Ronald Reagan Speech Wiki - User contributions [en]

75-10-B3

2026-09-25T20:58:40Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-10-B2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-10-B4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Falling Dominoes =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
However much we want to forget about Indochina, we shouldn't blind ourselves to what happens when another domino falls. I'll be right back.

Ordinarily when the Communists take over a country, a curtain of silence falls during its initial stages of power. The reason is simple. The initial stage can get a little messy, even for that tolerant entity we call world opinion. But when the [[wikipedia:Khmer_Republic|Republic of Cambodia]] became the first of the recent set of dominoes to fall, the curtain was a little sluggish in getting down. Apparently the newly victorious [[wikipedia:Khmer_Rouge|Khmer Rouge]], a gang never noted for its subtlety, fell asleep during some critical lessons on how to consolidate power.

Execution orders were sent more or less openly over radio transmitters that could be monitored in Thailand. Foreigners were left behind in Phnom Penh long enough to witness some interesting sights and when the foreigners were expelled, the new government insisted on taking them through the countryside rather than by plane. In the countryside there was more to see. The result was closer than usual look at the gruesome mathematics of Communist conquest. Closer than usual, that is for the outside world. For the victims it's always more or less the same.

The radio broadcasts, first reported by Newsweek, transmitted an order for the execution of every officer from the army of the previous government together with their wives. This applied to officers down to the rank of second lieutenant. The wives it was explained were presumed to have been contaminated by their husband's occupation. A French doctor left behind in his embassy reported the execution of two high government officials who had heeded the Communist demand for surrender. He reported seeing 300 people with throats cut in the capital's central market. Even these acts did not compare in brutality to the new government's decision to conduct a total evacuation of the city of two million, herding the entire population to unspecified, quote, "purification centers," unquote, in the rural areas.

Everyone left behind in the embassy agreed on the following aspects of this evacuation: people who resisted were shot on the spot, there were no exceptions to the evacuation orders other than the foreigners themselves, the crippled and the sick were pulled out of hospitals, the roads outside the capital were littered with the chief victims of the evacuation, the old, the very young, the sick. One of the foreign survivors described the scene, quote, "No one knew where to go. When they were ordered to leave people were screaming. Some pleaded for help. Mothers ran around looking for their children and children searched for missing parents. At night the city was in darkness except for people with flashlights carrying their belongings and moving in every direction. The truck convoy through the rural areas confirmed that elsewhere the situation was no different. Every other city on the route had been forcibly evacuated. The countryside was filled with people being herded to the centers or wandering aimlessly waiting to die.

For once, the curtain of silence was slow and the grim truth is there to be faced for this at least we should not be sorry.

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>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* An [https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/sites/default/files/pdf_documents/library/document/0412/041200069repro.pdf April 14, 1975 issue of Newsweek] is included in the Gerald Ford Presidential Library files. It appears the whole issue is about the Vietnam War.
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-10-B3

2026-09-25T20:52:05Z

Reagan admin:

75-10-B2

2026-09-25T20:48:24Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-10-B1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-10-B3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Radical Chic Revisited =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
[[wikipedia:Radical_chic|Radical chic]] is back and the [[wikipedia:United_Farm_Workers|United Farm Workers]] are once again reaping the rewards. I'll be right back.

A few years ago, in 1970, the conductor [[wikipedia:Leonard_Bernstein|Leonard Bernstein]] gave a party for the [[wikipedia:Black_Panther_Party|Black Panthers]] and much of New York's fashionable society was there. This was a mistake by most people's standards but Bernstein made an even bigger one that night. He permitted a brilliant young writer with a photographic memory and a nimble pen to enter his apartment. When [[wikipedia:Tom_Wolfe|Tom Wolfe]] published his article called "Radical Chic" the English language had a new phrase and New York's beautiful people went underground for quite a while, at least so far as radical politics is concerned.

Now they appear to be coming out again. Those lovely young ladies who said things such as, quote, "I've never met a Panther before, this is a first for me and I know it's terrible to drink champagne and eat caviar for the poor but what are you going to do?" Unquote. They're with us once more, showing us that there's no limit to what the beautiful people will do for laughs when the social scene is a little slow. One of the chief beneficiaries of the early wave of radical chic was the United Farm Workers of [[wikipedia:Cesar_Chavez|Cesar Chavez]], a group that I've discussed before. For the purpose of these few minutes, all you need to know is that the U.F.W. has so limited a following in California, its home state, that it would not exist were it not for this phenomenon of radical chic, that is, fashionable people of means interfering at a long distance in a controversy of which they know little or nothing.

Does all this sound like exaggeration? Well not if you read an article that recently ran in the Washington Post concerning the latest gathering of Manhattan's beautiful people on behalf of Mr. Chavez. When the Post reporter asked the organizer of the fundraising party, 'why thrown it?' these were his words, quote, "I don't know why I'm involved in this, it's a very personal thing, very emotional, well I hate to be cynical but there isn't really that much else going on." Unquote. A wealthy lady asked why she was attending offered this explanation, quote, "Darling, this is the time we New Yorkers come out for causes. Then we can just carry them out to the Hamptons with us. Last week was the Attica benefit, you know." Unquote. The Post reporter found that quite a few attendees were less than dedicated to the U.F.W. cause, like the celebrity lawyer who said, quote, "I'm here because it's a scene. Farm workers? I'm too selfish to care about them." Unquote. Then there was the elegantly dressed, young socialite from the Caribbean who said, quote, "I'm really in support of anybody who loves the Earth. I love the Earth." Unquote. But I don't want to leave the impression that everyone at the party was unfamiliar with the U.F.W. program. There is, for example, the anonymous luminary who said, quote, "I can support the lettuce boycott because iceberg lettuce is tacky. But I'm afraid I'm going to have to break down on the grapes. I can't go much longer without filet of Sole Véronique." Unquote.

Tom Wolfe, call your office. Radical Chic is with us once again.

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>05/01/[[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:KheeuOiPLIM|Listen]]<BR>with [[75-08-A6|Farmer Workers Union]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [http://nymag.com/news/features/46170/ Tom Wolf's ''Radical Chic'']
* A fundraiser for the UFW was held on May 1, 1975 At New York's ''El Corso'' nightclub.
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-07-B3

2026-09-25T20:32:28Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-07-B2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-07-B4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Abortion Laws =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
An unborn child's property rights are protected by law-it's right to life is not. I'll be right back.

A little over eight years ago when I became governor of California I found myself involved almost at once in a controversy over abortion. It was a subject which I hadn't given much thought before and one upon which I didn't really have an opinion. But as governor I had to face the issue a bill had been introduced in the California legislature to make abortions available on demand. The forces for and against it were marshaling their troops and emotions were running pretty high. Then the author of the bill sent word to me that he'd amend it any way I felt necessary in order to get me to sign it. Well as they say the ball was in my court.

I did more studying and soul searching on that subject than on any other in my years as governor. I learned that neither the medical professional, law or theology had ever really found a common ground on the subject. Some believe that an unborn child was no more than a growth in the female body and that she should be able to remove it as she would her appendix. Others felt that human life existed from the moment the fertilized egg was implanted in the womb.

