plight, have
written to them but they haven't received the letters. Our ambassador has
ordered that nail to them must go through the Soviet postal service.

Shortly after the Vlavenko killing, efforts were made to persuade the seven
to leave the embassy. KGB cars were mysteriously waiting at the embassy entrance.
When they refused to give up their sanctuary they were moved to a 20-by-20 foot
room the Marine guards call the dungeon. There for a year now they have lived together
in that one room. They are denied embassy food, but embassy employees--acting as
Americans are supposed to act -- stand for hours in the endless lines and buy food
for them in the Russian stores.

Last June the ambassador grudgingly allowed American TV networks to interview
them but not to show the room in which they are kept confined. Then another
mystery - somehow the interviews were never shown to American audiences.

Détente is supposed to be a two-way street. Our wheat and technology can get
into Russia - why can't the Vlasenko and Chernogorsk families get out?

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>10/02/[[Radio1979|1979]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH-177]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD></TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [[wikipedia:Siberian_Seven|Siberian Seven]]
* [https://protestantstvo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/relief.pdf 1981 Congressional Committee documents]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

79-14-A1

2026-08-11T12:47:45Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1979|1979]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[79-13-B8|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[79-14-A2|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Vlasenko =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
[https://www.rbth.com/history/333099-soviet-alfa-spec-ops-us-embassy-moscow Yuri Vlasenko], a Soviet citizen, tried to leave the Soviet Union. Yuri
Vlasenko is dead.

On March 28th one of our embassy officials went out of the embassy in Moscow
and led Vlasenko past the ever-present KGB agents into the embassy. Once inside,
Yuri asked for an exit visa so that he could leave the Soviet Union. Upon being told
that we couldn't do that he revealed a homemade bomb and threatened to blow
himself up.

Our Ambassador tried to negotiate with him and then turned the matter over to
the Soviet authorities who don't negotiate in cases of this kind. They attacked
with tear gas and a sharpshooter who got off two shots before Yuri Vlasenko detonated
his bomb. He died there in the embassy where he had sought refuge.

This tragic story is by way of introduction to the plight of seven other
Soviet citizens who were in the American embassy the day Yuri Vlasenko died. They
had been there, living in the reception room since June 27th, 1978.

There are five members of one family, two of another. All are Christians,
members of the largest religious group in Russia and all have other family members
outside the embassy who are undergoing the worst kind of persecution.

These seven made their way to Moscow from Siberia. They had tried in
every way to obtain, legally, exit visas from their own government. Finally in
desperation they had sought the counsel of our ambassador. The religious group to
which they belong is the largest in the Soviet Union. It is also the most persecuted
and not one member has ever been allowed to emigrate from Russia.

These seven courageous and desperate people have a promise of sponsorship in
American from Reverend Cecil Williamson, Jr. of Selma, Alabama. Over the past 10
years they and other members of their families have been imprisoned, tortured, found
insane and some have died. Thousands of Americans, knowing of their plight, have
written to them but they haven't received the letters. Our ambassador has
ordered that nail to them must go through the Soviet postal service.

Shortly after the Vlavenko killing, efforts were made to persuade the seven
to leave the embassy. KGB cars were mysteriously waiting at the embassy entrance.
When they refused to give up their sanctuary they were moved to a 20-by-20 foot
room the Marine guards call the dungeon. There for a year now they have lived together
in that one room. They are denied embassy food, but embassy employees--acting as
Americans are supposed to act -- stand for hours in the endless lines and buy food
for them in the Russian stores.

Last June the ambassador grudgingly allowed American TV networks to interview
them but not to show the room in which they are kept confined. Then another
mystery - somehow the interviews were never shown to American audiences.

Détente is supposed to be a two-way street. Our wheat and technology can get
into Russia - why can't the Vlasenko and Chernogorsk families get out?

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>10/02/[[Radio1979|1979]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH-177]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD></TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [[wikipedia:Siberian_Seven|Siberian Seven]]
* [https://www.loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/00139298214.pdf 1981 Congressional Committee documents]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

79-14-A2

2026-08-11T12:37:19Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1979|1979]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[79-14-A1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[79-14-A3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Six Lies on Energy =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
In a [[nyt:1979/07/06/archives/six-lies-on-energy.html|recent column in the New York Times]], [https://www.independent.org/person/yale-brozen/ Yale Brazen], a professor of business
economics at the University of Chicago, argues that Americans are being subjected to
a propaganda barrage of startling dimensions on the subject of energy. At the
center of this propaganda are six lies about energy which are steering the public
and policymakers toward the wrong responses to our energy problems. The lies are
being told, Professor Brazen writes "in support of higher energy taxes and tighter
controls over voluntary market choices." Who is telling the lies? Professor
Brazen doesn't say. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

The first falsehood is that the world will run out of oil in the 1980's. On
the contrary, a record 36-year supply of reserves is already staked out. Further
discoveries of suspected supplies could add another 50 years to those reserves.

The second lie, according to Professor Brazen, is that the United States
balance-of-payment deficit and the erosion of the dollar are caused by the rising
price and volume of imported oil. Not so, says Professor Brazen. If this were
true, then Germany and Japan should be in deeper trouble than we are, for they
import all of their crude oil and natural gas. Instead of blaming oil imports, we
should look to unprecedented peacetime budget deficits since 1973 as the major
culprit.

The third lie is that the long gasoline lines of 1974 were caused by the Arab
oil embargo. The real cause, Brazen explains, is that the Federal Energy office
(now the Department of Energy) - "overemphasized heating oil production at the
expense of gasoline, then under-allocated gasoline to metropolitan areas and
overallocated to rural areas."

The fourth falsehood is that we are increasingly vulnerable to an Arab oil
embargo. Today, there are more alternative sources of oil available than in 1974;
sources such as Nigeria, Mexico and the Canadian Arctic. Brazen says simply "we
are more vulnerable to Energy department blunders than a possible oil embargo."

The fifth lie is that American taxpayers must foot the bill for a 25 billion
dollar oil stockpile to reduce our vulnerability to an embargo. If we ended the
threat of mandatory reallocation, we would encourage greater private storage.

The final lie is that the government must plow billions of dollars into
developing new energy supplies before oil runs out. Given its record on such things
as Amtrak and the Postal service, the federal bureaucracy isn't exactly the first
place I'd turn to. Private investment on energy research and development is
proceeding at a respectable pace.

These six lies aren't the only falsehoods clouding our national energy debate.
But they are among the major reasons why, under current policies, we are getting
nowhere toward solving our serious energy problems.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>10/02/[[Radio1979|1979]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-017-2024.pdf#PAGE=4|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===
* Reagan or his secretary misspelled the last name of Yale Br'''o'''zen.
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

79-14-A2

2026-08-11T12:30:21Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1979|1979]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[79-14-A1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[79-14-A3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Six Lies on Energy =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
In a recent column in the New York Times, [https://www.independent.org/person/yale-brozen/ Yale Brazen], a professor of business
economics at the University of Chicago, argues that Americans are being subjected to
a propaganda barrage of startling dimensions on the subject of energy. At the
center of this propaganda are six lies about energy which are steering the public
and policymakers toward the wrong responses to our energy problems. The lies are
being told, Professor Brazen writes "in support of higher energy taxes and tighter
controls over voluntary market choices." Who is telling the lies? Professor
Brazen doesn't say. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

The first falsehood is that the world will run out of oil in the 1980's. On
the contrary, a record 36-year supply of reserves is already staked out. Further
discoveries of suspected supplies could add another 50 years to those reserves.

The second lie, according to Professor Brazen, is that the United States
balance-of-payment deficit and the erosion of the dollar are caused by the rising
price and volume of imported oil. Not so, says Professor Brazen. If this were
true, then Germany and Japan should be in deeper trouble than we are, for they
import all of their crude oil and natural gas. Instead of blaming oil imports, we
should look to unprecedented peacetime budget deficits since 1973 as the major
culprit.

The third lie is that the long gasoline lines of 1974 were caused by the Arab
oil embargo. The real cause, Brazen explains, is that the Federal Energy office
(now the Department of Energy) - "overemphasized heating oil production at the
expense of gasoline, then under-allocated gasoline to metropolitan areas and
overallocated to rural areas."

The fourth falsehood is that we are increasingly vulnerable to an Arab oil
embargo. Today, there are more alternative sources of oil available than in 1974;
sources such as Nigeria, Mexico and the Canadian Arctic. Brazen says simply "we
are more vulnerable to Energy department blunders than a possible oil embargo."

The fifth lie is that American taxpayers must foot the bill for a 25 billion
dollar oil stockpile to reduce our vulnerability to an embargo. If we ended the
threat of mandatory reallocation, we would encourage greater private storage.

The final lie is that the government must plow billions of dollars into
developing new energy supplies before oil runs out. Given its record on such things
as Amtrak and the Postal service, the federal bureaucracy isn't exactly the first
place I'd turn to. Private investment on energy research and development is
proceeding at a respectable pace.

These six lies aren't the only falsehoods clouding our national energy debate.
But they are among the major reasons why, under current policies, we are getting
nowhere toward solving our serious energy problems.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>10/02/[[Radio1979|1979]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-017-2024.pdf#PAGE=4|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===
* Reagan or his secretary misspelled the last name of Yale Br'''o'''zen.
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-05-B5

2026-08-10T20:46:20Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-05-B4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-05-B6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Easy Voting =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
How easy should it be to become a registered voter? I'll be right back.

In recent years and without our paying much attention it's become easier and easier to become a registered voter and whether we know it or not we've been making it easier and easier for voting blocs to swing elections even though the bloc doesn't represent a majority.

The proponents of easier registration would have us believe that non-voters are panting to vote but they find registering to do so impossibly complex and difficult. Is it true that our low voter turnout is due to the bother of registering? If it is, how come in some elections where the issues of the candidates have excited the citizenry the voters don't seem to have much trouble registering and voting in overwhelming numbers. On the other hand only 38 percent turned out in the '74 election and the majority of the 62 percent who stayed home gave every reason but registration difficulty as the reason for their defection.

If you don't mind a California example, let me give you an idea of what happens when you make it too easy. In California there have been court decisions plus the wording of the state elections code which have created something called "transient voting." Technically it's legal. Morally it's on a par with ballot box stuffing.

Very simply, a voter is eligible simply by declaring his intention to live in a certain place. Now wouldn't you know that Berkeley has been the scene of what seems to be an experiment in mobile voting blocks. Some of the election results have been pretty upsetting to the more permanent citizenry of that community.

In one election two thousand more votes were cast in Berkeley than the total number of adult citizens living in the city. In 1972, 30 people voted from one address a single family dwelling and 59 were registered to do so. In 1973, six people voted from that address even though the house had burned down four months before the election. People with fixed abodes in six other California cities and two in Pennsylvania voted in Berkeley's election. All it took was a statement thirty days in advance that they intended to live in Berkeley.

One man former mayor [[wikipedia:Wallace_J._S._Johnson|Wallace Johnson]] has led the drive that exposed hundreds of irregularities of the kind I've mentioned. He's working to get changes in the state election code to remedy the situation. Meanwhile the California legislature leans toward making things worse not better and Congress is talking of postcard registration for national elections.

Look at the potential for cheating, a John Doe can be registered in three or more counties. There is no cross checking between counties. He can be John Doe in Berkeley and J.F. Doe in the next county all by saying he intends to live in both places.

How is it in your state? And does your Congressman want postcard registration?

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>03/12/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-19</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:PIedAKz6oAk|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-05-B4

2026-08-10T20:41:07Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-05-B3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-05-B5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Federal Retirement Pensions =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Congress goofed six years ago. It could cost you plenty. I'll be right back.

It was [[wikipedia:William_Blake|William Blake]], the English poet and essayist, who said well over a century ago, "[[wikipedia:Jerusalem_The_Emanation_of_the_Giant_Albion|If you would do good for me, you must do it in the minutest particulars]]." In other words, don't leave any stone unturned. Well it seems that Congress forgot the minutest particulars in 1969 when it amended the pension program for retired federal employees. The minutest particular they forgot may cost the rest of us an extra one hundred billion dollars over the next fifteen years. Here's what happened.

Pensions for the nearly two million retired military and civilian employees were supposed to keep up with increases in the cost of living. No one would argue with that. To do so there's a formula the administrators of the program use and adjustments are made about twice a year but many pensioners were concerned and angry that it took so long between the time the cost of living index was adjusted and their pension checks were increased in size. They complained the time lag was causing them to slip behind everyone else.

The House subcommittee assigned to look into the matter decided in 1969 to remedy the situation with what they thought was a disarmingly simple device. Instead of simply adjusting the pensions to the rise in the cost of living they'd go a step further and beat the time lag by tacking on an extra one percent to each adjustment. But wait a minute, you say, the pensioners were suffering one-time losses each time these adjustments were made but now the formula actually adds to the permanent base of the pensions? That's just the point. By adding that automatic one percent bonus Congress put the pensioners in the position of profiting from inflation. The higher the rate of inflation, the more these federal retirees will outpace the cost of living. An employee who retired two years ago at the average age of 57 and who lives an expected 18 years will receive nearly 28 thousand dollars as a bonus if inflation is at the rate of six percent a year. At current inflation rates the bonus will be larger, of course.

A review of the records of the Congressional hearings held on the subject in 1969 shows that Congress naturally intended the pensioners to keep up with the cost of living but not to profit from inflation. No doubt the retirees didn't expect the result they got either. Now we can hardly ask them to give the money back but we can ask our Congressman to take a close look at this unpublicized problem and get some corrective legislation moving so that it doesn't end up costing the taxpayers that estimated 100 billion dollars one day.

There may be a simple solution. Remember it was the time lag between recording the cost of living increase and adding it to the pension checks that was the problem in the first place. That lag is caused by people and paperwork systems. Red tape. Why not send a management audit team into the pension office and cut that red tape with a simple system that adjusts the, oh say, the very next pension check.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>03/12/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* The 1% was enacted through [https://www.congress.gov/bill/91st-congress/house-bill/9825 Public Law 91-93], also called the Daniels-McGee Act in the [https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160001-5.pdf Congressional Record].
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-05-B3

2026-08-10T20:13:32Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-05-B2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-05-B4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Regulations =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Some of us are convinced that the time has come to regulate the regulators. I'll be right back.

Back in 1887, Congress established the [[wikipedia:Interstate_Commerce_Commission|Interstate Commerce Commission]] to regulate the railroads. It was a well-intentioned experiment and there was some need for it, but to paraphrase the ads, [[wikipedia:Virginia_Slims#Markets|"We've come a long way, baby."]] Federal regulations now cover nearly every aspect of business activity in America. Many of us think of this nation as the last stronghold of free enterprise, yet business and industry are more regulated here than in any other country in the world where free enterprise still exists. Most of us have grown up thinking of government regulation as being designed to keep big business in its place. That was the original idea.

Those who wanted government to be our shield and protector assumed that regulatory commissions would be made up of wise and objective individuals immune to political pressure and dedicated to the public interest. They would serve as combination judges, legislators and executives; a kind of new fourth branch of government. The realities haven't matched those hopes.