Ironically the same legislature that couldn't agree on abortion had unanimously passed a law making it murder to abuse a pregnant woman so as to cause the "death of her unborn child." Another inconsistency-unborn children also have property rights protected by law. A man can will his estate to his wife and children and any children yet to be born of his marriage. Yet the proposed abortion law in California would have denied the unborn the right to life itself.

I went to the lawyers on my staff and posed a hypothetical question. What if a pregnant woman became a widow during her pregnancy and found that her husband had left his fortune to her and the unborn child. Under the proposed abortion-on-demand law she could take the life of her child and inherit not half but all of her husband's estate. Now wouldn't that be murder for financial gain? Well they said they were glad I wasn't asking the questions on the bar exam.

There's a common acceptance in medical circles that the cell-let's call it the egg-once it has been fertilized is on its way as a human being with individual physical even personality characteristics already determined.

My answer as to what kind of abortion bill I could sign was one that recognized that an abortion is the taking of a human life. I concluded that there were two instances in which it was justified. The Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes the right to take a life in defense of our own. Therefore an abortion is justified when done in self-defense. A woman has the right, I believe, to protect her own life if it is endangered, even against her unborn child. I believe also that just as she has the right to defend herself against rape, she should not be made to bear a child resulting from that violation of her person.

In such cases abortion is again an act of self-defense not everyone agrees with this view but I can find no evidence whatever that a fetus is not a living human being with human rights.

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>04/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH]]-380<BR>
[[Reagan_Speeches#Speaking_My_Mind_.28by_Ronald_Reagan.29|RS:SMM]]-51</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:bVUtbhyIk5U|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-07-A5

2026-09-25T20:32:04Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-07-A4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-07-B1|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Postal Feedback =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Everybody talks about the postal service. Some even want to do something about it. I'll be right back.

On one of these broadcasts several weeks ago I spoke about the soaring subsidies and operating losses of reorganized United States Postal Service. My comments touched some nerves, a few of them raw. I received a sack full of mail, most of it in agreement with what I'd said. Many told their own horror stories of bad service. One man in charge of mailing operations for a large company with plants throughout the country had been monitoring the speed of mail delivery between the company's installations.

Consistently he found that there was nothing consistent about deliveries. Often coast-to-coast letters would be delivered in two days but those between offices a hundred miles apart might take a week. A Pasadena couple mailed two packages within five minutes of one another to Washington D.C. The one sent by way of an independent parcel delivery firm arrived in good shape two days later. The one sent from the post office by parcel post took six days and was mangled. The producer of these broadcasts received plaintiff calls from several radio stations recently, complaining that the broadcast material hadn't reached them by the scheduled air date, despite more than a week's leeway allowed for delivery.

Most of the feedback I received was in the same vein, except for the reaction of one postal employee's union official in a midwestern city, he seemed to think I was accusing all postal employees of being laggards which I wasn't. He also thought I was criticizing the postal service for not making a profit which I wasn't. Anyway he's entitled to draw his own conclusions and he sent a flyer to all one thousand members of his local asking them to write to my local sponsor and give him a piece of their minds. So far the sponsor hasn't received a single card or letter. You suppose the postal service sent them to the wrong city?

Several writers offered constructive suggestions. One lady who lives in a working-class neighborhood where most people go to the post office at lunch hour or on Saturday mornings noted that week after week when the lines were longest the fewest windows were open, even though there seemed to be plenty of postal employees in the building. I don't know the cause of this but maybe the Postmaster General should visit the big supermarket chains. They regularly monitor the flow of shoppers at various hours and days and adjust the number of check stands open to fit changing customer patterns.

In my earlier broadcast I spoke about the independent, privately-owned postal companies that deliver packages and third class mail. I heard from an executive of one of them. His firm is now testing delivery of some national magazines in selected markets. He had two proposals: First that the independent postal firms be allowed to deliver your utility bills. He estimates the utilities could cut postage costs about in half. That might even help stave off some rate increases as fuel costs soar. Another fuel saving idea he offered, permit the independents to put their mail in your mailbox. An archaic law permits only the U.S. Postal Service this privilege. At present technically your neighbor is violating the law if he leaves a note in your mailbox. Not having access to mailboxes, the independents usually deliver their mail in polyethylene bags these are a derivative of petroleum. So if the independents could use the mailbox and dispense with the bags we save that much more fuel. Ideas worth considering.

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>04/01/[[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:ittsOWd93Ig|Listen]]<BR>with [[75-01-B7|Postal Service]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Follow-up to [[75-01-B7|Postal Service]] episode
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-08-B1

2026-09-25T20:23:36Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-08-A6|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-08-B2|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= No Time to Confuse =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Is it time to trade in your freedom for government control? I'll be right back.

Recently on these broadcasts I talked about a little book issued by the Institute for Contemporary Studies in San Francisco. The book is called "No Time to Confuse" and it takes apart pretty thoroughly some widely held notions about the role the federal government should play in finding, developing, allocating and setting the prices of America's energy resources. It also looks with a jaundiced eye at the inability of many of our so-called energy experts to keep their eye on the need to provide ample energy for American needs at reasonable prices both now and in the future.

"No Time to Confuse" really is a critique of a three-year, four million dollar [[wikipedia:Ford_Foundation|Ford Foundation]] study called "[https://ieer.org/resource/books/a-time-to-choose-americas-energy-future/ A Time to Choose America's Energy Future]." That study, the ten authors of "No Time to Confuse" conclude is no more than a ringing call for Americans to turn out the lights not only the electric lights but the lights of freedom, freedom of choice, freedom to use personal resources as one sees fit and freedom to keep the fruits of one's labor. They are not quite that blunt, the ten economists and political scientists who wrote "No Time to Confuse," but their message comes through loud and clear and that message is that a lot of America's leaders today have it backward.

Instead of being willing to sacrifice in the cause of individual freedom they would have you and me all of us sacrifice our freedom in the name of that great socialist god: government planning. The words government planning of course are no more than a euphemism for government knows best. Government being a little group of self-anointed experts who view themselves as the masters, not the servants, of the people. Government knows best in Russia. It knew best in Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy where the price for making the trains run on time was freedom. For in civilized countries wherever freedom is limited, it is limited by one major tenet: government knows best.

As [[wikipedia:Armen_Alchian|Professor Arman Alchian]], one of the authors of "No Time to Confuse" notes, quote, "It is no accident that the strongest appeals for political action-make that read government controls-in the present situation are made by the strongest opponents of free enterprise activity. Those who would prefer to cripple the process of voluntary exchange through market prices." Unquote. Now whether we like it or not a great deal of our freedom as Americans is tied to the free market and our competitive free enterprise system. Every time government adds a control it takes away a little more of our freedom of action, our freedom of choice.

Yet as [[wikipedia:William_H._Riker|Professor William H. Riker]] in his look at the ideology of the Ford report points out, that report believes that the federal government should set up an energy policy council that would set mandatory guidelines at the federal level and that Riker notes adds up to imposing a dictatorial policymaker over all Americans and don't say it can't happen here it's already begun. Government controls are fast becoming a way of life in America and can only get worse unless we the people rise up and demand that big government once and for all get off our backs.

"No Time to Confuse," incidentally, is something every believer in free enterprise should read. If you'd like a copy, drop me a line care of this station and I'll send your letter along to the Institute for Contemporary Studies.

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>04/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [https://archive.org/details/notimetoconfuse0000unse/mode/2up No Time To Confuse] (Borrow from Internet Archive)
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-04-B5

2026-09-25T20:16:02Z

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 administrator 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>

75-10-A4

2026-09-25T19:18:31Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-10-A3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-10-A5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Soviet Superiority =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
A newly issued report has some sensible things to say about America's defenses. I'll be right back.

The [[wikipedia:Coalition_for_a_Democratic_Majority|Committee for a Democratic Majority]] was formed after the last presidential election by a group of Democrats which could be described as liberal but reasonable. [https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/sites/default/files/pdf_documents/library/document/0067/1562863.pdf Now they've issued a report on the state of America's defenses]. The task force which worked on the report was chaired by [[wikipedia:Eugene_V._Rostow|Dr. Eugene Rostow]], sterling professor of law at Yale and an Assistant Secretary of State under [[wikipedia:Lyndon_B._Johnson|President Johnson]]. Other members of the task force included former Treasury Secretary [[wikipedia:Henry_H._Fowler|Henry Fowler]], [[wikipedia:Norman_Podhoretz|Norman Podoretz]], Editor of [[wikipedia:Commentary_(magazine)|Commentary Magazine]], Max Kappelmann, counsel to [[wikipedia:Hubert_Humphrey|Hubert Humphrey]] when he was Vice-President, a teacher's union leader [[wikipedia:Albert_Shanker|Albert Shanker]] and professors [[wikipedia:Paul_Seabury|Paul Seabury]], [[wikipedia:Lucian_Pye|Lucian Pye]] and [[wikipedia:Jeane Kirkpatrick|Jeane Kirkpatrick]].

The one thing these people have in common aside from distinction is that they've generally been identified as members of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, though not of its radical McGovernite wing. We should listen all the more closely when such a distinguished group of citizens, none of them with any military connections, tells us that our defenses are rapidly deteriorating and advocates a 10-billion dollar increase in defense spending over and above the amount requested by the Ford Administration.

In his summary of the report, Dr. Rostow is particularly sobering in his conclusion about the state of U.S.-Soviet relations, and I quote, "A condition of detente with the Soviet Union has been an unremitting goal of our foreign policy since President Roosevelt's time. It has not been reached. There has been no improvement in our relations with the Soviet Union save in the realms of public relations and wishful thinking. Soviet policy is exactly what it has been since 1944 or 1945, except that its pressures are greater and more diverse than ever and more difficult to deal with because they are backed by more force." Unquote.

The dimensions of this growing Soviet force are documented by the task force report. The Soviets have nearly twice as many men under arms as we do, four times as many tanks, three times as many artillery tubes, twice as many heavy mortars and 40 percent more tactical aircraft. Their air defense systems far outstrip ours in every respect. In the naval realm, long an area of U.S. strength the Soviets are nearly equal in surface ships and have more than three times as many combat submarines. In the crucial field of nuclear weapons Dr. Rostow and the task force joined many other experts in pointing out that the tentative SALT II agreement announced at Vladivostok provides for equality only among launchers, but says nothing about throw weight or the number of warheads each missile can carry. The task force estimates that this loophole could eventually give the Soviets a lead of between three and six to one in deliverable warheads. It also points out that the Soviet's new intermediate bomber is not covered by SALT II even though it has the capability of delivering warheads to continental United States targets and the Soviets are outspending us in strategic weapons by two to one.

The new realities of Soviet strength require an ability to face the facts as they are, not as we'd wish them to be. The most important problem of our foreign policy Dr. Rostow says is that, "we and our allies seem to be in a mood of somnambulism similar to that which paralyzed France, Britain and the United States during the 30s." Unquote.

We'd better wake up before we face a prospect even more terrible than the one we awoke to then.

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>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* It appears the report is entitled ''"For an Adequate Defense"'' and the link in the text came from the Gerald Ford Presidential lIBRARY.
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-10-A4

2026-09-25T19:17:24Z

Reagan admin:

75-10-A4

2026-09-25T19:06:50Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-10-A3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-10-A5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Soviet Superiority =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
A newly issued report has some sensible things to say about America's defenses. I'll be right back.

The [[wikipedia:Coalition_for_a_Democratic_Majority|Committee for a Democratic Majority]] was formed after the last presidential election by a group of Democrats which could be described as liberal but reasonable. Now they've issued a report on the state of America's defenses. The task force which worked on the report was chaired by [[wikipedia:Eugene_V._Rostow|Dr. Eugene Rostow]], sterling professor of law at Yale and an Assistant Secretary of State under [[wikipedia:Lyndon_B._Johnson|President Johnson]]. Other members of the task force included former Treasury Secretary [[wikipedia:Henry_H._Fowler|Henry Fowler]], [[wikipedia:Norman_Podhoretz|Norman Podoretz]], Editor of [[wikipedia:Commentary_(magazine)|Commentary Magazine]], Max Kappelmann, counsel to [[wikipedia:Hubert_Humphrey|Hubert Humphrey]] when he was Vice-President, a teacher's union leader [[wikipedia:Albert_Shanker|Albert Shanker]] and professors [[wikipedia:Paul_Seabury|Paul Seabury]], [[wikipedia:Lucian_Pye|Lucian Pye]] and [[wikipedia:Jeane Kirkpatrick|Jeane Kirkpatrick]].

The one thing these people have in common aside from distinction is that they've generally been identified as members of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, though not of its radical McGovernite wing. We should listen all the more closely when such a distinguished group of citizens, none of them with any military connections, tells us that our defenses are rapidly deteriorating and advocates a 10-billion dollar increase in defense spending over and above the amount requested by the Ford Administration.

In his summary of the report, Dr. Rostow is particularly sobering in his conclusion about the state of U.S.-Soviet relations, and I quote, "A condition of detente with the Soviet Union has been an unremitting goal of our foreign policy since President Roosevelt's time. It has not been reached. There has been no improvement in our relations with the Soviet Union save in the realms of public relations and wishful thinking. Soviet policy is exactly what it has been since 1944 or 1945, except that its pressures are greater and more diverse than ever and more difficult to deal with because they are backed by more force." Unquote.

The dimensions of this growing Soviet force are documented by the task force report. The Soviets have nearly twice as many men under arms as we do, four times as many tanks, three times as many artillery tubes, twice as many heavy mortars and 40 percent more tactical aircraft. Their air defense systems far outstrip ours in every respect. In the naval realm, long an area of U.S. strength the Soviets are nearly equal in surface ships and have more than three times as many combat submarines. In the crucial field of nuclear weapons Dr. Rostow and the task force joined many other experts in pointing out that the tentative SALT II agreement announced at Vladivostok provides for equality only among launchers, but says nothing about throw weight or the number of warheads each missile can carry. The task force estimates that this loophole could eventually give the Soviets a lead of between three and six to one in deliverable warheads. It also points out that the Soviet's new intermediate bomber is not covered by SALT II even though it has the capability of delivering warheads to continental United States targets and the Soviets are outspending us in strategic weapons by two to one.