Dr. [[wikipedia:Paul_McCracken_(economist)|Paul McCracken]], former chairman of the president's [[wikipedia:Council_of_Economic_Advisers|Council of Economic Advisers]] says, quote, "To anyone willing to look, it's clear that with distressing monotony regulation has produced sick and arthritic industries." Unquote. Back in 1937 a presidential commission told [[wikipedia:Franklin_D._Roosevelt|Franklin Delano Roosevelt]]that the regulatory agencies constituted, quote, "A heedless fourth branch of government. A haphazard deposit of irresponsible agencies and uncoordinated powers." Unquote. In 1961, an advisor to [[wikipedia:John_F._Kennedy|President Kennedy]] recommended a sweeping overhaul of regulations and ten years later a presidential commission found that regulatory agencies were slow, costly, cumbersome and uncoordinated.

Who pays for all that? Not just the salaries and office overhead of the commissions but who pays in the form of increased prices, the inflation that's caused by unnecessary regulations? You do! The Bureau of Domestic Commerce has estimated that the [[wikipedia:National_Labor_Relations_Board|National Labor Relations Board's]] anti-competitive policies plus acts by a few other agencies were costing consumers up to three billion dollars more in construction, one and a quarter billion in railroading, more than half a billion in printing and almost as much in supermarket prices. That's just a sample. The Independent Businessman's Association estimates its members, small businessmen employing 500 or less, spend 130 million man hours a year just doing government required paperwork. It adds 50 billion dollars a year to the prices they must charge.

There are proposals before Congress for even more regulation, but there's something else before Congress. The president has asked for a new commission to take a hard look at six of the independent regulatory agencies and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. [https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/senate-bill/4145 Senate Bill 4145], if passed, will create the new commission. Special interest groups will lobby against it. You and I should lobby for it. Demanding that the commission it creates be manned by men and women who will decide where the laws of the marketplace can replace useless regulations and create real consumer savings. Remember the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>03/12/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH]]-294</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

Reagan Radio Commentaries

2026-08-10T15:52:17Z

Reagan admin:

- [[Main Page]]
[[category:ReaganRadio]]
[[File:Reagan Radio Press Photo.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Ronald Reagan starts recording, January 9, 1975]]
After leaving the governorship of California, Ronald Reagan had a number of options available to him. One of these was the opportunity to have a radio show. He would take the show and run with it for nearly five years, taking a 9-month break during 1976 while he ran for president as a primary challenge to Gerald Ford. After failing to gain the nomination, he returned to the radio show. In all, he would give over 1000 radio broadcasts, roughly 60% written by him.

Early on in their broadcast history, they were called "Viewpoint with Ronald Reagan" but later called the "Reagan Radio Commentary".

This Wiki is an attempt to create an archive of these broadcasts. It contains broadcast information, summaries, and links to audio, if available.

With this new incarnation of the Wiki, I have decided to '''integrate broadcast transcripts'''. These transcripts are being generated by speech-to-text systems, then reviewed for accuracy. If possible, they are cross-checked against those transcripts printed in the three [[Radio_Commentary_Books|books]] that are available. For broadcasts not included in one of the printed books, punctuation and paragraph structure may not be accurate. While pages for all broadcasts have been created, not all will contain transcripts. If a transcript appeared only in a book, it may or may not end up here eventually, but I may be able to include relevant research links.

Update: See new page below with resources directly from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

New Acquisition: I found 2 records of "Viewpoint with Ronald Reagan" on eBay and purchased them. They are for sets 75-08 and 75-16, both of which were previous purchased as MP3s, as mentioned below.

Reagan's hand-written notes and records of the commentaries can be found at the Stanford's [http://www.hoover.org Hoover Institution]. Your humble administrator has begun slowly purchasing MP3s of the recordings available from the Hoover Institute to continue his research. However, Hoover Institute has a cap on how much of the collection may be purchased. I was told via email it is 10%, but they allowed my last order to go through and I ended up with about 22%. Including the other episodes available, I have about 30% of the collection. Once all scripts (from books and Reagan Library) have been added, this Wiki will contain just over 75% of the complete radio show.

On February 23, 2020, author Paul Batura wrote an article for Foxnews.com entitled [https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/paul-batura-ronald-reagan-warned-us-about-bernie-sanders-over-40-years-ago Ronald Reagan warned us about Bernie Sanders – over 40 years ago] in which he referenced several Radio Commentaries, specifically [[yt:Ll2mbslJPbY|''Socialism'']] ([[76-06-B6]] and repeated [[77-23-A3]]), ''Freedom'' ([[77-22-B6]]), ''Junk Food'' ([[76-08-B5]]).
[[xpost:1231606001461334017|I reached out on Twitter to thank him]].

<TABLE WIDTH="100%">
<TR VALIGN="TOP"><TD WIDTH="50%">
== Reagan Broadcast Years ==

[[Radio1975|1975]]&emsp;[[Radio1976|1976]]&emsp;[[Radio1977|1977]]&emsp;[[Radio1978|1978]]&emsp;[[Radio1979|1979]]

== Other Resources ==
[[Radio Commentary Books|Books about or containing Broadcasts]]

<FONT COLOR="RED">NEW PAGE</FONT> [[Reagan Library (National Archives) Resources|Reagan Library Resources]]

[[Promos|Some collections include Reagan-read Promotional Cuts]]

[[yt:9SVpKzET0Ek|Dean's Place, September 1975]]<BR>
Mr. and Mrs. Reagan appear and Reagan talks about having a new radio show. Appearance begins at 15:51.
</TD><TD>
<u>Broadcasts: By The Numbers</u>
* 1058 total broadcasts
** 215 in 1975
** 102 in 1976
** 177 in 1977
** 256 in 1978
** 218 in 1979
* 1027 given by Reagan
* 673 known to be written by Reagan
* 337 transcripts available in [[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|Reagan's Path to Victory]]
* 237 transcripts available in [[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|Reagan in His Own Hand]]
* 34 transcripts available in [[Radio_Commentary_Books##Reagan:_Stories_in_his_Own_Hand|Stories in His Own Hand]] (5 unique)
* 88 broadcasts available on [[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_his_Own_Voice|Reagan in His Own Voice]] audio book
* 21 broadcasts available on [[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|Reagan's Path to Victory]] audio CD
* 10 broadcasts available on the [[Radio_Commentary_Books#Ronald_Reagan_On_the_Air|1978 "Ronald Reagan On the Air"]] LP record set
* 17 known repeated broadcasts (15 in [[Radio1977#77-23|77-23]])
* 14 written and recorded by guests
** Pat Buchanan
** Maureen Reagan (daughter)
** William F. Buckley
** Julie Eisenhower-Nixon
** Nancy Reagan
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-05-A6

2026-08-07T18:38:54Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-05-A5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-05-B1|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Oil Talk =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
If talk were oil, we'd be rich. If oil could talk, it would say the people in Washington were crazy. I'll be right back.

If words could be burned as fuel Congress would have the energy problem solved and we'd be in the export business by now. The lawmakers in the administration are in a verbal tug of war about rationing gas taxes to discourage usage. In a variety of regulations and controls, so far, the verbal barrage hasn't produced a single drop of oil. By now everyone knows that we must develop new sources of oil and other energy if we're ever to be freed of the Arab oil cartel's blackmail potential. So far, though, no clear-cut program to do this has emerged from the [[Puzzle Palace on the Potomac|Puzzle Palaces on the Potomac]].

Even if it did today several years would go by before we'd be truly independent. Meanwhile we're consuming 17 million barrels of oil a day, 2 million of which we import from the Arabs at a price that accounts for half the increase in our wholesale price index. Not only is part of our inflation due to the Arab oil cartel, so is a good part of the multi-billion deficit in our balance of trade. We know from experience now how government panaceas work in an economy such as ours. Anyone who estimates how much we'll reduce our oil consumption if we have to pay a punitive tax isn't even making a well-educated guess, and remember, government doesn't tax to get the money it needs it always needs the money it gets. That punitive gas tax would wind up being spent on increased government and long after the energy problems had been solved, the tax would linger on. For a ready example just look at your telephone bill with a [[wikipedia:Federal_telephone_excise_tax|World War II tax]] still on it.

Now if you've been planning to write your Congressman to tell him to get on with a long-range energy program that includes incentives to find and produce new oil and other fuels and speedy use of our offshore oil deposits, fine but please don't ask him to do anything about the short-range problem. He'd probably only produce another costly bureaucratic nightmare for you and every other consumer. Instead let's do something for ourselves.

Recently an official of the oil cartel told an American businessman, quote, "I don't understand you Americans. You talk of your economy being destroyed when it's obvious you waste enormous amounts of this god-given resource." Unquote. He meant oil, of course. He's right, the federal energy office estimates we waste as much oil as all of Japan uses. Per person we use six times as much as they do and twice as much as the Germans. We can do something about that without any help from Congress. Let's cut the waste as we did when the Arabs were boycotting us. Combine errands into a single trip. Double up with a neighbor on shopping rounds. Cut out Sunday drives. By cutting out the unnecessary little trips, it's estimated we could save one million barrels of oil a day. That's just 1/17th of our total consumption but it would improve our balance of trade by four billion dollars. Next time you get in the car ask yourself, "Is this trip necessary?" At home the same thing applies. We can be more careful with lights, in the use of television, keep the thermostat lower and the air conditioner higher.

We can bring down the cost of fuel, make our resources last longer and be a lot happier for making that good old American willpower work effectively and you can start today. Tell your friends about it too. Who knows, once we've succeeded Congress may even take the credit for it.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>03/12/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-17</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-05-A3

2026-08-06T20:25:53Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-05-A2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-05-A4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Capital Punishment =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Are the liberals right when they say that capital punishment can't deter violent crime? I'll be right back.

For nearly a generation the arguments about capital punishment have raged. For most of this time the forces against it have made steady headway, climaxed by the [[wikipedia:Furman_v._Georgia|Supreme Court decision in 1972]] which struck down existing statutes as being discriminatory. But as the rate of violent crime spirals ever upward not only in the cities but increasingly in suburbs and rural areas as well capital punishment is making a comeback. The police and prosecutors say they need it and every time it's been put to a vote of the people as in California it's passed by a big margin.

But the opposition is stubborn. It is cruel and unusual punishment they say, forgetting the cruel and not so unusual punishment being dealt out daily by criminals on our streets. It discriminates against the black and the poor they say, even though the new wave of state laws on the heels of the Supreme Court decision have been meticulously written so that the punishment fits the crime and not the criminal. But these arguments are trivial compared to their central one, which is capital punishment does not deter homicide. This statement has been repeated so often that I'm sure a large number of people now accept it as fact. Well it isn't.

The truth is [[wikipedia:Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States|capital punishment in this country had become a dead letter]] long before the Supreme Court decision. There hasn't been a legal execution in eight years. While more than sixteen hundred were executed in the 1930s, nearly thirteen hundred in the next decade and over seven hundred in the 50s, the figure fell to just 51 in 1960 and 15 in 1964. So as early as the 1950s it's clear that capital punishment was not being carried out frequently enough to have any deterrent effect. In the period of widespread practice of capital punishment from 1935 to 1955, murder in the United States fell 30 percent. In the late 1950s, just as capital punishment was becoming controversial and less used, the 20-year decline turned around. The increase was mild at first but during the 1960s when capital punishment died out and ceased all together after 1967, homicides more than doubled in little over a decade. In 1968 the first year there were no executions at all there were five thousand two hundred and forty more murders.

Today the crime situation is so bad that a [https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/15093NCJRS.pdf recent M.I.T. study] found that, quote, "An urban American boy born in 1974 is more likely to die by murder than an American soldier in world war II was to die in combat." Unquote. In some cities the study found a boy born in 1974 has a one in 14 chance of dying by murder if present trends continue. And according to the F.B.I., the trend is getting worse. Capital punishment is no light matter. Any judge who has ever handed down a death sentence will tell you that. On the other hand though homicide is becoming a light matter in the absence of sufficient threat of punishment. The rise of homicide and the decline of capital punishment at the same time in the same country may be a coincidence but you can hardly say it proves that capital punishment doesn't deter murder.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>03/12/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* The MIT study quote actually does not specify an "urban" American boy. The quote is found on page 35 of the report (page 25 of the PDF linked in the original text).
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-05-A1

2026-08-06T19:44:38Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-04-B6|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-05-A2|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Southeast Asia =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
America's sense of fair play may yet save [[wikipedia:South_Vietnam|South Vietnam]] and [[wikipedia:Cambodia|Cambodia]]. I'll be right back.

Just a couple of weeks ago not many people would have given a [[wiktionary:plug_nickel|plug nickel]] for the chances of more American aid to South Vietnam and Cambodia. The new Congress is far more liberal than the old and many longtime supporters of [[wikipedia:United_States_Agency_for_International_Development|U.S. A.I.D.]] led by Senator [[wikipedia:Henry_M._Jackson|Henry Jackson]] were saying enough was enough, but a recent Congressional trip to South Vietnam and Cambodia showed that the more Americans learn about the true situation the better the chance we'll not leave our allies without ammunition.

Take Congressman [[wikipedia:Pete_McCloskey|Paul McCloskey]] a liberal Republican from California. He was elected to Congress eight years ago in an anti-war campaign against [[wikipedia:Shirley_Temple#Diplomatic_career|Shirley Temple Black]]. He challenged President Nixon in the 1972 primaries on the war issue and has opposed American policy in Indochina at every stage. By the end of this recent trip even he was calling our Vietnamization program a military success, was impressed by the spirit and ability of some of the military units he inspected and said, quote, "I can't help but feel an awful lot of respect for what these people have accomplished." Unquote. A hawk was never made in a week but these are remarkable words coming from this particular congressman.

As for Cambodia, Congresswoman [[wikipedia:Millicent_Fenwick|Millicent Fenwick]] of New Jersey, another liberal republican who has opposed aid said she would probably support President Ford's request for supplemental aid to the government in [[wikipedia:Phnom_Penh|Phnom Penh]]. According to one journalist every member of the delegation returned more favorable to American aid than before the trip with the single exception of Congresswoman [[wikipedia:Bella_Abzug|Bella Abzug]] of Manhattan whose conversion, had it occurred, would have been more of a miracle than the [[wikipedia:Parting_of_the_Red_Sea|parting of the Red Sea]].

What was the nature of this trip? What kind of brainwashing went on to elicit such surprising results? Simple. The Congressmen and women were permitted within limits of physical safety to go wherever they wanted and talk to whomever they liked.

The contrast with their reception had they gone to North Vietnam was all too obvious, especially when they met with the North Vietnamese cease-fire delegation at [[wikipedia:Tan_Son_Nhat_International_Airport|Tan Son Nhat Airport]]. The exchange centered on American requests to the North Vietnamese regarding our soldiers still listed as missing in action. The arrogance and contempt of the North Vietnamese all filmed by television was such that the American group became visibly angry as the meeting progressed. At the end Congressman [[wikipedia:Bill_Chappell|Bill Chappell]], Democrat of Florida, leapt to his feet and announced that on the basis of this meeting alone he had switched from undecided to in favor of more aid to South Vietnam. In Cambodia the popularity the Communist cause was further underlined when the group interviewed six fourteen-year-old prisoners of war. They had been pressed into service by the Communists and sent into combat after four or five days training. They had no idea what they were supposed to be fighting about.