The new realities of Soviet strength require an ability to face the facts as they are, not as we'd wish them to be. The most important problem of our foreign policy Dr. Rostow says is that, "we and our allies seem to be in a mood of somnamilism similar to that which paralyzed France, Britain and the United States during the 30s." Unquote.

We'd better wake up before we face a prospect even more terrible than the one we awoke to then.

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>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-10-A4

2026-09-25T17:09:36Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-10-A3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-10-A5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Soviet Superiority =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
A newly issued report has some sensible things to say about America's defenses. I'll be right back.

The [[wikipedia:Coalition_for_a_Democratic_Majority|Committee for a Democratic Majority]] was formed after the last presidential election by a group of Democrats which could be described as liberal but reasonable. Now they've issued a report on the state of America's defenses. The task force which worked on the report was chaired by [[wikipedia:Eugene_V._Rostow|Dr. Eugene Rostow]], sterling professor of law at Yale and an Assistant Secretary of State under President Johnson. Other members of the task force included former Treasury Secretary Henry Fowler, Norman Podoretz, Editor of Commentary Magazine, Max Kappelmann counsel to Hubert Humphrey when he was Vice-President, a teacher's union leader Albert Schanker and professors Paul Seaberry, Lucian Pie and Gene Kirkpatrick.

The one thing these people have in common aside from distinction is that they've generally been identified as members of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, though not of its radical McGovernite wing. We should listen all the more closely when such a distinguished group of citizens, none of them with any military connections, tells us that our defenses are rapidly deteriorating and advocates a 10-billion dollar increase in defense spending over and above the amount requested by the Ford Administration.

In his summary of the report, Dr. Rostow is particularly sobering in his conclusion about the state of U.S.-Soviet relations, and I quote, "A condition of detente with the Soviet Union has been an unremitting goal of our foreign policy since President Roosevelt's time. It has not been reached. There has been no improvement in our relations with the Soviet Union save in the realms of public relations and wishful thinking. Soviet policy is exactly what it has been since 1944 or 1945, except that its pressures are greater and more diverse than ever and more difficult to deal with because they are backed by more force." Unquote.

The dimensions of this growing Soviet force are documented by the task force report. The Soviets have nearly twice as many men under arms as we do, four times as many tanks, three times as many artillery tubes, twice as many heavy mortars and 40 percent more tactical aircraft. Their air defense systems far outstrip ours in every respect. In the naval realm, long an area of U.S. strength the Soviets are nearly equal in surface ships and have more than three times as many combat submarines. In the crucial field of nuclear weapons Dr. Rostow and the task force joined many other experts in pointing out that the tentative SALT II agreement announced at Vladivostok provides for equality only among launchers, but says nothing about throw weight or the number of warheads each missile can carry. The task force estimates that this loophole could eventually give the Soviets a lead of between three and six to one in deliverable warheads. It also points out that the Soviet's new intermediate bomber is not covered by SALT II even though it has the capability of delivering warheads to continental United States targets and the Soviets are outspending us in strategic weapons by two to one.

The new realities of Soviet strength require an ability to face the facts as they are, not as we'd wish them to be. The most important problem of our foreign policy Dr. Rostow says is that, "we and our allies seem to be in a mood of somnamilism similar to that which paralyzed France, Britain and the United States during the 30s." Unquote.

We'd better wake up before we face a prospect even more terrible than the one we awoke to then.

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>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-10-A2

2026-09-25T15:56:26Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-10-A1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-10-A3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= George Meany and Economics =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
[[wikipedia:George_Meany|George Meany]] talking economics reminds me of the fellow who drowned trying to wade across a river whose average depth he'd been told was only three feet. I'll be right back.

I knew George Meany some years back, when I was an officer of a union myself, and I like him, but I found myself dismayed by his recent tirade to a Congressional committee. The point he made loudly and angrily was that one problem only, unemployment, must be dealt with as if it had no connection with the entire economic situation. He demanded a greater deficit, a hundred billion dollars if need be, to create jobs. He went on to say a big rich country like ours can afford to go in debt.

Well, a big rich country like ours can't afford to go in hoc now and then, just as a solid citizen with a paid-up home, some insurance, and a reasonably safe, good income, can borrow to meet the unusual or unexpected such as hospital expenses, or maybe just to see the kids through college. But we're talking about a character who already has a double mortgage on the house, owes installments on the furniture and the car, is borrowed up to the limit on his insurance and is only working part-time. Even the economist so beloved of the liberals, [[wikipedia:John_Maynard_Keynes|Lord Maynard Keynes]], said government should run deficits in bad times to stimulate the economy, but, and it's a much ignored but by those who claim to be Keynesian economists, he said in good times, government should accumulate surpluses and reduce the debt.

[[wikipedia:Franklin_D._Roosevelt|Franklin D. Roosevelt]] said a government, like a family, can in time of emergency go into debt but if it continues to spend more than its income, in good times and bad, a government like a family will go bankrupt. Certainly a nation must borrow to see itself through an emergency like [[wikipedia:World_War_II|World War II]] but we've kept on borrowing until our national debt is greater than the combined debt of all the other nations of the world. We're not suddenly faced with an emergency debating whether or not to raise a short-term loan. The interest on the debt we already have is ten times bigger than our whole national budget, when we first started running deficits on an annual basis.

Yes, we have unemployment and few of any situations seem as tragic and as desperate to me as the person who wants a job and can't find one, but George Meany should know that the government policies he has supported, and still supports, are responsible for this country's insolvency, inflation and the unemployment that inflation brings. He wants a bigger deficit.

Here's what the present deficit means to the working people Meany represents. The federal government is taking most of the available money, which should be used to finance plant expansion, to increase production, which reduces inflation and provides jobs. But it becomes more personal. Take those things that we want to buy, on the installment plan. The [[wikipedia:United_States_Department_of_the_Treasury|Treasury Department]] has already told the banks and lending institutions how much of their capital must be earmarked for funding the government's deficit this year. This means it will become harder and harder to buy things with the usual down payment and the easy installments, and those installments, if you can get them, will include higher and higher interest rates. A bigger deficit means higher inflation, a deeper recession, more unemployment, and there'll be George Meany asking next time for a 200 billion dollar deficit.

Sometimes I think the AFL-CIO economic advisors are the kind of economists who have a [[wikipedia:Phi_Beta_Kappa|Phi Beta Kappa]] key on one end of their watch chain and no watch on the other.

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>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-29</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
* Meany appeared before Congress several times in 1975, but none seem to before the 5/1/1975 production date.
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-10-A2

2026-09-25T15:43:35Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-10-A1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-10-A3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= George Meany and Economics =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
[[wikipedia:George_Meany|George Meany]] talking economics reminds me of the fellow who drowned trying to wade across a river whose average depth he'd been told was only three feet. I'll be right back.