Military aid to South Vietnam and Cambodia still has an uphill fight but it can only gain if more legislators go as these did to see for themselves what's really happening.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>03/12/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-04-B6

2026-08-06T19:17:10Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-04-B5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-05-A1|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Recession vs. Inflation =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Nero fiddled while Rome burned and Congress can't decide which came first, the chicken of the egg. I'll be right back.

I've talked at some length on these broadcasts about the need to zero in on inflation and not push the panic button because of recession. Now the leaders in Congress are making it evident that political considerations and not the good of the whole country will determine what they do. Not to long ago, [[wikipedia:Carl_Albert|Carl Albert]] Speaker of the House declared that our problem was sixty percent recession thirty percent inflation and ten percent energy. The simple fact is that there would be no recession if it weren't for inflation.

I'm aware that a great many of you were fearful of increasing unemployment and all of us who remember the great depression can't help but react to the gloomy news being fed to us almost daily in the media. Certainly a recession isn't enjoyable and it's miserable for those who lose their jobs because of it but a continuation of the inflation that started to get out of control in the middle sixties can destroy our entire social and economic system. Recession must not be allowed to deepen into depression, but if inflation is to be stopped we will have to sweat out a certain period of recession.

Unfortunately some politicians overreact to any increase in unemployment and start looking at the next election instead of the next generation. Senator [[wikipedia:Hubert_Humphrey|Hubert Humphrey]] I'm sorry to say, lost sight of the main target recently on a national television show. He was vehement in his demand that we start fighting recession like day before yesterday. to hear him you'd never know there was any problem at all about inflation. Specifically he was calling for the [[wikipedia:Federal_Reserve_Board_of_Governors|Federal Reserve Board]] to loosen the purse strings and as he put it, "Make more credit available." Translated that means increase the money supply, print more money and get back on the inflation doomsday machine. The word for it in Washington is reflation, a handy way of avoiding saying inflation but as one of our finest economists said reflation cannot sustain full employment in the long run except by faster and faster inflation. The Senator said if the Fed-that's Washington-ese for Federal Reserve system-doesn't come up with more money, Congress will see that it does. It's this kind of thinking that got us into the mess in the first place.

There are signs that we're beginning to control inflation, a drop in interest rates, the rebates on automobile prices, inventories being reduced faster than we'd expected in a number of others. This is not the time to change our game plan. Sometimes it seems as if Congress will do anything to avoid cutting spending or facing reality. Fearful of hard times I know some of you've probably written your Congressman or Senators urging some kind of action, well that's what you'll get some kind of action. May I suggest that you write and tell them no more tranquilizers. We want a permanent cure for what ails us and that doesn't mean printing press money.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/27/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH]]-264</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-04-B5

2026-08-06T18:58:34Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-04-B4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-04-B6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= N.H. Senate Contest =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Should the voters elect U.S. Senators, or should the U.S. Senate appoint it's own members? I'll be right back.

On [[wikipedia:1974_and_1975_United_States_Senate_elections_in_New_Hampshire|November 5th last year]], [[wikipedia:New_Hampshire|New Hampshire]] voters cast their ballots in a race for the United States Senate between Congressman [[wikipedia:Louis_C._Wyman|Louis Wyman]], a Republican and [[wikipedia:John_A._Durkin|John Durkin]], a Democrat. The election night count showed a margin of 355 votes for Wyman. Under New Hampshire law, this made possible a recount based on the challenge of Mr. Durkin, to be conducted by the New Hampshire Secretary of State. The recount reversed the result, showing Durkin the winner by 10 votes. The law also provided that Wyman would be permitted to appeal his finding to the state's ballot law commission, a nonpartisan body. When the review was complete, the commission ruled Wyman the winner, by two votes. The decision was unanimous among the three members, two Republicans and one Democrat. Durkin's victory certification was rescinded and Wyman's forwarded to Washington.

The case seemed closed. The process of New Hampshire law had run its course and no allegation of vote fraud had been made by either side. But Mr. Durkin wasn't satisfied. He challenged the constitutionality of the ballot law commission in the courts. They unanimously ruled against him finding the state's election laws completely legal. Durkin then decided to appeal the decision to the U.S. Senate, which has the right to, on the quote "qualifications" unquote of its members. The Senate accepted the appeal and his rules committee is now considering the matter. Think of what this means. The New Hampshire election law was not challenged before, in fact, Durkin used it in gaining his initial recount. When it was challenged, its constitutionality was upheld in the courts. Both sides agree the recounts were honestly done. To top it off, the Senate has never before accepted a challenge to a member seating, in the absence of charges of illegality.

The Wyman-Durkin case is a first and not a very encouraging one. When the Senate gets into the business of deciding whether or not to ignore legal and constitutional elections, we'd all better ask our own senators for an explanation. On an almost straight party-line vote, the Senate agreed not only to review the election but to deny New Hampshire its seat pending the outcome. Since January 5th, the Granite State has been without one of its two senators, and the senate majority has made it clear that it won't accept the credentials of an interim senator, appointed by Governor [[wikipedia:Meldrim_Thomson_Jr.|Meldrim Thomson]], even if his choice were to be former senator, [[wikipedia:Norris_Cotton|Norris Cotton]], who retired from office last year. The senate's majority has also rebuffed a compromise solution proposed by Governor Thompson and Congressman Wyman for a new election. This is a remarkable proposal to come from the man who legally won the seat. His opponent, Mr Durkin, has rejected the idea saying he prefers the decision of the Senate, controlled by his party, to that of the voters of New Hampshire. So far the senate majority, led by its whip [[wikipedia:Robert_Byrd|Robert Byrd]] of West Virginia, has agreed. Unfortunately, that majority shows every sign of continuing its intense partisanship at the expense of constitutional precedent, the law, and fairness. A subcommittee of the Senate rules committee trying to put a facade of legality on this charade has been sifting through some 3,500 ballots which have already been legally certified.

Someone once said that politics is the second oldest profession. I'm beginning to think it bears a resemblance to the first.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/27/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Used on the Citizen Reagan Podcast
* ''To answer the opening question, in the opinion of the compiler of this Wiki, we should amend the Constitution nullify the [[wikipedia:Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution|17th Amendment]] and return selection of Senators to the state legislatures.''
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-04-B5

2026-08-06T18:58:03Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-04-B4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-04-B6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= N.H. Senate Contest =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Should the voters elect U.S. Senators, or should the U.S. Senate appoint it's own members? I'll be right back.

On [[wikipedia:1974_and_1975_United_States_Senate_elections_in_New_Hampshire|November 5th last year]], [[wikipedia:New_Hampshire|New Hampshire]] voters cast their ballots in a race for the United States Senate between Congressman [[wikipedia:Louis_C._Wyman|Louis Wyman]], a Republican and [[wikipedia:John_A._Durkin|John Durkin]], a Democrat. The election night count showed a margin of 355 votes for Wyman. Under New Hampshire law, this made possible a recount based on the challenge of Mr. Durkin, to be conducted by the New Hampshire Secretary of State. The recount reversed the result, showing Durkin the winner by 10 votes. The law also provided that Wyman would be permitted to appeal his finding to the state's ballot law commission, a nonpartisan body. When the review was complete, the commission ruled Wyman the winner, by two votes. The decision was unanimous among the three members, two Republicans and one Democrat. Durkin's victory certification was rescinded and Wyman's forwarded to Washington.

The case seemed closed. The process of New Hampshire law had run its course and no allegation of vote fraud had been made by either side. But Mr. Durkin wasn't satisfied. He challenged the constitutionality of the ballot law commission in the courts. They unanimously ruled against him finding the state's election laws completely legal. Durkin then decided to appeal the decision to the U.S. Senate, which has the right to, on the quote "qualifications" unquote of its members. The Senate accepted the appeal and his rules committee is now considering the matter. Think of what this means. The New Hampshire election law was not challenged before, in fact, Durkin used it in gaining his initial recount. When it was challenged, its constitutionality was upheld in the courts. Both sides agree the recounts were honestly done. To top it off, the Senate has never before accepted a challenge to a member seating, in the absence of charges of illegality.

The Wyman-Durkin case is a first and not a very encouraging one. When the Senate gets into the business of deciding whether or not to ignore legal and constitutional elections, we'd all better ask our own senators for an explanation. On an almost straight party-line vote, the Senate agreed not only to review the election but to deny New Hampshire its seat pending the outcome. Since January 5th, the Granite State has been without one of its two senators, and the senate majority has made it clear that it won't accept the credentials of an interim senator, appointed by Governor [[wikipedia:Meldrim_Thomson_Jr.|Meldrim Thomson]], even if his choice were to be former senator, [[wikipedia:Norris_Cotton|Norris Cotton]], who retired from office last year. The senate's majority has also rebuffed a compromise solution proposed by Governor Thompson and Congressman Wyman for a new election. This is a remarkable proposal to come from the man who legally won the seat. His opponent, Mr Durkin, has rejected the idea saying he prefers the decision of the Senate, controlled by his party, to that of the voters of New Hampshire. So far the senate majority, led by its whip [[wikipedia:Robert_Byrd|Robert Byrd]] of West Virginia, has agreed. Unfortunately, that majority shows every sign of continuing its intense partisanship at the expense of constitutional precedent, the law, and fairness. A subcommittee of the Senate rules committee trying to put a facade of legality on this charade has been sifting through some 3,500 ballots which have already been legally certified.

Someone once said that politics is the second oldest profession. I'm beginning to think it bears a resemblance to the first.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/27/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Used on the Citizen Reagan Podcast
* ''To answer the opening question, in the opinion of the compiler of this Wiki, we should amend the Constitution nullify the [wikipedia:Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution|17th Amendment]] and return selection of Senators to the state legislatures.''
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-04-B4

2026-08-06T18:47:27Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-04-B3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-04-B5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Private Government =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
The United States may soon be in danger of surrendering to a private government. I'll be right back.

The bill was submitted in the House of Representatives on January 14th. It's designated [https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/sites/default/files/pdf_documents/library/document/0248/whpr19751218-007.pdf House Resolution 77]. Its language is deceptively simple almost innocuous. Quote, "Being enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives that paragraph two of section two of the [[wikipedia:National_Labor_Relations_Act_of_1935|National Labor Relations Act]] is amended by striking out the words, 'or any state or political subdivision thereof.'" Unquote. Removal of those seven words translates into full unionization for more than 10 million government employees. This means the right to strike, the right to divert involuntary union dues to political purposes, the right to extract major concessions from state and local governments and the right to dictate public policy to the office holders you elect potentially at least. It means the establishment of a sort of private government that can exercise political power by right of monopoly at the bargaining table.

One of the main arguments advanced by supporters of public unions is that public employees should be granted rights already possessed by private sector employees but this really misses the point. The ranking minority member on the Labor Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee, [[wikipedia:John_M._Ashbrook|Congressman John Ashbrook]] of Ohio, put it this way, quote, "Public employers do not operate on a profit motive. They are government agencies created by statute with legally mandated functions to perform on behalf of the general public. Unlike the private sector most governmental agencies are monopolistic since they're the only source for the services they provide. Government agencies are not confronted with a restraining hand of competition." Unquote. The difference is clear. If a strike prevents [[wikipedia:General_Motors|General Motors]] from making automobiles, [[wikipedia:Ford_Motor_Company|Ford]], [[wikipedia:Chrysler|Chrysler]] and [[wikipedia:American_Motors_Corporation|American Motors]] are still producing. Even if all three were closed at once there's no immediate threat to the public welfare and new cars remain in dealer showrooms and in the distribution pipeline. Even if these run out, used cars are available.

But you can't look in the [[wikipedia:Yellow_Pages|Yellow Pages]] for a competitor to the police and fire departments if they go on strike. There's no company which provides thousands of temporary teachers or hospital workers or to find a delayed benefit check for a blind or disabled person almost any government strike is a public emergency and often it constitutes a real danger to public health and safety.

Consider what this grant of overwhelming power to labor unions would mean in terms of public policy. A teachers union may decide that it wants as part of its contract total control over curriculum and textbook selection at your local high school. If teachers had the legal right to strike and ready access to government-paid unemployment benefits to help them prolong the strike, parents, taxpayers and the school board would have a choice between union-dictated education for their children or none at all. Under those circumstances what could the school board possibly decide well? That's what I mean about private government. The National Labor Relations Act, whatever its merits or demerits, was written for the private labor market where competition is the rule and monopoly is rare. It wasn't intended to make our public servants into our masters.

If you feel strongly about this issue I hope you'll make your voice heard. Write to your Congressman and United States Senator. Urge them to oppose House Resolution 77, the bill that would bring employees of state and local government under the National Labor Relations Act. Whether we will have government of, for and by the people, hangs in the balance.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/27/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* H.R. 77 was proposed by [[wikipedia:Frank_Thompson|Representative Frank Thompson]] (D-N.J.). It never made it out of the House Committee on Education and Labor and its Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations.
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-04-B4

2026-08-06T18:32:33Z

Reagan admin:

75-04-B4

2026-08-06T18:28:47Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-04-B3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-04-B5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Private Government =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
The United States may soon be in danger of surrendering to a private government. I'll be right back.

The bill was submitted in the House of Representatives on January 14th. It's designated [https://www.congress.gov/bill/95th-congress/house-bill/77 House Resolution 77]. Its language is deceptively simple almost innocuous. Quote, "Being enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives that paragraph two of section two of the [[wikipedia:National_Labor_Relations_Act_of_1935|National Labor Relations Act]] is amended by striking out the words, 'or any state or political subdivision thereof.'" Unquote. Removal of those seven words translates into full unionization for more than 10 million government employees. This means the right to strike, the right to divert involuntary union dues to political purposes, the right to extract major concessions from state and local governments and the right to dictate public policy to the office holders you elect potentially at least. It means the establishment of a sort of private government that can exercise political power by right of monopoly at the bargaining table.

One of the main arguments advanced by supporters of public unions is that public employees should be granted rights already possessed by private sector employees but this really misses the point. The ranking minority member on the Labor Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee, [[wikipedia:John_M._Ashbrook|Congressman John Ashbrook]] of Ohio, put it this way, quote, "Public employers do not operate on a profit motive. They are government agencies created by statute with legally mandated functions to perform on behalf of the general public. Unlike the private sector most governmental agencies are monopolistic since they're the only source for the services they provide. Government agencies are not confronted with a restraining hand of competition." Unquote. The difference is clear. If a strike prevents [[wikipedia:General_Motors|General Motors]] from making automobiles, [[wikipedia:Ford_Motor_Company|Ford]], [[wikipedia:Chrysler|Chrysler]] and [[wikipedia:American_Motors_Corporation|American Motors]] are still producing. Even if all three were closed at once there's no immediate threat to the public welfare and new cars remain in dealer showrooms and in the distribution pipeline. Even if these run out, used cars are available.