I knew George Meany some years back, when I was an officer of a union myself, and I like him, but I found myself dismayed by his recent tirade to a Congressional committee. The point he made loudly and angrily was that one problem only, unemployment, must be dealt with as if it had no connection with the entire economic situation. He demanded a greater deficit, a hundred billion dollars if need be, to create jobs. He went on to say a big rich country like ours can afford to go in debt.

Well, a big rich country like ours can't afford to go in hoc now and then, just as a solid citizen with a paid-up home, some insurance, and a reasonably safe, good income, can borrow to meet the unusual or unexpected such as hospital expenses, or maybe just to see the kids through college. But we're talking about a character who already has a double mortgage on the house, owes installments on the furniture and the car, is borrowed up to the limit on his insurance and is only working part-time. Even the economist so beloved of the liberals, [[wikipedia:John_Maynard_Keynes|Lord Maynard Keynes]], said government should run deficits in bad times to stimulate the economy, but, and it's a much ignored but by those who claim to be Keynesian economists, he said in good times, government should accumulate surpluses and reduce the debt.

[[wikipedia:Franklin_D._Roosevelt|Franklin D. Roosevelt]] said a government, like a family, can in time of emergency go into debt but if it continues to spend more than its income, in good times and bad, a government like a family will go bankrupt. Certainly a nation must borrow to see itself through an emergency like [[wikipedia:World_War_II|World War II]] but we've kept on borrowing until our national debt is greater than the combined debt of all the other nations of the world. We're not suddenly faced with an emergency debating whether or not to raise a short-term loan. The interest on the debt we already have is ten times bigger than our whole national budget, when we first started running deficits on an annual basis.

Yes, we have unemployment and few of any situations seem as tragic and as desperate to me as the person who wants a job and can't find one, but George Meany should know that the government policies he has supported, and still supports, are responsible for this country's insolvency, inflation and the unemployment that inflation brings. He wants a bigger deficit.

Here's what the present deficit means to the working people Meany represents. The federal government is taking most of the available money, which should be used to finance plant expansion, to increase production, which reduces inflation and provides jobs. But it becomes more personal. Take those things that we want to buy, on the installment plan. The Treasury Department has already told the banks and lending institutions how much of their capital must be earmarked for funding the government's deficit this year. This means it will become harder and harder to buy things with the usual down payment and the easy installments, and those installments, if you can get them, will include higher and higher interest rates. A bigger deficit means higher inflation, a deeper recession, more unemployment, and there'll be George Meany asking next time for a 200 billion dollar deficit.

Sometimes I think the AFL-CIO economic advisors are the kind of economists who have a Phi Beta Kappa key on one end of their watch chain and no watch on the other.

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>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-29</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
* Meany appeared before Congress several times in 1975, but none seem to before the 5/1/1975 production date.
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-10-A1

2026-09-25T15:12:09Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-09-B5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-10-A2|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Agency for Consumer Advocacy =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Bad legislation keeps coming back like a song, only with a new title. I'll be right back.

When bad legislation is defeated in Congress it has a way of coming back again the next year, usually repackaged with a new name and maybe some new trimmings. One such bill is last year's [https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/13842 Consumer Protection Agency Act] which has been reincarnated this year as the Agency for Consumer Advocacy. Well neither the old version or the new one, [https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-congress/senate-bill/200/summary/00 Senate Bill 200], bode well for you as a consumer. If the bill should become law the so-called Agency for Consumer Advocacy would cut across the jurisdictions of several Federal agencies which already are supposed to look out for the consumer's interests, agencies such as the [[wikipedia:Federal_Trade_Commission|Federal Trade Commission]], the [[wikipedia:Food_and_Drug_Administration|Federal Drug Administration]], the [[wikipedia:Interstate_Commerce_Commission|Interstate Commerce Commission]].

In a show of redundancy the new consumer agency could testify at other agencies public hearings, supposedly representing the consumer's viewpoint. But who is to determine what that viewpoint is when there are more than 200 million American consumers? The answer, of course, is the bureaucrats of the proposed agency for consumer advocacy will equate their own opinions with those of all consumers. Their opinions thus become yours whether it's true or not. Now if the consumer watch dog's job of various existing federal agencies isn't being performed properly Congress has it within its power to change the laws governing them, to improve them, but does it make sense to set up a competing federal agency with the huge new bureaucracy it'll spawn?

There are some other disconcerting aspects of the consumer agency as it's been proposed. One of its duties would be to monitor the cost and quality of the goods we buy. It's odd though that the actions of organized labor, which have a direct bearing on both price and quality, are specifically exempted from the act. Odd but not surprising considering the heavy political debt many Congressmen owed to organized labor for its campaign generosity toward them. Another feature of the act is like a page straight out of [[wikipedia:Nineteen_Eighty-Four|Orwell's 1984]]. The Agency for Consumer Advocacy could, if created, demand from private businesses' confidential information including trade secrets and could make it public. Think for a moment what that provision will do to the development of new products.

Is there a huge public groundswell of support for this bill that's prompting [[wikipedia:Ralph_Nader|Nader]], Senators [[wikipedia:Jacob_Javits|Javits]], [[wikipedia:Abraham_Ribicoff|Ribicoff]], [[wikipedia:Charles_H._Percy|Percy]] and others to plug for it? On the contrary, according to a recently published survey by Opinion Research Corporation which found 75 percent of the people are opposed to efforts to create such a consumer agency. Only some 13 percent said they would favor the agency, but more than half of these changed their minds when it was revealed that it would cost 60 million dollars in tax dollars to operate the consumer agency for its first three years.

Of those polled 59 percent say they were usually treated fairly by business and another 27 percent went a step further and said they were almost always treated fairly, thus a total of 86 percent registered approval. By contrast only 13 percent said they've been unfairly treated as consumers. Now that's quite a testimony to the ability of the free market to adjust to consumers changing demands and needs and tastes, particularly in the face of a barrage of criticism by professional consumerists such as Ralph Nader aided by members of Congress who still don't understand that the people are tired of having their hard-earned money thrown away on yet more bureaucracies which interfere with their daily lives.

Next time you sit down at your desk, drop one of those lawmakers in Washington a note and tell him what you think of Senate Bill 200, the consumer agency that almost no one wants.

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>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-10-A1

2026-09-25T15:11:48Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-09-B5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-10-A2|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Agency for Consumer Advocacy =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Bad legislation keeps coming back like a song, only with a new title. I'll be right back.

When bad legislation is defeated in Congress it has a way of coming back again the next year, usually repackaged with a new name and maybe some new trimmings. One such bill is last year's [https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/13842 Consumer Protection Agency Act] which has been reincarnated this year as the Agency for Consumer Advocacy. Well neither the old version or the new one, [https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-congress/senate-bill/200/summary/00 Senate Bill 200], bode well for you as a consumer. If the bill should become law the so-called Agency for Consumer Advocacy would cut across the jurisdictions of several Federal agencies which already are supposed to look out for the consumer's interests, agencies such as the [[wikipedia:Federal_Trade_Commission|Federal Trade Commission]], the [[wikipedia:Food_and_Drug_Administration|Federal Drug Administration]], the [[Interstate_Commerce_Commission|Interstate Commerce Commission]].

In a show of redundancy the new consumer agency could testify at other agencies public hearings, supposedly representing the consumer's viewpoint. But who is to determine what that viewpoint is when there are more than 200 million American consumers? The answer, of course, is the bureaucrats of the proposed agency for consumer advocacy will equate their own opinions with those of all consumers. Their opinions thus become yours whether it's true or not. Now if the consumer watch dog's job of various existing federal agencies isn't being performed properly Congress has it within its power to change the laws governing them, to improve them, but does it make sense to set up a competing federal agency with the huge new bureaucracy it'll spawn?

There are some other disconcerting aspects of the consumer agency as it's been proposed. One of its duties would be to monitor the cost and quality of the goods we buy. It's odd though that the actions of organized labor, which have a direct bearing on both price and quality, are specifically exempted from the act. Odd but not surprising considering the heavy political debt many Congressmen owed to organized labor for its campaign generosity toward them. Another feature of the act is like a page straight out of [[wikipedia:Nineteen_Eighty-Four|Orwell's 1984]]. The Agency for Consumer Advocacy could, if created, demand from private businesses' confidential information including trade secrets and could make it public. Think for a moment what that provision will do to the development of new products.

Is there a huge public groundswell of support for this bill that's prompting [[wikipedia:Ralph_Nader|Nader]], Senators [[wikipedia:Jacob_Javits|Javits]], [[wikipedia:Abraham_Ribicoff|Ribicoff]], [[wikipedia:Charles_H._Percy|Percy]] and others to plug for it? On the contrary, according to a recently published survey by Opinion Research Corporation which found 75 percent of the people are opposed to efforts to create such a consumer agency. Only some 13 percent said they would favor the agency, but more than half of these changed their minds when it was revealed that it would cost 60 million dollars in tax dollars to operate the consumer agency for its first three years.

Of those polled 59 percent say they were usually treated fairly by business and another 27 percent went a step further and said they were almost always treated fairly, thus a total of 86 percent registered approval. By contrast only 13 percent said they've been unfairly treated as consumers. Now that's quite a testimony to the ability of the free market to adjust to consumers changing demands and needs and tastes, particularly in the face of a barrage of criticism by professional consumerists such as Ralph Nader aided by members of Congress who still don't understand that the people are tired of having their hard-earned money thrown away on yet more bureaucracies which interfere with their daily lives.

Next time you sit down at your desk, drop one of those lawmakers in Washington a note and tell him what you think of Senate Bill 200, the consumer agency that almost no one wants.

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>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-09-B3

2026-09-25T14:37:26Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-09-B2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-09-B4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Portugal =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
The people of Portugal have spoken. Will their military dictators listen? I'll be right back.

On [[wikipedia:1975_Portuguese_Constituent_Assembly_election|April 25th]], the people of Portugal sent a message to the left-wing military dictatorship that seized power a year ago. In Portugal's first relatively free elections in half a century, the well-financed [[nyt:1975/04/27/archives/communists-fail-in-portugal-vote-an-overwhelming-victory-by.html|Communist party got a little more than 12 percent]] of the vote. By contrast the Socialist party, an ally of such pro-Western European parties as the West German Social Democrats and the British Laborites led the voting with 38 percent of the total. The middle of the road Portuguese Popular Democrats, or PPD, won 26 percent. The other party to surpass the 5 percent minimum for representation in the Constituent Assembly was the Christian Democratic Socialists, the only conservative party permitted to participate. It got seven percent. Thus taking only those parties to be represented in the Assembly, 71 percent voted Pro-NATO compared to just 12 percent for the Communists. The message to the nation's military rulers couldn't have been clearer. Whether they'll heed it is another matter.

Long before the voting the [[wikipedia:Carnation_Revolution|left-wing officers who've taken control]] moved to strip the Constituent Assembly of all but symbolic powers. It forced the leading parties to agree in advance to the armed forces movement's version of a [[wikipedia:Constitution_of_Portugal|new constitution]] and to at least five more years of military rule. In addition the government moved to preempt many of the nation's policy options. They forced the centralization of the trade union movement under Communist control and nationalized such key sectors of the economy as steel, insurance and banking without consultation with any of the parties. It's clear from the election returns that none of these moves would have won approval in a democratic parliament.

That's not all. The government turned over control of state television and all but one of the country's newspapers to the Communists. The Communists also control the militia and most of the local governments, the very bodies that were conducting the election. Several non-Communist parties were outlawed and the non-communist parties that remained legal were subjected to constant harassment by leftist street hoodlums. With all these factors at work the Portuguese electorate needed not only intelligence but courage to vote as it did. Out of 6,100,000 eligible voters, 5,900,000 went to the polls. Information Minister Jorge Jesuino, one of the most left-wing of the ruling faction, had told the people to show support for the armed forces by voting blank ballots. He told the world press he hoped 40 percent would do so-[[wikipedia:1975_Portuguese_Constituent_Assembly_election#National_summary|7 percent did]].

After the election, Jesuino said the people had shown civic duty but political immaturity in their vote for the pro-western parties. For some people maturity seems to equal slavery. The people of Portugal have spoken they voted to reject Communism by inference and to stay in the western alliance. It's up to the government to heed their word.

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>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-09-B3

2026-09-25T14:26:24Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-09-B2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-09-B4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Portugal =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
The people of Portugal have spoken. Will their military dictators listen? I'll be right back.

On [[1975_Portuguese_Constituent_Assembly_election|April 25th]], the people of Portugal sent a message to the left-wing military dictatorship that seized power a year ago. In Portugal's first relatively free elections in half a century, the well-financed [[nyt:1975/04/27/archives/communists-fail-in-portugal-vote-an-overwhelming-victory-by.html|Communist party got a little more than 12 percent]] of the vote. By contrast the Socialist party, an ally of such pro-Western European parties as the West German Social Democrats and the British Laborites led the voting with 38 percent of the total. The middle of the road Portuguese Popular Democrats, or PPD, won 26 percent. The other party to surpass the 5 percent minimum for representation in the Constituent Assembly was the Christian Democratic Socialists, the only conservative party permitted to participate. It got seven percent. Thus taking only those parties to be represented in the Assembly, 71 percent voted Pro-NATO compared to just 12 percent for the Communists. The message to the nation's military rulers couldn't have been clearer. Whether they'll heed it is another matter.

Long before the voting the [[Carnation_Revolution|left-wing officers who've taken control]] moved to strip the Constituent Assembly of all but symbolic powers. It forced the leading parties to agree in advance to the armed forces movement's version of a [[wikipedia:Constitution_of_Portugal|new constitution]] and to at least five more years of military rule. In addition the government moved to preempt many of the nation's policy options. They forced the centralization of the trade union movement under Communist control and nationalized such key sectors of the economy as steel, insurance and banking without consultation with any of the parties. It's clear from the election returns that none of these moves would have won approval in a democratic parliament.