But you can't look in the [[wikipedia:Yellow_Pages|Yellow Pages]] for a competitor to the police and fire departments if they go on strike. There's no company which provides thousands of temporary teachers or hospital workers or to find a delayed benefit check for a blind or disabled person almost any government strike is a public emergency and often it constitutes a real danger to public health and safety.

Consider what this grant of overwhelming power to labor unions would mean in terms of public policy. A teachers union may decide that it wants as part of its contract total control over curriculum and textbook selection at your local high school. If teachers had the legal right to strike and ready access to government-paid unemployment benefits to help them prolong the strike, parents, taxpayers and the school board would have a choice between union-dictated education for their children or none at all. Under those circumstances what could the school board possibly decide well? That's what I mean about private government. The National Labor Relations Act, whatever its merits or demerits, was written for the private labor market where competition is the rule and monopoly is rare. It wasn't intended to make our public servants into our masters.

If you feel strongly about this issue I hope you'll make your voice heard. Write to your Congressman and United States Senator. Urge them to oppose House Resolution 77, the bill that would bring employees of state and local government under the National Labor Relations Act. Whether we will have government of, for and by the people, hangs in the balance.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/27/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-04-B3

2026-08-06T18:21:57Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-04-B2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-04-B4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Price of Beef =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
It may surprise you to learn that there's a lot more to a cow than meets the eye or gets on the dinner table. I'll be right back.

I'm sure we all know that a beef animal isn't all steak. It has a variety of cuts some more tasty and desirable than others. But when I say a steer is not all steak-I have something else in mind. Actually that line is the title of an educational display by some young people in the [[wikipedia:4-H|4H Club]] in Arizona.

Perhaps you aren't aware of that growing attempt to shame us into not eating beef on the grounds that we're feeding several pounds of grain to cattle for each pound of beef we get back. Now the argument goes that grain could be used to feed the worldwide famine victims.

Well the exhibit sponsored by these farm youngsters over in Arizona can be summed up in the words of a man who deals in meat. He says, "There are four meat quarters in a beef animal. The fifth quarter is the byproduct." In a lot of ways that fifth quarter is done more than the other four to enrich and even to lengthen our lives.

Before we take too seriously those sincere but ill-informed people who see cattle as taking food from the hungry let's take a look at that fifth quarter we don't see in the meat market. Without it your tires might blow up in a mile and a half. One tire company alone uses about 20 million pounds of [[wikipedia:Stearic_acid|stearic acid]] a year. Stearic acid a byproduct of the beef animal is what keeps your tires cool. During last summer's beef shortage this company had to cut back on production of tires.

Here are some other things you won't see on a steakhouse menu, products from the bones, horns and hoofs: glue, gelatin (including the edible kind used in ice cream), case hardening steel, refining sugar, processed bone meal used as animal feed and fertilizer to grow more grain for the hungry.

That's only the beginning. there's [[wikipedia:neatsfoot oil|Neatsfoot oil]], plaster retarder, foaming fire extinguisher, paper boxes, sizing, wallpaper, sandpaper and emery cloth. Would you believe cosmetics, camera film, band-aids, spray-on adhesives, vitamins, violin strings, crochet hooks, combs and toothbrush handles?

In the field of pharmaceuticals we truly get into the life-saving field-with [[wikipedia:Heparin|Heparin]] which keeps the blood from coagulating during an operation. It's also used in preventing blood clots. There are enzymes used to aid babies digestion, [[wikipedia:epinephrine|epinephrine]] for asthma and allergies, [[wikipedia:Adrenal_cortex|adrenal cortex]] used in treating [https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/15095-addisons-disease Addison's disease] and to overcome shock. The list of really exotic medicines is too long for this time slot but just as an example; we've known about diabetes since the 15th century. It took 400 years to find insulin and we found it in the pancreas of cattle. Today chemists feel they've only scratched the surface in developing useful things other than food from meat animals.

As for that grain we're wasting, it is feed grain not eaten by humans and cattle only get that for about a hundred days. Beef and dairy cattle provide two-thirds of our protein and most of that comes from converting grass and brush on 40 percent of our land that would otherwise be waste because it couldn't be converted to raising crops. In the meantime our farmers are exporting 75 percent of our wheat and 57 percent of our rice to that hungry world. Let's pat Bossie on the back with gratitude.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/27/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-15</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:5p24QRoJac0|Listen]]<BR>(With [[75-03-B1|Farm Facts]])</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Used in the Citizen Reagan Podcast
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20201112030314/https://beef2live.com/story-fun-facts-products-beef-cattle-89-104636 Products we get from Beef Cattle] ''(Internet Archive's Wayback Machine)''
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-04-B3

2026-08-06T17:32:15Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-04-B2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-04-B4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Price of Beef =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
It may surprise you to learn that there's a lot more to a cow than meets the eye or gets on the dinner table. I'll be right back.

I'm sure we all know that a beef animal isn't all steak. It has a variety of cuts some more tasty and desirable than others. But when I say a steer is not all steak-I have something else in mind. Actually that line is the title of an educational display by some young people in the [[wikipedia:4-H|4H Club]] in Arizona.

Perhaps you aren't aware of that growing attempt to shame us into not eating beef on the grounds that we're feeding several pounds of grain to cattle for each pound of beef we get back. Now the argument goes that grain could be used to feed the worldwide famine victims.

Well the exhibit sponsored by these farm youngsters over in Arizona can be summed up in the words of a man who deals in meat. He says, "There are four meat quarters in a beef animal. The fifth quarter is the byproduct." In a lot of ways that fifth quarter is done more than the other four to enrich and even to lengthen our lives.

Before we take too seriously those sincere but ill-informed people who see cattle as taking food from the hungry let's take a look at that fifth quarter we don't see in the meat market. Without it your tires might blow up in a mile and a half. one tire company alone uses about 20 million pounds of [[wikipedia:Stearic_acid|stearic acid]] a year. Stearic acid a byproduct of the beef animal is what keeps your tires cool. During last summer's beef shortage this company had to cut back on production of tires.

Here are some other things you won't see on a steakhouse menu, products from the bones, horns and hoofs: glue, gelatin (including the edible kind used in ice cream), case hardening steel, refining sugar, processed bone meal used as animal feed and fertilizer to grow more grain for the hungry.

That's only the beginning. there's [[wikipedia:neatsfoot oil|Neatsfoot oil]], plaster retarder, foaming fire extinguisher, paper boxes, sizing, wallpaper, sandpaper and emery cloth. Would you believe cosmetics, camera film, band-aids, spray-on adhesives, vitamins, violin strings, crochet hooks, combs and toothbrush handles?

In the field of pharmaceuticals we truly get into the life-saving field-with [[wikipedia:Heparin|Heparin]] which keeps the blood from coagulating during an operation. It's also used in preventing blood clots. There are enzymes used to aid babies digestion, [[wikipedia:epinephrine|epinephrine]] for asthma and allergies, [[wikipedia:Adrenal_cortex|adrenal cortex]] used in treating Addison's disease and to overcome shock. The list of really exotic medicines is too long for this time slot but just as an example; we've known about diabetes since the 15th century. It took 400 years to find insulin and we found it in the pancreas of cattle. Today chemists feel they've only scratched the surface in developing useful things other than food from meat animals.

As for that grain we're wasting-it is feed grain not eaten by humans and cattle only get that for about a hundred days. Beef and dairy cattle provide two-thirds of our protein and most of that comes from converting grass and brush on 40 percent of our land that would otherwise be waste because it couldn't be converted to raising crops. In the meantime our farmers are exporting 75 percent of our wheat and 57 percent of our rice to that hungry world. Let's pat Bossie on the back with gratitude.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/27/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-15</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:5p24QRoJac0|Listen]]<BR>(With [[75-03-B1|Farm Facts]])</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Used in the Citizen Reagan Podcast
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20201112030314/https://beef2live.com/story-fun-facts-products-beef-cattle-89-104636 Products we get from Beef Cattle] ''(Internet Archive's Wayback Machine)''
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-04-B3

2026-08-06T17:31:45Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-04-B2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-04-B4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Price of Beef =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
It may surprise you to learn that there's a lot more to a cow than meets the eye or gets on the dinner table. I'll be right back.

I'm sure we all know that a beef animal isn't all steak. It has a variety of cuts some more tasty and desirable than others. But when I say a steer is not all steak-I have something else in mind. Actually that line is the title of an educational display by some young people in the [[wikipedia:4-H|4H Club]] in Arizona.

Perhaps you aren't aware of that growing attempt to shame us into not eating beef on the grounds that we're feeding several pounds of grain to cattle for each pound of beef we get back. Now the argument goes that grain could be used to feed the worldwide famine victims.

Well the exhibit sponsored by these farm youngsters over in Arizona can be summed up in the words of a man who deals in meat. He says, "There are four meat quarters in a beef animal. The fifth quarter is the byproduct." In a lot of ways that fifth quarter is done more than the other four to enrich and even to lengthen our lives.

Before we take too seriously those sincere but ill-informed people who see cattle as taking food from the hungry let's take a look at that fifth quarter we don't see in the meat market. Without it your tires might blow up in a mile and a half. one tire company alone uses about 20 million pounds of [[wikipedia:Stearic_acid|stearic acid]] a year. Stearic acid a byproduct of the beef animal is what keeps your tires cool. During last summer's beef shortage this company had to cut back on production of tires.

Here are some other things you won't see on a steakhouse menu, products from the bones, horns and hoofs: glue, gelatin (including the edible kind used in ice cream), case hardening steel, refining sugar, processed bone meal used as animal feed and fertilizer to grow more grain for the hungry.

That's only the beginning. there's [[wikipedia:neatsfoot oil|Neatsfoot_oil]], plaster retarder, foaming fire extinguisher, paper boxes, sizing, wallpaper, sandpaper and emery cloth. Would you believe cosmetics, camera film, band-aids, spray-on adhesives, vitamins, violin strings, crochet hooks, combs and toothbrush handles?

In the field of pharmaceuticals we truly get into the life-saving field-with [[wikipedia:Heparin|Heparin]] which keeps the blood from coagulating during an operation. It's also used in preventing blood clots. There are enzymes used to aid babies digestion, [[wikipedia:epinephrine|epinephrine]] for asthma and allergies, [[wikipedia:Adrenal_cortex|adrenal cortex]] used in treating Addison's disease and to overcome shock. The list of really exotic medicines is too long for this time slot but just as an example; we've known about diabetes since the 15th century. It took 400 years to find insulin and we found it in the pancreas of cattle. Today chemists feel they've only scratched the surface in developing useful things other than food from meat animals.

As for that grain we're wasting-it is feed grain not eaten by humans and cattle only get that for about a hundred days. Beef and dairy cattle provide two-thirds of our protein and most of that comes from converting grass and brush on 40 percent of our land that would otherwise be waste because it couldn't be converted to raising crops. In the meantime our farmers are exporting 75 percent of our wheat and 57 percent of our rice to that hungry world. Let's pat Bossie on the back with gratitude.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/27/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-15</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:5p24QRoJac0|Listen]]<BR>(With [[75-03-B1|Farm Facts]])</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Used in the Citizen Reagan Podcast
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20201112030314/https://beef2live.com/story-fun-facts-products-beef-cattle-89-104636 Products we get from Beef Cattle] ''(Internet Archive's Wayback Machine)''
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-04-B2

2026-08-06T15:06:43Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-04-B1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-04-B3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Land Planning =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
How do we preserve the beauty of nature and our Constitutional right to private ownership of land? I'll be right back.

A majority of us are somewhere in an environmental middle between those who'd pave over everything in the name of progress and those who wouldn't let us build a house unless it looked like a bird's nest.

People are ecology too, and most of us are looking for answers that will preserve nature to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the need to have places where we can work and live.

The Federal government pushes nationwide land planning, which is the greatest threat in two hundred years to our traditional right to own property. Congress debates a bill which, if passed, would destroy the right of counties and towns to have local zoning ordinances and all of this is done in the name of environmentalism.

But what happens to freedom? what happens to your right to purchase or homestead a piece of land and make it bear fruit, if an agency in Washington can tell you exactly what you can or can't do with your land, including telling you there's nothing you can do but pay the taxes and let it lay idle. California has a well-intentioned [[wikipedia:1972_California_Proposition_20|coastline protection law]] that's resulted in economic disruption and hardship to a great many citizens, some of whom just wanted to build a beach house for themselves. There's talk now of similar programs for the mountains the deserts and virtually every other area of our state.

Those of us who are neither anti-ecology nor environmental extremists seek an answer. How do we protect our constitutional right to own a piece of this earth, at the same time we ensure open space and natural beauty for generations not yet born.

Well is it over simplification to suggest we don't need restrictive laws on government land planning but simply the law of supply and demand operating in the free market?

Let those who want to live at the beach or in the mountains or desert by buying sites in the open market from willing sellers. The vast majority of us through choice or necessity will continue to live in cities, towns and suburbs; however we want to know that when and if the desire strikes us, there are beaches, mountains and deserts where we can go for an hour, a day or an extended vacation. We don't want to feel that someday private ownership of these beauty spots and natural wonders will shut us out. Well our answer also lies in the open market. We the people can, collectively, through our government, do exactly what we can do as individuals. We can estimate what we need for our present and future use and then through government buy it. Now, right now, we the people through government [[wikipedia:Federal_lands|own more than a third of all the land of the United States]]. In some of our more scenic states government ownership is as much as ninety percent of the total state. In California, government owns forty percent of the total coastline. Now much of this publicly owned land is already in the form of parks and vast areas or national forest land.

If more is needed we should do collectively exactly what we do individually, go buy it. What we must not do is give to ourselves collectively in the name of government rights we don't possess. As individuals we can have all the open space and recreational land we need we don't have the right to tell someone who owns a beach lot that he can't build on it because we like the view as we drive by on the highway. If the view is that important to us, we should buy it.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/27/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH]]-338</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Used on The Citizen Reagan Podcast
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-04-B2

2026-08-06T15:01:22Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-04-B1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-04-B3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Land Planning =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
How do we preserve the beauty of nature and our Constitutional right to private ownership of land? I'll be right back.

A majority of us are somewhere in an environmental middle between those who'd pave over everything in the name of progress and those who wouldn't let us build a house unless it looked like a bird's nest.

People are ecology too, and most of us are looking for answers that will preserve nature to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the need to have places where we can work and live.

The Federal government pushes nationwide land planning, which is the greatest threat in two hundred years to our traditional right to own property. Congress debates a bill which, if passed, would destroy the right of counties and towns to have local zoning ordinances and all of this is done in the name of environmentalism.

But what happens to freedom? what happens to your right to purchase or homestead a piece of land and make it bear fruit, if an agency in Washington can tell you exactly what you can or can't do with your land, including telling you there's nothing you can do but pay the taxes and let it lay idle. California has a well-intentioned [[wikipedia:1972_California_Proposition_20|coastline protection law]] that's resulted in economic disruption and hardship to a great many citizens, some of whom just wanted to build a beach house for themselves. There's talk now of similar programs for the mountains the deserts and virtually every other area of our state.

Those of us who are neither anti-ecology nor environmental extremists seek an answer. How do we protect our constitutional right to own a piece of this earth, at the same time we ensure open space and natural beauty for generations not yet born.

Well is it over simplification to suggest we don't need restrictive laws on government land planning but simply the law of supply and demand operating in the free market?

Let those who want to live at the beach or in the mountains or desert by buying sites in the open market from willing sellers. The vast majority of us through choice or necessity will continue to live in cities, towns and suburbs; however we want to know that when and if the desire strikes us, there are beaches, mountains and deserts where we can go for an hour, a day or an extended vacation. We don't want to feel that someday private ownership of these beauty spots and natural wonders will shut us out. Well our answer also lies in the open market. We the people can, collectively, through our government, do exactly what we can do as individuals. We can estimate what we need for our present and future use and then through government buy it. Now, right now, we the people through government own more than a third of all the land of the United States. In some of our more scenic states government ownership is as much as ninety percent of the total state. In California, government owns forty percent of the total coastline. Now much of this publicly owned land is already in the form of parks and vast areas or national forest land.

If more is needed we should do collectively exactly what we do individually, go buy it. What we must not do is give to ourselves collectively in the name of government rights we don't possess. As individuals we can have all the open space and recreational land we need we don't have the right to tell someone who owns a beach lot that he can't build on it because we like the view as we drive by on the highway. If the view is that important to us, we should buy it.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/27/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH]]-338</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Used on The Citizen Reagan Podcast
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-04-A6

2026-08-06T14:53:32Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-04-A5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-04-B1|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Congress and Security =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
If the crime rate drops you don't disband the police department. Congress it seems has a different idea. I'll be right back.

A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives with its new ultra liberal block voted to abolish the [[wikipedia:United_States_House_Committee_on_Internal_Security|House Committee on Internal Security]]. It's armed for monitoring subversive activities. On the heels of that the liberals in the Senate began a campaign to do the same thing with the [[wikipedia:United_States_Senate_Subcommittee_on_Internal_Security|Senate's Internal Security Subcommittee]].

Almost simultaneously, as if to underscore the second campaign, the so-called [[wikipedia:Weather_Underground|Weather Underground]] took credit for [https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2004/january/weather_012904 bombing the State Department building in Washington] and a federal building in Oakland, California. Though the intent of Congressional committee investigations is to shed light on matters of national importance, apparently the existence of the Weather Underground which claims to have accomplished more than 19 major bombings is inconsequential to many Congressmen. Over the years the House committee in particular shed light on a great many Communist and other subversive activities, accompanied by howls of complaint from a smorgasbord of communist sympathizers. But times change. Detente it seems has led us to believe that internal subversion is no longer a threat. One senator recently described the Senate's Internal Security Subcommittee as "[https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/sites/default/files/pdf_documents/library/document/0126/1489974.pdf a relic of the Cold War]." All the while he speaks the currently fashionable view organizations such as the Weather Underground go about their merry way bombing.

Just last year they went public with a [[i_a:PrairieFireThePoliticsOfRevolutionaryAnti-imperialismThePolitical|hundred and fifty two-page booklet]] proclaiming their call for violent revolution. Its pages are laced with romantic radical nonsense such as this --quote-- "We are a guerrilla organization. We are Communist men and women, underground in the United States for more than four years. ... Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside." --Unquote--. They're dead serious too. 24 members of the Weather Underground are wanted on federal warrants and one of them, [[wikipedia:Bernardine_Dohrn|a woman, is on the FBI's Most Wanted list]].

Institutions designed to protect our security have been diminished sharply in the last two years. The Internal Security Division of the Justice Department has been dropped, as has the Subversive Activities Control Board. The Attorney General's list of subversive organizations has been eliminated as well. Now ironically the functions and records of the House Committee on Internal Security may be transferred to a subcommittee on crime headed by left-leaning representative [[wikipedia:John_Conyers|John Conyers of Michigan]], who has backed causes such as the National Peace Action Coalition, which was one of those identified as a Trotskyite front by the very House committee that's just been abolished.

If the SALT talks turn out to be truly equal and if detente is also, maybe one day we can afford the luxury of having fewer institutions to monitor subversion. Meanwhile I like Congressman Ashbrook's House Resolution number 67 to revive the House Committee on Internal Security. How about you?
This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/27/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-04-A5

2026-08-06T13:32:11Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-04-A4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-04-A6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= National Debt # 2 =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Why is the federal budget running out of control? I'll be right back with some answers.

Yesterday, I discussed the raw figures of recent federal budgets. The picture is of a government spending far beyond its means with the pace accelerating. Reversing this trend is essential to our survival as a free and stable nation, but before we can take the necessary steps we must be clear where the problem lies. [[wikipedia:John_L._McClellan|Senator John McClellan]], the Arkansas Democrat who's the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee provided some sound answers in a recent article in the New York Times. "The first thing we must understand," says Senator McClellan, "is the defense spending is not the problem. Since fiscal year 1966 the cost of the federal government has risen more than 150 percent from 134.7 billion to 349.4 billion, the estimated figure for fiscal year 1976. Of this total increase, only 17 percent is accounted for by defense. In fact, outlays for national defense have shrunk in this 10-year period from 41.5 percent to just 26.9 percent of total federal spending." The senator is on firm ground when he says, quote, "Very little blame can possibly be lodged against the [[wikipedia:United_States_Department_of_Defense|Defense Department]] for the exorbitant increase in federal expenditures." Unquote.

In the last decade non-defense spending has clearly been the culprit. It has accounted for 82 percent of the increase in spending. As a proportion of the budget it's risen from just 58.5 percent to 73.1 percent, while national defense was rising by 68 percent, not much more than the rate of inflation. Other government spending was rising by a whopping 224 percent, while defense spending has fallen to less than 6 percent of the gross national product. Non-defense spending at the federal level alone is now taking well over one-fifth of your annual income.

The truth is that defense spending has been rising far less rapidly than any other major item in the budget. Here are some examples: federal aid to education, manpower, and social services has jumped 257 percent. [[wikipedia:Social_Security_(United_States)|Social Security]] and other retirement and disability programs are up 247 percent. Health services led by [[wikipedia:Medicare_(United_States)|Medicare]] and [[wikipedia:Medicaid|Medicaid]] have jumped 963 percent. It's bad enough that these programs are eating heavily into your taxpayers dollar, how much worse when we consider how dismal the results of many of them have been. Take the Social Security program. As fewer young people begin to enter the job market, the time may come within a few years when the system cannot support retirees, even if taxes are increased much further. Medicare and Medicaid, by taking a huge proportion of patient-doctor transactions away from the marketplace have contributed the lion's share of overall inflation of medical costs. In the last 10 years, as spending for education has increased student test scores have declined, discipline has deteriorated and local control of our school systems is threatened. In field after field generous federal spending has caused more problems than it solved.

What an irony, if by refusing to cut spending we contribute to the deterioration of the nation's social fabric. At the same time we're bankrupting the treasury. It's almost as if we refuse to read the evidence of our senses.

Bigger government is not more efficient government. Big government is weak government. Its only strength is the power to bring its weakness, uncertainty and inefficiency to every corner of American life.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/27/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-04-A5

2026-08-06T13:31:26Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-04-A4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-04-A6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= National Debt # 2 =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Why is the federal budget running out of control? I'll be right back with some answers.

Yesterday, I discussed the raw figures of recent federal budgets. The picture is of a government spending far beyond its means with the pace accelerating. Reversing this trend is essential to our survival as a free and stable nation, but before we can take the necessary steps we must be clear where the problem lies. [[wikipedia:John_L._McClellan|Senator John McClellan]], the Arkansas Democrat who's the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee provided some sound answers in a recent article in the New York Times. "The first thing we must understand," says Senator McClellan, "is the defense spending is not the problem. Since fiscal year 1966 the cost of the federal government has risen more than 150 percent from 134.7 billion to 349.4 billion, the estimated figure for fiscal year 1976. Of this total increase, only 17 percent is accounted for by defense. In fact, outlays for national defense have shrunk in this 10-year period from 41.5 percent to just 26.9 percent of total federal spending." The senator is on firm ground when he says, quote, "Very little blame can possibly be lodged against the [wikipedia:United_States_Department_of_Defense|Defense Department]] for the exorbitant increase in federal expenditures." Unquote.

In the last decade non-defense spending has clearly been the culprit. It has accounted for 82 percent of the increase in spending. As a proportion of the budget it's risen from just 58.5 percent to 73.1 percent, while national defense was rising by 68 percent, not much more than the rate of inflation. Other government spending was rising by a whopping 224 percent, while defense spending has fallen to less than 6 percent of the gross national product. Non-defense spending at the federal level alone is now taking well over one-fifth of your annual income.

The truth is that defense spending has been rising far less rapidly than any other major item in the budget. Here are some examples: federal aid to education, manpower, and social services has jumped 257 percent. [[wikipedia:Social_Security_(United_States)|Social Security]] and other retirement and disability programs are up 247 percent. Health services led by [[wikipedia:Medicare_(United_States)|Medicare]] and [[wikipedia:Medicaid|Medicaid]] have jumped 963 percent. It's bad enough that these programs are eating heavily into your taxpayers dollar, how much worse when we consider how dismal the results of many of them have been. Take the Social Security program. As fewer young people begin to enter the job market, the time may come within a few years when the system cannot support retirees, even if taxes are increased much further. Medicare and Medicaid, by taking a huge proportion of patient-doctor transactions away from the marketplace have contributed the lion's share of overall inflation of medical costs. In the last 10 years, as spending for education has increased student test scores have declined, discipline has deteriorated and local control of our school systems is threatened. In field after field generous federal spending has caused more problems than it solved.

What an irony, if by refusing to cut spending we contribute to the deterioration of the nation's social fabric. At the same time we're bankrupting the treasury. It's almost as if we refuse to read the evidence of our senses.

Bigger government is not more efficient government. Big government is weak government. Its only strength is the power to bring its weakness, uncertainty and inefficiency to every corner of American life.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/27/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-04-A5

2026-08-06T13:30:09Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-04-A4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-04-A6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= National Debt # 2 =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Why is the federal budget running out of control? I'll be right back with some answers.

Yesterday, I discussed the raw figures of recent federal budgets. The picture is of a government spending far beyond its means with the pace accelerating. Reversing this trend is essential to our survival as a free and stable nation, but before we can take the necessary steps we must be clear where the problem lies. [[wikipedia:John_L._McClellan|Senator John McClellan]], the Arkansas Democrat who's the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee provided some sound answers in a recent article in the New York Times. "The first thing we must understand," says Senator McClellan, "is the defense spending is not the problem. Since fiscal year 1966 the cost of the federal government has risen more than 150 percent from 134.7 billion to 349.4 billion, the estimated figure for fiscal year 1976. Of this total increase, only 17 percent is accounted for by defense. In fact, outlays for national defense have shrunk in this 10-year period from 41.5 percent to just 26.9 percent of total federal spending." The senator is on firm ground when he says, quote, "Very little blame can possibly be lodged against the Defense Department for the exorbitant increase in federal expenditures." Unquote.

In the last decade non-defense spending has clearly been the culprit. It has accounted for 82 percent of the increase in spending. As a proportion of the budget it's risen from just 58.5 percent to 73.1 percent, while national defense was rising by 68 percent, not much more than the rate of inflation. Other government spending was rising by a whopping 224 percent, while defense spending has fallen to less than 6 percent of the gross national product. Non-defense spending at the federal level alone is now taking well over one-fifth of your annual income.

The truth is that defense spending has been rising far less rapidly than any other major item in the budget. Here are some examples: federal aid to education, manpower, and social services has jumped 257 percent. [[wikipedia:Social_Security_(United_States)|Social Security]] and other retirement and disability programs are up 247 percent. Health services led by [[wikipedia:Medicare_(United_States)|Medicare]] and [[wikipedia:Medicaid|Medicaid]] have jumped 963 percent. It's bad enough that these programs are eating heavily into your taxpayers dollar, how much worse when we consider how dismal the results of many of them have been. Take the Social Security program. As fewer young people begin to enter the job market, the time may come within a few years when the system cannot support retirees, even if taxes are increased much further. Medicare and Medicaid, by taking a huge proportion of patient-doctor transactions away from the marketplace have contributed the lion's share of overall inflation of medical costs. In the last 10 years, as spending for education has increased student test scores have declined, discipline has deteriorated and local control of our school systems is threatened. In field after field generous federal spending has caused more problems than it solved.

What an irony, if by refusing to cut spending we contribute to the deterioration of the nation's social fabric. At the same time we're bankrupting the treasury. It's almost as if we refuse to read the evidence of our senses.

Bigger government is not more efficient government. Big government is weak government. Its only strength is the power to bring its weakness, uncertainty and inefficiency to every corner of American life.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/27/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-04-A5

2026-08-06T13:23:58Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-04-A4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-04-A6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= National Debt # 2 =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Why is the federal budget running out of control? I'll be right back with some answers.

Yesterday, I discussed the raw figures of recent federal budgets. The picture is of a government spending far beyond its means with the pace accelerating. Reversing this trend is essential to our survival as a free and stable nation, but before we can take the necessary steps we must be clear where the problem lies. [[wikipedia:John_L._McClellan|Senator John McClellan]], the Arkansas Democrat who's the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee provided some sound answers in a recent article in the New York Times. "The first thing we must understand," says Senator McClellan, "is the defense spending is not the problem. Since fiscal year 1966 the cost of the federal government has risen more than 150 percent from 134.7 billion to 349.4 billion, the estimated figure for fiscal year 1976. Of this total increase, only 17 percent is accounted for by defense. In fact, outlays for national defense have shrunk in this 10-year period from 41.5 percent to just 26.9 percent of total federal spending." The senator is on firm ground when he says, quote, "Very little blame can possibly be lodged against the Defense Department for the exorbitant increase in federal expenditures." Unquote.

In the last decade non-defense spending has clearly been the culprit. It has accounted for 82 percent of the increase in spending. As a proportion of the budget it's risen from just 58.5 percent to 73.1 percent, while national defense was rising by 68 percent, not much more than the rate of inflation. Other government spending was rising by a whopping 224 percent, while defense spending has fallen to less than 6 percent of the gross national product. Non-defense spending at the federal level alone is now taking well over one-fifth of your annual income.

The truth is that defense spending has been rising far less rapidly than any other major item in the budget. Here are some examples: federal aid to education, manpower, and social services has jumped 257 percent. Social Security and other retirement and disability programs are up 247 percent. Health services led by Medicare and Medicaid have jumped 963 percent. It's bad enough that these programs are eating heavily into your taxpayers dollar, how much worse when we consider how dismal the results of many of them have been. Take the Social Security program. As fewer young people begin to enter the job market, the time may come within a few years when the system cannot support retirees, even if taxes are increased much further. Medicare and Medicaid, by taking a huge proportion of patient-doctor transactions away from the marketplace have contributed the lion's share of overall inflation of medical costs. In the last 10 years, as spending for education has increased student test scores have declined, discipline has deteriorated and local control of our school systems is threatened. In field after field generous federal spending has caused more problems than it solved.

What an irony, if by refusing to cut spending we contribute to the deterioration of the nation's social fabric. At the same time we're bankrupting the treasury. It's almost as if we refuse to read the evidence of our senses.