That's not all. The government turned over control of state television and all but one of the country's newspapers to the Communists. The Communists also control the militia and most of the local governments, the very bodies that were conducting the election. Several non-Communist parties were outlawed and the non-communist parties that remained legal were subjected to constant harassment by leftist street hoodlums. With all these factors at work the Portuguese electorate needed not only intelligence but courage to vote as it did. Out of 6,100,000 eligible voters, 5,900,000 went to the polls. Information Minister Jorge Jesuino, one of the most left-wing of the ruling faction, had told the people to show support for the armed forces by voting blank ballots. He told the world press he hoped forty percent would do so-seven percent did.

After the election, Jesuino said the people had shown civic duty but political immaturity in their vote for the pro-western parties. For some people maturity seems to equal slavery. The people of Portugal have spoken they voted to reject communism by inference and to stay in the western alliance. It's up to the government to heed their word.

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>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-09-B4

2026-09-25T14:08:24Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-09-B3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-09-B5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Government Computers =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
To err as human. It takes a government computer to really louse things up. I'll be right back.

A New Jersey newspaper recently reported a story that bears repeating. It begins with a familiar scene, a woman and her daughter-in-law having a mid-morning cup of coffee at the kitchen table, the woman's husband leaving to go down to the store for a few groceries. He's retired on a six hundred and forty two dollar a month income as a result of serious injuries he suffered, in addition to which he has that curse of the coal miner, black lung disease. Just after his departure the mail arrives. His wife opens a letter from the [[wikipedia:Social_Security_Administration|Social Security Administration]]. According to the news story it was a good thing she was sitting down. Her daughter-in-law saw the alarm on her face and asked, "what's the matter, mom?" Her mother said, "It's Social Security! They want pop's death certificate! They got him dead!" "Don't tell him! He'll die of a heart attack!" the daughter said.

Up to here, the story gets a laugh but not for long. That $642 monthly check has been reduced to $281. You see the declaration by Social Security that the head of the household had passed away wipes out the disability benefits to which he's legally entitled. After all, a dead man can hardly be eligible for disability payments. The very much alive deceased and his wife widow, according to Social Security have since been patiently making periodic trips and phone calls to the Social Security Administration offices in [[wikipedia:Perth_Amboy,_New_Jersey|Perth Amboy, New Jersey]], trying to refute, as [[wikipedia:Mark_Twain|Mark Twain]] once did, the report of his death which he described as somewhat premature.

The officials, according to the news story, are sympathetic, courteous and a little embarrassed. They appear also to be unable to solve the problem. Heaven forbid they should tell a computer it goofed. The head of the Perth Amboy office refused to discuss the matter with the press. He said, quote, "Regulation number one forbids such a discussion." Unquote. He did say however that administrative officials in Baltimore had been notified of the mistake and that every effort was being made to restore the victim to the ranks of the living. So far they haven't suggested a trip to the [[wikipedia:Sanctuary_of_Our_Lady_of_Lourdes|Shrine of Lourdes]].

One bright note, the family's financial plight has been eased a little. Social Security sent them a check for $710... to cover the cost of the funeral.

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>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-27</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>

75-09-B4

2026-09-25T14:03:16Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-09-B3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-09-B5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Government Computers =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
To err as human. It takes a government computer to really louse things up. I'll be right back.

A New Jersey newspaper recently reported a story that bears repeating. It begins with a familiar scene, a woman and her daughter-in-law having a mid-morning cup of coffee at the kitchen table, the woman's husband leaving to go down to the store for a few groceries. He's retired on a six hundred and forty two dollar a month income as a result of serious injuries he suffered, in addition to which he has that curse of the coal miner, black lung disease. Just after his departure the mail arrives. His wife opens a letter from the Social Security Administration. According to the news story it was a good thing she was sitting down. Her daughter-in-law saw the alarm on her face and asked, "what's the matter, mom?" Her mother said, "It's Social Security! They want pop's death certificate! They got him dead!" "Don't tell him! He'll die of a heart attack!" the daughter said.

Up to here, the story gets a laugh but not for long. That $642 monthly check has been reduced to 281 dollars. You see the declaration by social security that the head of the household had passed away wipes out the disability benefits to which he's legally entitled. After all, a dead man can hardly be eligible for disability payments. The very much alive deceased and his wife widow, according to Social Security have since been patiently making periodic trips and phone calls to the Social Security Administration offices in [[wikipedia:Perth_Amboy,_New_Jersey|Perth Amboy, New Jersey]], trying to refute, as [[wikipedia:Mark_Twain|Mark Twain]] once did, the report of his death which he described as somewhat premature.

The officials, according to the news story, are sympathetic, courteous and a little embarrassed. They appear also to be unable to solve the problem. Heaven forbid they should tell a computer it goofed. The head of the Perth Amboy office refused to discuss the matter with the press. He said, quote, "Regulation number one forbids such a discussion." Unquote. He did say however that administrative officials in Baltimore had been notified of the mistake and that every effort was being made to restore the victim to the ranks of the living. So far they haven't suggested a trip to the [[wikipedia:Sanctuary_of_Our_Lady_of_Lourdes|Shrine of Lourdes]].

One bright note, the family's financial plight has been eased a little. Social Security sent them a check for $710... to cover the cost of the funeral.

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>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-27</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 Museum

2026-09-25T13:37:41Z

Reagan admin:

This Wiki's administrator and chief (only) editor had the fortune to visit the Reagan Presidential Museum in late July of 2024. It was a wonderful experience. I'd love to go back.

There is a very large display about his [[Reagan_Radio_Commentaries|post-gubernatorial radio show]], including a full map of the United States to show the locations of the radio stations that broadcast it. 6 broadcasts and built-in to the display. Pick up a personal speaker and select one to list to. Unfortunately, none were new to me.

([[76-02-A4|About the Press]]; [[77-24-B7|Apples]]; [[76-06-A7|Terrorism]]; [[76-01-B3|Women's March]]; [[75-10-A3|Communism, the Disease]]; [[78-02-B3|Looking Out a Window]])

I ''might'' have found one minor mistake in another area. I suppose it is a matter of interpretation.

The display concerning [[A Time For Choosing]] includes some information about why he made the speech, when it was given, a photo of himself and Nancy with Senator Barry Goldwater... and a pull quote of the beginning of the speech. Except, its really not.

If you sit down to watch or listen to the speech, it begins with:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
''Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.''

''I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used "We've never had it so good."''</BLOCKQUOTE>

Instead, the pull quote is from the ''[[Press_Release|Press]]'' edition.
<BLOCKQUOTE>
''I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.''
</BLOCKQUOTE>

So, does that make it part of the speech? In my opinion, no, it doesn't. There are several more important lines from the speech that would be better to include.

Reagan Museum

2026-09-25T13:33:52Z

Reagan admin:

This Wiki's administrator and chief (only) editor had the fortune to visit the Reagan Presidential Museum in late July of 2024. It was a wonderful experience. I'd love to go back.