Bigger government is not more efficient government. Big government is weak government. Its only strength is the power to bring its weakness, uncertainty and inefficiency to every corner of American life.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/27/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

77-23-A3

2026-08-05T00:57:59Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1977|1977]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[77-23-A2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[77-23-A4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Socialism =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
I guess all of us have had the experience of getting into a discussion and coming up with the right answer two hours later when we're all alone. I'll be right back.

My award for someone who thought of the right answer while the discussion was still going on as a young man named Brad Laniweaver, a member of Young Americans for Freedom at Pennsylvania State
University. He has written of an encounter on the campus with a pretty young lady who believes socialism is the answer to our problems. His own philosophy was self-evident, because he was wearing a button that proclaimed "Cut Down Big Government." With the cool breeze stirring her hair
she asked what Brad described as her ace-up-the-sleeve question.

"Even you right-wingers don't want to starve. Wouldn't you like a guarantee that you won't ever go hungry?" Brad knew that if he admitted to this she'd follow with, "So why not such a guarantee for shelter, medicine and all the rest?" He paused and then gave her the victory she was seeking, or so she thought. He said, "Sure. I'd like to lay my hands on everything I can get."

"Oh," she said, "but the state is the closest you can come to such a guarantee." Brad described her as braced for a counter-attack involving the magic of the market mechanism but he threw another curve. "Sure," he said "I grant that. There's something more. I'd like a guarantee of shelter and medical treatment and even some recreation."

She must have thought she had a convert. A little shocked she spoke, "But that's what we support! Why are you wearing that button?" She meant, of course, that "Cut Down Big Government" button. Brad wasn't finished. He said to her, "I would also like a yacht." Somewhat defeated, she answered, "Well, if you're not going to be serious about it..."

"But I am!" Brad said as earnestly as he could. "I would really and truly like a yacht! Also a seaside villa."

"Look," she said sternly, "You know what I'm talking about. Sharing! I'm not interested in your greedy daydreams. I'm asking what everyone should have."

"Alright." Brad answered. "I understand. Let everyone have a yacht."

"But how?" she asked lucidly with the first sign of a rational thought.

"Don't bother me with that." he said. "There'll be a way, I'm sure. Just so everyone has a yacht. However there is one more thing I would like."

"What?" she asked.

"Two yachts."

Brad wrote that she looked rather unpleasant at that point and he feared for his safety. Then she declared, "It's people like you who keep socialism from working." And Brad agreed.

"Yes, quite right. Perhaps if people like me were put away somewhere, socialism would have a chance." By now she was really glaring as she tried to think of an answer. Brad continued. "But there's still one problem. How many are there like me?"

"Well, not as many as you think." she said and walked away. And then brad came up with a really appropriate last line. He wrote, "There she's wrong and that's why she's a socialist."

Right he is. Socialists ignore the side of man that is of the spirit. They can provide shelter, fill your belly with bacon and beans, treat you when you're ill. All the things that are guaranteed to a prisoner or a slave. They don't understand that we also dream. Yes, even of some time owning a yacht.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>11/21/[[Radio1977|1977]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:Ll2mbslJPbY|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Repeated from [[76-06-B6|1976]]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Linaweaver Brad Linaweaver]
* [https://www.hollywoodinvestigator.com/2007/linaweaver.htm Libertarian Screenwriter Brad Linaweaver Slams Neocons] (mentions that ''The Wish'' appeared in YAF's New Guard magazine)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Americans_for_Freedom Young American's for Freedom]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

77-23-A3

2026-08-05T00:57:47Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1977|1977]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[77-23-A2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[77-23-A4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Socialism =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
I guess all of us have had the experience of getting into a discussion and coming up with the right answer two hours later when we're all alone. I'll be right back.

My award for someone who thought of the right answer while the discussion was still going on as a young man named Brad Laniweaver, a member of Young Americans for Freedom at Pennsylvania State
University. He has written of an encounter on the campus with a pretty young lady who believes socialism is the answer to our problems. His own philosophy was self-evident, because he was wearing a button that proclaimed "Cut Down Big Government." With the cool breeze stirring her hair
she asked what Brad described as her ace-up-the-sleeve question.

"Even you right-wingers don't want to starve. Wouldn't you like a guarantee that you won't ever go hungry?" Brad knew that if he admitted to this she'd follow with, "So why not such a guarantee for shelter, medicine and all the rest?" He paused and then gave her the victory she was seeking, or so she thought. He said, "Sure. I'd like to lay my hands on everything I can get."

"Oh," she said, "but the state is the closest you can come to such a guarantee." Brad described her as braced for a counter-attack involving the magic of the market mechanism but he threw another curve. "Sure," he said "I grant that. There's something more. I'd like a guarantee of shelter and medical treatment and even some recreation."

She must have thought she had a convert. A little shocked she spoke, "But that's what we support! Why are you wearing that button?" She meant, of course, that "Cut Down Big Government" button. Brad wasn't finished. He said to her, "I would also like a yacht." Somewhat defeated, she answered, "Well, if you're not going to be serious about it..."

"But I am!" Brad said as earnestly as he could. "I would really and truly like a yacht! Also a seaside villa."

"Look," she said sternly, "You know what I'm talking about. Sharing! I'm not interested in your greedy daydreams. I'm asking what everyone should have."

"Alright." Brad answered. "I understand. Let everyone have a yacht."

"But how?" she asked lucidly with the first sign of a rational thought.

"Don't bother me with that." he said. "There'll be a way, I'm sure. Just so everyone has a yacht. However there is one more thing I would like."

"What?" she asked.

"Two yachts."

Brad wrote that she looked rather unpleasant at that point and he feared for his safety. Then she declared, "It's people like you who keep socialism from working." And Brad agreed.

"Yes, quite right. Perhaps if people like me were put away somewhere, socialism would have a chance." By now she was really glaring as she tried to think of an answer. Brad continued. "But there's still one problem. How many are there like me?"

"Well, not as many as you think." she said and walked away. And then brad came up with a really appropriate last line. He wrote, "There she's wrong and that's why she's a socialist."

Right he is. Socialists ignore the side of man that is of the spirit. They can provide shelter, fill your belly with bacon and beans, treat you when you're ill. All the things that are guaranteed to a prisoner or a slave. They don't understand that we also dream. Yes, even of some time owning a yacht.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>11/21/[[Radio1977|1977]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:Ll2mbslJPbY|Listen]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Repeated from [[76-06-B6|1976]]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Linaweaver Brad Linaweaver]
* [https://www.hollywoodinvestigator.com/2007/linaweaver.htm Libertarian Screenwriter Brad Linaweaver Slams Neocons] (mentions that ''The Wish'' appeared in YAF's New Guard magazine)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Americans_for_Freedom Young American's for Freedom]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

77-23-A3

2026-08-05T00:57:33Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1977|1977]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[77-23-A2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[77-23-A4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Socialism =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
I guess all of us have had the experience of getting into a discussion and coming up with the right answer two hours later when we're all alone. I'll be right back.

My award for someone who thought of the right answer while the discussion was still going on as a young man named Brad Laniweaver, a member of Young Americans for Freedom at Pennsylvania State
University. He has written of an encounter on the campus with a pretty young lady who believes socialism is the answer to our problems. His own philosophy was self-evident, because he was wearing a button that proclaimed "Cut Down Big Government." With the cool breeze stirring her hair
she asked what Brad described as her ace-up-the-sleeve question.

"Even you right-wingers don't want to starve. Wouldn't you like a guarantee that you won't ever go hungry?" Brad knew that if he admitted to this she'd follow with, "So why not such a guarantee for shelter, medicine and all the rest?" He paused and then gave her the victory she was seeking, or so she thought. He said, "Sure. I'd like to lay my hands on everything I can get."

"Oh," she said, "but the state is the closest you can come to such a guarantee." Brad described her as braced for a counter-attack involving the magic of the market mechanism but he threw another curve. "Sure," he said "I grant that. There's something more. I'd like a guarantee of shelter and medical treatment and even some recreation."

She must have thought she had a convert. A little shocked she spoke, "But that's what we support! Why are you wearing that button?" She meant, of course, that "Cut Down Big Government" button. Brad wasn't finished. He said to her, "I would also like a yacht." Somewhat defeated, she answered, "Well, if you're not going to be serious about it..."

"But I am!" Brad said as earnestly as he could. "I would really and truly like a yacht! Also a seaside villa."

"Look," she said sternly, "You know what I'm talking about. Sharing! I'm not interested in your greedy daydreams. I'm asking what everyone should have."

"Alright." Brad answered. "I understand. Let everyone have a yacht."

"But how?" she asked lucidly with the first sign of a rational thought.

"Don't bother me with that." he said. "There'll be a way, I'm sure. Just so everyone has a yacht. However there is one more thing I would like."

"What?" she asked.

"Two yachts."

Brad wrote that she looked rather unpleasant at that point and he feared for his safety. Then she declared, "It's people like you who keep socialism from working." And Brad agreed.

"Yes, quite right. Perhaps if people like me were put away somewhere, socialism would have a chance." By now she was really glaring as she tried to think of an answer. Brad continued. "But there's still one problem. How many are there like me?"

"Well, not as many as you think." she said and walked away. And then brad came up with a really appropriate last line. He wrote, "There she's wrong and that's why she's a socialist."

Right he is. Socialists ignore the side of man that is of the spirit. They can provide shelter, fill your belly with bacon and beans, treat you when you're ill. All the things that are guaranteed to a prisoner or a slave. They don't understand that we also dream. Yes, even of some time owning a yacht.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>11/21/[[Radio1977|1977]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[ty:Ll2mbslJPbY|Listen]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Repeated from [[76-06-B6|1976]]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Linaweaver Brad Linaweaver]
* [https://www.hollywoodinvestigator.com/2007/linaweaver.htm Libertarian Screenwriter Brad Linaweaver Slams Neocons] (mentions that ''The Wish'' appeared in YAF's New Guard magazine)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Americans_for_Freedom Young American's for Freedom]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

76-06-B6

2026-08-05T00:57:03Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1976|1976]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[76-06-B5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[76-06-B7|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Socialism =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
I guess all of us have had the experience of getting into a discussion and coming up with the right answer two hours later when we're all alone. I'll be right back.

My award for someone who thought of the right answer while the discussion was still going on as a young man named Brad Laniweaver, a member of Young Americans for Freedom at Pennsylvania State University. He has written of an encounter on the campus with a pretty young lady who believes socialism is the answer to our problems. His own philosophy was self-evident, because he was wearing a button that proclaimed "Cut Down Big Government." With the cool breeze stirring her hair she asked what Brad described as her ace-up-the-sleeve question.

"Even you right-wingers don't want to starve. Wouldn't you like a guarantee that you won't ever go hungry?" Brad knew that if he admitted to this she'd follow with, "So why not such a guarantee for shelter, medicine and all the rest?" He paused and then gave her the victory she was seeking, or so she thought. He said, "Sure. I'd like to lay my hands on everything I can get."

"Oh," she said, "but the state is the closest you can come to such a guarantee." Brad described her as braced for a counter-attack involving the magic of the market mechanism but he threw another curve. "Sure," he said "I grant that. There's something more. I'd like a guarantee of shelter and medical treatment and even some recreation."

She must have thought she had a convert. A little shocked she spoke, "But that's what we support! Why are you wearing that button?" She meant, of course, that "Cut Down Big Government" button. Brad wasn't finished. He said to her, "I would also like a yacht." Somewhat defeated, she answered, "Well, if you're not going to be serious about it..."

"But I am!" Brad said as earnestly as he could. "I would really and truly like a yacht! Also a seaside villa."

"Look," she said sternly, "You know what I'm talking about. Sharing! I'm not interested in your greedy daydreams. I'm asking what everyone should have."

"Alright." Brad answered. "I understand. Let everyone have a yacht."

"But how?" she asked lucidly with the first sign of a rational thought.

"Don't bother me with that." he said. "There'll be a way, I'm sure. Just so everyone has a yacht. However there is one more thing I would like."

"What?" she asked.

"Two yachts."

Brad wrote that she looked rather unpleasant at that point and he feared for his safety. Then she declared, "It's people like you who keep socialism from working." And Brad agreed.

"Yes, quite right. Perhaps if people like me were put away somewhere, socialism would have a chance." By now she was really glaring as she tried to think of an answer. Brad continued. "But there's still one problem. How many are there like me?"

"Well, not as many as you think." she said and walked away. And then Brad came up with a really appropriate last line. He wrote, "There she's wrong and that's why she's a socialist."

Right he is. Socialists ignore the side of man that is of the spirit. They can provide shelter, fill your belly with bacon and beans, treat you when you're ill. All the things that are guaranteed to a prisoner or a slave. They don't understand that we also dream. Yes, even of some time owning a yacht.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>11/16/[[Radio1976|1976]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_Stories_His_Own_Hand|SihoH]]-89</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:Ll2mbslJPbY|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Repeated in [[77-23-A3|1977]]
* [[wikipedia:Brad_Linaweaver|Brad Linaweaver]]
* [https://www.hollywoodinvestigator.com/2007/linaweaver.htm Libertarian Screenwriter Brad Linaweaver Slams Neocons] (mentions that ''The Wish'' appeared in YAF's New Guard magazine)
* [[wikipedia:Young_Americans_for_Freedom|Young American's for Freedom]]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-04-A3

2026-07-31T15:23:05Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-04-A2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-04-A4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= W. Germany / Inflation =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
There's one country where instead of just talking about inflation they're really doing something about it. I'll be right back.

At a time when many members of Congress don't seem to understand that we wouldn't have a recession today if it hadn't been for unchecked inflation one member, [[wikipedia:W._S._Stuckey_Jr.|Representative Bill Stuckey of Georgia]], Democrat, has been taking a close look at what one of our allies, West Germany, has been doing to fight the problem.

In a recent article Congressman Stuckey said, quote, "Of all the nations in the Western world, only Germany is having any form of success in battling inflation." [[wikipedia:Gerald_Ford|President Ford]] as well as the [[wikipedia:93rd_United_States_Congress|new Congress]] should examine the economic policies which have enabled this one European country to avoid the ravages of inflation while its neighbors teeter on the brink of bankruptcy. He goes on to say, What the German government has done to fight inflation is to slash federal spending. The move was unpopular at first especially among those cabinet ministers who saw their pet projects chopped from the German budget, but in just a few months fiscal soundness paid off. While the rest of the West suffers from double-digit inflation, in Germany, despite the mammoth increases in oil prices, the rate of inflation is projected to be only seven percent this year. Once the German government proved by its actions that it was serious about fighting inflation, the country's citizens responded accordingly. They sharply increase savings and cut consumer borrowing by an amazing 92 percent. I believe our citizens too would be willing soldiers in the battle to fight inflation, if our federal government offered leadership by positive example, Instead of hollow rhetoric." unquote, from Congressman Stuckey.

Well I can only add my own Amen. With Western allies such as Italy and Britain in perilous economic condition and with some of our Congressional leaders righteously demanding an increase in the money supply from the [[wikipedia:Federal_Reserve|Federal Reserve Bank]], common sense comments of this kind are refreshing. It's not hard to believe that the American people, if faced with such a positive example from their government, would respond with similar eagerness to solve the problem. You might try closing your eyes for a moment and try to imagine what it would be like if the leaders of our government, executive and legislative, were to sit down and decide to cut that huge 52 billion plus budget deficit to zero, and then ask the people to also tighten their belts.

Recent public opinion polls have shown that public confidence in the institutions of government could hardly be lower. A strong dose of statesmanship would go a long way to reversing those polls. Balancing the budget is a little like protecting your virtue, you have to learn to say no. So far Washington hasn't gotten the message.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/27/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:VXIDSQcDpRo|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-04-A1

2026-07-31T14:59:45Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-03-B6|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-04-A2|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Unemployment # 1 =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Is a worker with a particular skill really unemployed if somewhere in the land an employer has a job for such a worker? I'll be right back.

A while back on these broadcasts I talked about unemployment and the way the government counts, or perhaps I should say miscounts, the unemployed. My intention was not to underplay the desperate situation of a person willing to work, needing work and unable to find it. the point I was making was that the percentage figures given to us, often in scare headlines, from the [[wikipedia:Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics|U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics]] was inaccurate, misleading and of no help whatever to those looking for work or companies looking for workers.

Demand for certain job skills is not evenly distributed across our land. Unemployed workers in one area are matched by unfilled jobs in other areas. There's little or no communication between employers and vocational schools as to which skills are in demand and which are in surplus.

An item appeared recently in a national magazine telling of the shortage in American industry of skilled metal workers. The prediction was made that in five years or less, metalworking companies will be forced to cut back operations because they'll be unable to hire machinist tool makers or die makers. One company operating in six states has a chronic problem right now. Most of its skilled employees are age 60, the youngest is 40. At a half dozen locations they're in a constant search for personnel. In one plant, an opening for a tool maker has gone unfilled for two years.

You and I as consumers are paying part of the price for this shortage in the form of poor quality workmanship because managers have to fill the gap with inadequately trained workers.

Now these aren't menial jobs without a future. Tool-making is creative with new challenges daily and it pays well. Good [[wikipedia:Tool_and_die_maker|tool and die makers]] are earning up to $18,000 a year and many go into business for themselves. Whether earning power is unlimited and yet a survey of vocational training facilities in one state found 105 recent graduates in [[wikipedia:Cosmetology|cosmetology]], 181 clerical—tool and die makers 0.

The [[wikipedia:National_Federation_of_Independent_Business|National Federation of Independent Business]] which includes most of those employing 500 less workers of all types reports that more than one-fifth of its member firms have unfilled jobs and one-third of those have been unfilled for more than six months. Half of the businesses with job openings have been advertising in the papers and using employment agencies. The pattern of labor shortages varies, verifying the fact that labor surplus and labor shortage is not evenly distributed. For example in the west and south central states, including Texas, 32% of the businesses have job openings and 40% of these have been unfilled for six months or longer.

The article mentioned California as having fewer job openings and suggested that this reflects the tightening of welfare standards and closer supervision of unemployment benefits in California. And maybe that tells us something. One thing, sure, it indicates that we need more information than just a misleading overall percentage figure of how many people the labor department says would like jobs. Instead why not a periodic census of job skills, spelling out the industries and locations where workers are in surplus and those where jobs are going begging. That way both the job seekers and the worker seekers could get together a lot faster.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/27/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-13</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* ''A while back on these broadcasts'' was [[75-01-B1]], [[75-01-B2]] and [[75-01-B3]].
* Reagan speaks of his ''[https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/sites/default/files/pdf_documents/library/document/0005/1561608.pdf California Welfare Reform Act of 1971]''
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-03-B4

2026-07-31T14:09:55Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-03-B3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-03-B5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Tax Plan #3 =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
We can all own a piece of the action. It only takes an act of Congress. I'll be right back.

This is the third day I've been talking about capitalism and a couple of ideas that could make all of us capitalists.

When my old friend Congressman [[wikipedia:H._R._Gross|H.R. Charlie Gross]] of Iowa retired last year, he gave his [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1974-pt30/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1974-pt30-3-3.pdf colleagues a farewell address] that challenged every one of them to start thinking about the next generation instead of the next election. For a quarter of a century he's been the conscience of the Congress, pleading constantly for statesmanship and responsibility. Very seldom did they support him in overwhelming numbers but in their hearts every one of them knew he was dead right and they were dead wrong.

In that final address he presented a simple idea that could resolve most of our problems and make this nation once again the golden hope of all mankind. The idea he presented was not his. It was the work of many distinguished scholars and men successful in industrial America. It's known as N.D.P., the National Dividend Plan.

As I told you yesterday, it's a plan whereby government, which is collecting in taxes about half the profits of all U.S. corporations, would give that money back directly to the people, with each registered voters sharing the benefits of free enterprise. I'm sure yesterday's broadcast must have left you with a few questions. Well let me see if I can give you some additional facts and answer some of those questions.

First of all, N.D.P. will not cause great disruption or damage to the necessary functions of the federal government. It would be phased into operation over a five-year period, twenty percent a year.

The present corporation tax accounts for about fifteen percent of total federal revenue. So each year for five years, the reduction would be one-fifth of that or about three percent. Now normally federal revenues grow by about nine percent a year, just from the growth of the economy. So even though the government would be giving to all the people the corporation tax, government would still have an increase in revenue each year.

In addition to this normal growth rate in revenue, there would be an additional stimulant because of the money freed for investment and spending. This not only stimulates more economic activity in the private sector, it also generates even more tax revenues for government. At the same time, many government programs could be reduced and some completely eliminated. Every family would be receiving tax-free funds based on the number of registered voters in the family. This would eliminate the need for many supplemental aid programs and the bureaucracies that supervise them.

The wealth of a nation is measured by the industry it creates and the goods it produces, for the most part government spending does neither. On the other hand increased activity in the private sector does. It has a multiplier effect. The National Dividend Plan would involve distribution of earned dollars. Dollars the government is taking in taxes from private industry and theoretically already spending on our behalf. The new plan calls instead for letting each American spend his share of those dollars the way he chooses.

Our Congressmen know of the plan, Thanks to former Congressman Gross. Now it's up to us to see that Congress knows that we know it. Our job is not so much to make Congress see the light, as to make them feel the heat.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/14/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-11</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:mySTcSwENPQ|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Used on The Citizen Reagan Podcast
* [http://uipress.lib.uiowa.edu/bdi/DetailsPage.aspx?id=147 H.R. Charlie Gross]
* [https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-bill/430/text?r=78&s=1 HR 430, National Dividend Act of 1991]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-03-B3

2026-07-31T13:59:11Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-03-B2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-03-B4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Tax Plan #2 =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Socialism makes promises only capitalism can keep. I'll be right back.

Yesterday, I told you of a plan used by some industrial corporations to make their employees stockholders part owners of the firm.

Today I want to tell you about another idea for giving every registered voter ownership in the business and industrial structure of America. Now this is not a half-baked utopian dream, it's a well-thought-out fully documented program called the national dividend plan which has the endorsement of well-known economists and political scientists.

Lionel D. Edie and company, a research subsidiary of one of the great financial institutions, [[wikipedia:Merrill_(company)|Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith]] did a feasibility study and endorsed it. Other endorsers include the [[wikipedia:American_Enterprise_Institute|American Enterprise Institute]], the [[wikipedia:United_States_Chamber_of_Commerce|U.S. Chamber of Commerce]] and the [[wikipedia:United_States_Junior_Chamber|U.S. Junior Chamber, the Jaycees]], the [[wikipedia:General_Federation_of_Women%27s_Clubs|General Federation of Women's Clubs]], the United States Savings and Loan League, and the [[wikipedia:National_Association_of_Manufacturers|National Association of Manufacturers]].

By the way, this plan is not offered as a substitute or alternative for the plan I discussed yesterday where my employees could acquire ownership in the companies they work for. We could actually have both, and let me repeat what I said yesterday, we won't be taking anything away from anybody in the process nor will those who benefit have to dig into their savings.

Right now the [[wikipedia:Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States|income tax on corporation profits]] is 48 percent. The national dividend plan calls for setting a ceiling of 50 percent. Investors would be assured that the corporation tax would never go above 50 percent. This should encourage more investment, since the plan would also end the present, unfair, double tax under which the corporation profits are taxed and then those distributed as dividends are taxed again as individual shareholders income. This would end. You'll see why in a minute.

The corporation tax would continue to be collected by government, however, instead of government spending it in our behalf we'd get to spend it ourselves.

Every citizen registered to vote in the previous federal election would receive a pro rata share of the total corporation tax collected by government. This means the registered voters of America would be sharing in roughly half the profits of American industry.

Checks would be sent on a quarterly basis and it's estimated that when the program is fully implemented the payments to each individual should be five hundred dollars or more each year, tax-free. An elderly couple on a pension or social security would be getting an additional thousand dollars a year as their share of an industrial prosperity. Registered eighteen-year-olds would have five hundred dollars a year to help them with their education and each of us would have a personal stake in helping our economy to expand and produce more. One little known statistic shows how we could all help to increase our annual dividend. A one tenth of one percent increase in output per man hour adds a billion dollars to the gross national product. A two or three percent increase would make us the world's greatest producer.

This basically is the plan tomorrow. I'll give you more details, including what we can do to make the national dividend plan a reality.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/14/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-10</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:mySTcSwENPQ|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Used on the Citizen Reagan Podcast
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-03-B2

2026-07-31T13:35:27Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-03-B1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-03-B3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Tax Plan #1 =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Has capitalism used all of the tools available to it and its worldwide struggle with socialism? some of us don't think so. I'll be right back.

Capitalism hasn't used the best tool of all in a struggle against socialism and that's capitalism itself.

Roughly 94% of the people in capitalist America make their living from wages or salaries. Only 6% are true capitalists in the sense of deriving their income from ownership of the means of production.

Both groups enjoy the highest standard of living the world as ever known, certainly far better than anything socialism has produced for its people. We can win the argument once and for all by simply making more of our people capitalists.

More than a hundred years ago, [[wikipedia:Abraham_Lincoln|Abe Lincoln]] signed the [[wikipedia:Homestead_Acts|Homestead Act]], making it possible for our people to own land. This was a revolutionary development. Ownership of land in most of the world had not been possible for the ordinary citizen. Generally land belonged to the king or emperor and through him to the favored aristocracy.

The Homestead Act set the pattern for American capitalism. Today 53 million Americans own their own homes. Now we need an industrial homestead act and that isn't impossible, as a matter of fact any number of companies and corporations in America have tried in a variety of ways to spread ownership to their employees.

In San Francisco a man named [[wikipedia:Louis_O._Kelso|Louis Kelso]] has evolved a plan which a number of corporations have already implemented. Now when a corporation needs to expand, it finances the expansion either by borrowing or by selling a new stock issue. Under the Kelso plan, an [[wikipedia:Employee_stock_ownership_plan|employee trust]] is formed. A company desiring new capital sells a new stock issue to this employee trust. The trust in turn borrows the money from a bank or lending unit using the stock as collateral. Each individual employee winds up owning stock in the company directly proportionate to his salary or wage level and he has a vested interest in the company's ability to prosper.

And to increase earnings over the next ten years there'll probably be five hundred billion dollars worth of new investment for businesses and industrial expansion it can also be five hundred billion dollars worth of corporate ownership by employees. An increasing number of citizens thus would have two sources of income. A paycheck and a share of the profits. Could there be a better answer to the stupidity of Karl Marx than millions of workers individually sharing in the ownership of the means of production?

Some years ago an executive of the [[wikipedia:Ford_Motor_Company|Ford Motor Company]] was showing the late [[wikipedia:Walter_Reuther|Walter Reuther]] head of the [[wikipedia:United_Auto_Workers|Auto Worker's Union]] through the [[wikipedia:Cleveland_Engine|Ford assembly plant in Cleveland Ohio]]. Pointing to the latest in automated machinery he said "Walter you will have a hard time collecting Union dues from those machines." and Walter replied "you'll have a harder time selling them automobiles."

The obvious answer neither of them thought of was that owners of machines can buy automobiles. Tomorrow, I'll tell you of another plan one that would give every registered voter in America an active share of ownership in the industry of America.

It's possible to have that and the plan I've just described. All it takes is a bill by Congress.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/14/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-8</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:mySTcSwENPQ|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-03-A5

2026-07-30T20:49:45Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-03-A4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-03-A6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= The Delta Queen =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Sometimes even bureaucrats can bring out the best in people. I'll be right back.

With her great stern wheel churning, the [[wikipedia:DeltaQueen|Delta Queen]] quietly plies her way up and down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, just as if she'd been doing it for a hundred years or more. Actually, though, she's only been at it 27 years since the green line of [[wikipedia:Cincinnati|Cincinnati]] finished refurbishing her and put her into passenger service between Pittsburgh and New Orleans in 1947. Though she looks antebellum, the Delta Queen is really only middle-aged. She was built in Glasgow, [[wikipedia:Scotland|Scotland]] in 1926 to carry passengers, autos and freight between [[wikipedia:San Francisco|San Francisco]] and [[wikipedia:Sacramento|Sacramento]], California. The navy used her to ferry troops during World War II and the [[wikipedia:Delta_Queen_Steamboat_Company|Greene Line]], which then had a big fleet of riverboats, bought her after the war.

Today, she's the last reminder of those bygone days of river travel. the only overnight riverboat for passengers in America, so important is she as a symbol of an old and historic means of transport that the U.S. [[wikipedia: United_States_Department_of_the_Interior|Department of the Interior]] has listed the Delta Queen in the national register of historic places, making her a sort of floating monument to the thousands of boats that helped open up a continent by making the Mississippi a great artery of commerce. The Delta Queen is an endangered species, though, and thereby hangs a tale. In the mid 1960s, tragic fires on two cruise ships not of U.S. registry, prompted a worried Congress to pass a so-called [https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal66-1300437#_ Safety At Sea Law in 1966]. This law specified that all American flag ships with overnight passenger accommodations had to be fire proof and this spelled trouble for the Delta Queen.

Though her hull is steel, her superstructure is entirely made of hardwoods. Technically she fell into the provisions of the new law though she's never out of sight of land, never goes to sea, has never had a fire and operates for a line that in 80 years has never had a loss of life due to either accident or fire. "No matter," said the bureaucrats in Washington, the Delta Queen could not be made an exception. At this point, remember that bureaucrats more than Congress decide what's legal and what isn't for they're the ones who devise and implement the regulations which accompany the laws passed by Congress.

That did it for the friends of the Delta Queen and they numbered into the thousands. Governors, Congressman, Chambers of Commerce, former passengers and history buffs the nation over rode in asking for the Queen to be saved. For to rebuild her all of steel would have been prohibitively expensive and if not, would have robbed her of the very qualities that made her so appealing. All this fell on deaf ears at the House of Representatives. Merchant marine and fisheries committee petitions and special bills were turned back, but in the end the people who cared won the day. Goaded by the bureaucrat's stubbornness they persuaded friendly Congressmen to attach a rider to save the Delta Queen to an unobtrusive bill. The bill sailed through both Houses of Congress, the President signed it and the Delta Queen has a reprieve till late 1978.

Meanwhile, her supporters and defenders have bought some time to find a way to keep her going even longer, and this month the Delta Queen moved out into the river from her home birth in Cincinnati for the 28th year of delighting Americans with an experience in floating history.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/14/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [https://deltaqueen.com/delta-queen/ ''Delta Queen'' Homepage]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-03-A5

2026-07-30T20:42:54Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-03-A4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-03-A6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= The Delta Queen =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Sometimes even bureaucrats can bring out the best in people. I'll be right back.

With her great stern wheel churning, the [[wikipedia:DeltaQueen|Delta Queen]] quietly plies her way up and down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, just as if she'd been doing it for a hundred years or more. Actually, though, she's only been at it 27 years since the green line of [[wikipedia:Cincinnati|Cincinnati]] finished refurbishing her and put her into passenger service between Pittsburgh and New Orleans in 1947. Though she looks antebellum, the Delta Queen is really only middle-aged. She was built in Glasgow, [[wikipedia:Scotland|Scotland]] in 1926 to carry passengers, autos and freight between [[wikipedia:San Francisco|San Francisco]] and [[wikipedia:Sacramento|Sacramento]], California. The navy used her to ferry troops during World War II and the [[wikipedia:Delta_Queen_Steamboat_Company|Greene Line]], which then had a big fleet of riverboats, bought her after the war.

Today, she's the last reminder of those bygone days of river travel. the only overnight riverboat for passengers in America, so important is she as a symbol of an old and historic means of transport that the U.S. [[wikipedia: United_States_Department_of_the_Interior|Department of the Interior]] has listed the Delta Queen in the national register of historic places, making her a sort of floating monument to the thousands of boats that helped open up a continent by making the Mississippi a great artery of commerce. The Delta Queen is an endangered species, though, and thereby hangs a tale. In the mid 1960s, tragic fires on two cruise ships not of U.S. registry, prompted a worried Congress to pass a so-called [https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal66-1300437#_ Safety At Sea Law in 1966]. This law specified that all American flag ships with overnight passenger accommodations had to be fire proof and this spelled trouble for the Delta Queen.

Though her hull is steel, her superstructure is entirely made of hardwoods. Technically she fell into the provisions of the new law though she's never out of sight of land, never goes to sea, has never had a fire and operates for a line that in 80 years has never had a loss of life due to either accident or fire. "No matter," said the bureaucrats in Washington, the Delta Queen could not be made an exception. At this point, remember that bureaucrats more than Congress decide what's legal and what isn't for they're the ones who devise and implement the regulations which accompany the laws passed by Congress.

That did it for the friends of the Delta Queen and they numbered into the thousands. Governors, Congressman, Chambers of Commerce, former passengers and history buffs the nation over rode in asking for the Queen to be saved. For to rebuild her all of steel would have been prohibitively expensive and if not, would have robbed her of the very qualities that made her so appealing. All this fell on deaf ears at the House of Representatives. Merchant marine and fisheries committee petitions and special bills were turned back, but in the end the people who cared won the day. Goaded by the bureaucrat's stubbornness they persuaded friendly Congressmen to attach a rider to save the Delta Queen to an unobtrusive bill. The bill sailed through both Houses of Congress, the President signed it and the Delta Queen has a reprieve till late 1978.

Meanwhile, her supporters and defenders have bought some time to find a way to keep her going even longer, and this month the Delta Queen moved out into the river from her home birth in Cincinnati for the 28th year of delighting Americans with an experience in floating history.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/14/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [https://deltaqueenhotel.net/ The ''Delta Queen'' Hotel]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-03-A2

2026-07-30T20:40:23Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-03-A1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-03-A3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Détente =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
What should be the U.S. aim in [[wikipedia:détente|détente]]? I'll be right back.

The [[Wikipedia:Soviet_Union|Soviet Union]]'s recent cancellation of the [[nyt:1972/10/19/archives/us-and-russians-sign-agreements-to-widen-trade-accords-ending.html|1972 trade agreement]] raises anew all the confusing and serious questions in people's minds about our policy of detente. What, if anything, should the United States be looking for in exchange for trade, aid, and other concessions? There are some who believe that we should grant favors to our adversaries with no strings attached, not so much for the sake of being kind as in the hope that unilateral concessions will create a climate of trust between the two countries and encourage the Russians to make unilateral conciliatory moves of their own.

History provides very little encouragement for this strategy. The Soviet leaders from [[wikipedia:Lenin|Lenin]] to [[wikipedia:Leonid_Brezhnev|Brezhnev]] have been realistic unsentimental bargainers men, highly reluctant to pay for something offered free of charge. Indeed, it's often been after major western concessions, such as the handing over of Eastern Europe to the Red Army at the close of World War II, the Soviet policy immediately afterward assumed its most threatening form. It was the fear that our Soviet trade policy represented just such a unilateral concession, that [[wikipedia:Henry_M._Jackson|Senator Henry Jackson]] and others in Congress [[wikipedia:Jackson–Vanik_amendment|attached a rider]] to [[wikipedia:Trade_Act_of_1974|the foreign trade act]], making the concessions dependent on Soviet agreement, to allow freer immigration by Jews and other oppressed people, the condition was at first agreed to. The Soviets then repudiated only a few months later thus canceling the whole agreement. This led to an attack on Congress by Secretary of State [[wikipedia:Henry_Kissinger|Kissinger]], whose view is that the United States should ask only for Soviet concessions in foreign policy and defense, but never for domestic relaxation in the Soviet Union itself.

Kissinger believes that any quid pro quo that smacks of interference in internal Soviet affairs will never be granted, but the immigration agreement was initially granted, indicating that important elements in Soviet leadership do consider internal issues negotiable. Moreover, there's little indication that the Soviets have conceded many points, in such matters as nuclear arms limitation or the Mideast in exchange for American concessions in other fields. This is understandable. Vital issues of national security and big power maneuvering must inevitably be approached in terms of mutual security and balance of power. Negotiations on peace matters will succeed only if the United States shows a willingness to match and exceed Soviet power. Should negotiations fail, that leaves internal Soviet policy as virtually the only area of valuable Soviet concession. After all, the Soviets have very little of what we want in the way of technology and it's unlikely we'd wish to become dependent on them for raw materials, when many other sources are available.

We must always remember that the Soviet Union, through the communist parties of the world, is an international corporation, complete with extensive apparatus not only of subversion but of public relations. A black eye, such as the expulsion of [[wikipedia:Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn|Alexander Solzhenitsyn]] harms Soviet interests around the globe. The more we focus attention on internal Soviet repression and focus our demands in this area, the better chance that over the years the Soviet society will lose its cruelty and secrecy. Peace could then be ensured, not only because the Soviets fear are deterrent but because they no longer wish to blot out all who oppose them at home and abroad.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/14/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-03-A2

2026-07-30T20:37:26Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-03-A1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-03-A3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Détente =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
What should be the U.S. aim in [[wikipedia:detente|detente]]? I'll be right back.

The [[Wikipedia:Soviet_Union|Soviet Union]]'s recent cancellation of the [[nyt:1972/10/19/archives/us-and-russians-sign-agreements-to-widen-trade-accords-ending.html|1972 trade agreement]] raises anew all the confusing and serious questions in people's minds about our policy of detente. What, if anything, should the United States be looking for in exchange for trade, aid, and other concessions? There are some who believe that we should grant favors to our adversaries with no strings attached, not so much for the sake of being kind as in the hope that unilateral concessions will create a climate of trust between the two countries and encourage the Russians to make unilateral conciliatory moves of their own.

History provides very little encouragement for this strategy. The Soviet leaders from [[wikipedia:Lenin|Lenin]] to [[wikipedia:Leonid_Brezhnev|Brezhnev]] have been realistic unsentimental bargainers men, highly reluctant to pay for something offered free of charge. Indeed, it's often been after major western concessions, such as the handing over of Eastern Europe to the Red Army at the close of World War II, the Soviet policy immediately afterward assumed its most threatening form. It was the fear that our Soviet trade policy represented just such a unilateral concession, that [[wikipedia:Henry_M._Jackson|Senator Henry Jackson]] and others in Congress [[wikipedia:Jackson–Vanik_amendment|attached a rider]] to [[wikipedia:Trade_Act_of_1974|the foreign trade act]], making the concessions dependent on Soviet agreement, to allow freer immigration by Jews and other oppressed people, the condition was at first agreed to. The Soviets then repudiated only a few months later thus canceling the whole agreement. This led to an attack on Congress by Secretary of State [[wikipedia:Henry_Kissinger|Kissinger]], whose view is that the United States should ask only for Soviet concessions in foreign policy and defense, but never for domestic relaxation in the Soviet Union itself.

Kissinger believes that any quid pro quo that smacks of interference in internal Soviet affairs will never be granted, but the immigration agreement was initially granted, indicating that important elements in Soviet leadership do consider internal issues negotiable. Moreover, there's little indication that the Soviets have conceded many points, in such matters as nuclear arms limitation or the Mideast in exchange for American concessions in other fields. This is understandable. Vital issues of national security and big power maneuvering must inevitably be approached in terms of mutual security and balance of power. Negotiations on peace matters will succeed only if the United States shows a willingness to match and exceed Soviet power. Should negotiations fail, that leaves internal Soviet policy as virtually the only area of valuable Soviet concession. After all, the Soviets have very little of what we want in the way of technology and it's unlikely we'd wish to become dependent on them for raw materials, when many other sources are available.

We must always remember that the Soviet Union, through the communist parties of the world, is an international corporation, complete with extensive apparatus not only of subversion but of public relations. A black eye, such as the expulsion of [[wikipedia:Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn|Alexander Solzhenitsyn]] harms Soviet interests around the globe. The more we focus attention on internal Soviet repression and focus our demands in this area, the better chance that over the years the Soviet society will lose its cruelty and secrecy. Peace could then be ensured, not only because the Soviets fear are deterrent but because they no longer wish to blot out all who oppose them at home and abroad.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/14/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-02-B4

2026-07-30T19:13:33Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-02-B3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-02-B5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Volunteerism =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
A Frenchman had the last word on American charity, and it was over a hundred years ago. I'll be right back.

Americans are in their time of discontent, perhaps more so than at almost any other time. In our history, our young people have heard in classrooms too much of what's wrong with America. Many of the rest of us yearn to feel once again that old Yankee pride we once had, that belief in ourselves and in our nation.

The other day, I told you a story about a plane-load of citizens who spontaneously came to the aid of a destitute father and his crippled son. It was a heartwarming story, but it really wasn't unusual.

We're still a generous people, more so than most and we put our money where our hearts tell us it should be. Every year in spite of all the billions of dollars in taxes taken for welfare, federal aid to education, subsidies for the arts, and cultural activities, we voluntarily contribute another 25 billion to do the same kind of good causes. There are some who would substitute government planning and government support for all this volunteer effort on our part. They lack confidence that we the people would care for the needy if government wasn't forcing us to do so. Well, some of us can still remember when foreign aid was voluntary. Sure, there was cooperation from government, but saving millions of Belgians from starvation after World War I was a volunteer citizens program. And so it was when Tokyo was devastated by an earthquake. We raised funds for starving Armenians, for victims of fire and flood and drought wherever they were in the world, and the image of America all over the world was of the great, generous, helpful neighbor.

More than a hundred years ago, a Frenchman named [[wikipedia:Alexis_de_Tocqueville|Alexis de Tocqueville]] came to America fascinated by our democracy and our success. [[wikipedia:Democracy_in_America|He wrote a book about us]]. He said to his French friends, "you may not believe this but in America when someone sees a problem that needs solving he doesn't call on government. He crosses the street and talks to a neighbor about it and the first thing you know a committee is formed and before long the problem is solved, without any bureaucrats being involved or any new government program started." unquote. Well, if we lose this particular facet of our American personality, and we can lose it, if we continue to ask government for help on things we really do for ourselves, something precious will be lost. Let's not substitute for charity the coercion of taxation.

The next time you hear that line about things being too complex for us to handle without government help, that only big government has the capacity to do the really big things, don't you believe it. Here in this country we have more churches and libraries, support more symphony orchestras, more operas and more non-profit theaters with voluntary contributions that all the rest of the world put together. We have more doctors and hospitals in proportion to population than any other people and one-third of all the young people in the world who are getting a college education are getting it in this country. For that matter, if we double our present troubles we're still better off than people anywhere else in the world.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:Pkry-A8oOxY|Listen]] (with [[75-02-A5|Rocky's Story]])</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1407185 ''Reagan and that Unnamed Frenchman'']
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-02-B4

2026-07-30T19:11:05Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-02-B3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-02-B5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Volunteerism =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
A Frenchman had the last word on American charity, and it was over a hundred years ago. I'll be right back.

Americans are in their time of discontent, perhaps more so than at almost any other time. In our history, our young people have heard in classrooms too much of what's wrong with America. Many of the rest of us yearn to feel once again that old Yankee pride we once had, that belief in ourselves and in our nation.

The other day, I told you a story about a plane-load of citizens who spontaneously came to the aid of a destitute father and his crippled son. It was a heartwarming story, but it really wasn't unusual.

We're still a generous people, more so than most and we put our money where our hearts tell us it should be. Every year in spite of all the billions of dollars in taxes taken for welfare, federal aid to education, subsidies for the arts, and cultural activities, we voluntarily contribute another 25 billion to do the same kind of good causes. There are some who would substitute government planning and government support for all this volunteer effort on our part. They lack confidence that we the people would care for the needy if government wasn't forcing us to do so. Well, some of us can still remember when foreign aid was voluntary. Sure, there was cooperation from government, but saving millions of Belgians from starvation after world war one was a volunteer citizens program. And so it was when Tokyo was devastated by an earthquake. We raised funds for starving Armenians, for victims of fire and flood and drought wherever they were in the world, and the image of America all over the world was of the great, generous, helpful neighbor.

More than a hundred years ago, a Frenchman named Alexis de Tocqueville came to America fascinated by our democracy and our success. He wrote a book about us. He said to his French friends, "you may not believe this but in America when someone sees a problem that needs solving he doesn't call on government. He crosses the street and talks to a neighbor about it and the first thing you know a committee is formed and before long the problem is solved, without any bureaucrats being involved or any new government program started." unquote. Well, if we lose this particular facet of our American personality, and we can lose it, if we continue to ask government for help on things we really do for ourselves, something precious will be lost. Let's not substitute for charity the coercion of taxation.

The next time you hear that line about things being too complex for us to handle without government help, that only big government has the capacity to do the really big things, don't you believe it. Here in this country we have more churches and libraries support more symphony orchestras more operas and more non-profit theaters with voluntary contributions that all the rest of the world put together. We have more doctors and hospitals in proportion to population than any other people and one-third of all the young people in the world who are getting a college education are getting it in this country. For that matter, if we double our present troubles we're still better off than people anywhere else in the world.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </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>02/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:Pkry-A8oOxY|Listen]] (with [[75-02-A5|Rocky's Story]])</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1407185 ''Reagan and that Unnamed Frenchman'']
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>