There is a very large display about his [[Reagan_Radio_Commentaries|post-gubernatorial radio show]], including a full map of the United States to show the locations of the radio stations that broadcast it. 6 broadcasts and built-in to the display. Pick up a personal speaker and select one to list to. Unfortunately, none were new to me.

(About the Press; Apples; Terrorism; Women's March; Communism, the Disease; Looking Out a Window)

I ''might'' have found one minor mistake in another area. I suppose it is a matter of interpretation.

The display concerning [[A Time For Choosing]] includes some information about why he made the speech, when it was given, a photo of himself and Nancy with Senator Barry Goldwater... and a pull quote of the beginning of the speech. Except, its really not.

If you sit down to watch or listen to the speech, it begins with:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
''Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.''

''I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used "We've never had it so good."''</BLOCKQUOTE>

Instead, the pull quote is from the ''[[Press_Release|Press]]'' edition.
<BLOCKQUOTE>
''I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.''
</BLOCKQUOTE>

So, does that make it part of the speech? In my opinion, no, it doesn't. There are several more important lines from the speech that would be better to include.

Reagan Museum

2026-09-25T13:26:24Z

Reagan admin:

This Wiki's administrator and chief (only) editor had the fortune to visit the Reagan Presidential Museum in late July of 2024. It was a wonderful experience. I'd love to go back.

There is a very large display about his [[Reagan_Radio_Commentaries|post-gubernatorial radio show]], including a full map of the United States to show the locations of the radio stations that broadcast it. 6 broadcasts and built-in to the display. Pick up a personal speaker and select one to list to. Unfortunately, none were new to me.

I ''might'' have found one minor mistake in another area. I suppose it is a matter of interpretation.

The display concerning [[A Time For Choosing]] includes some information about why he made the speech, when it was given, a photo of himself and Nancy with Senator Barry Goldwater... and a pull quote of the beginning of the speech. Except, its really not.

If you sit down to watch or listen to the speech, it begins with:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
''Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.''

''I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used "We've never had it so good."''</BLOCKQUOTE>

Instead, the pull quote is from the ''[[Press_Release|Press]]'' edition.
<BLOCKQUOTE>
''I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.''
</BLOCKQUOTE>

So, does that make it part of the speech? In my opinion, no, it doesn't. There are several more important lines from the speech that would be better to include.

Reagan Museum

2026-09-25T13:24:13Z

Reagan admin:

This Wiki's administrator and chief (only) editor had the fortune to visit the Reagan Presidential Museum in late July of 2024. It was a wonderful experience. I'd love to go back.

There is a very large display about his post-gubernatorial radio show, including a full map of the United States to show the locations of the radio stations that broadcast it. 6 broadcasts and built-in to the display. Pick up a personal speaker and select one to list to. Unfortunately, none were new to me.

I ''might'' have found one minor mistake in another area. I suppose it is a matter of interpretation.

The display concerning [[A Time For Choosing]] includes some information about why he made the speech, when it was given, a photo of himself and Nancy with Senator Barry Goldwater... and a pull quote of the beginning of the speech. Except, its really not.

If you sit down to watch or listen to the speech, it begins with:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
''Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.''

''I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used "We've never had it so good."''</BLOCKQUOTE>

Instead, the pull quote is from the ''[[Press_Release|Press]]'' edition.
<BLOCKQUOTE>
''I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.''
</BLOCKQUOTE>

So, does that make it part of the speech? In my opinion, no, it doesn't.

Reagan Museum

2026-09-25T13:22:16Z

Reagan admin:

This Wiki's administrator and chief (only) editor had the fortune to visit the Reagan Presidential Museum in late July of 2024. It was a wonderful experience. I'd love to go back.

There is a very large display about his post-gubernatorial radio show, including a full map of the United States to show the locations of the radio stations that broadcast it. 6 broadcasts and built-in to the display. Pick up a personal speaker and select one to list to. Unfortunately, none were new to me.

I ''might'' have found one minor mistake in another area. I suppose it is a matter of interpretation.

The display concerning [[A Time For Choosing]] includes some information about why he made the speech, when it was given, a photo of himself and Nancy with Senator Barry Goldwater... and a pull quote of the beginning of the speech. Except, its really not.

If you sit down to watch or listen to the speech, it begins with:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
''Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.''

''I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used "We've never had it so good."''</BLOCKQUOTE>

Instead, the pull quote is from the ''[[Press_Release|Press]]'' edition.
<BLOCKQUOTE>
''I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.''
</BLOCKQUOTE>

75-13-A2

2026-09-22T15:25:34Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-13-A1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-13-A3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= UNICEF =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
The American people are the most charitable and generous people in the world—maybe that's why once in awhile we get taken for a ride.—I’ll be right back.

Colonel Robert D. Heine Jr. has just had a story published (a story I might add that appears to be fully documented) that indicating that advantage has been taken of American generosity.

The Colonel asks if you were aware last Halloween when you gave [https://www.unicefusa.org/trick-or-treat trick or treat money] for [[wikipedia:UNICEF|UNICEF]]—(the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund) that you were helping the communist takeover of South Vietnam? I’m sure the answer from all of us would have to be—"No we didn’t know that."

We're not only a generous people—we're darned ingenious at thinking up new and different ways to raise money for good causes. Usually the idea is to make giving easier and a mite less painful. In that framework it seemed logical and pretty cute to have our children sally forth on Halloween with cannisters to collect money for other less fortunate children in other parts of the world.

The kids were successful, They collected $13,649,433 for [[wikipedia:Mainland_Southeast_Asia|Indochina]] alone—that is for the children of Indochina. It broke down to 61% for the communist enemy and 39% for South Vietnam. $6,313,130 went to Hanoi and almost $2 mil. more through Hanoi to the [[wikipedia:Viet_Cong|Viet Cong]]. I didn't really know the V.C. guerrilla fighters had their children with them.

Now before you say it let me say it first; children don't start wars and can't be responsible for what their national leaders do; and yes the enemy's children innocent of any wrongdoing should be helped not penalized if they are among the hungry and deprived of the world. So my remarks are not aimed at the fact that the lions share of our money wound up in enemy hands.

No—the Colonel had more information about the results of our generosity. In South Vietnam we were in a position to check and make sure our benefactions by way of the United Nations did go to the children. There our money bought food and medicine largely. Not so in North Vietnam. No monitoring was permitted to see that the supplies shipped in thru Haiphong and dropped off at Hanoi actually reached the children. A UNICEF spokesman is quoted as saying, "UNICEF has no way to make sure the supplies to the communists got to children. They were dropped off at the airports and docks and we assume they were used as we intended." That would have been something to see—the children of Hanoi happily running trucks, bulldozers, heavy engineer construction equipment and construction tools and materials. Word of honor that was what Hanoi said it needed for the children of North Vietnam. Believe it or not they justified their choice by claiming it would be used to rebuild schools which naturally were the main targets of American bombers.

The Viet Cong being in the field got mainly food, clothing and hard to get drugs-56 medicines. Incidentally the Viet Cong even by their own estimates are only 15% or less of the pop. of South Vietnam they received 2 and a half times as much in proportion to their numbers as did the rest of the S. Vietnamese.

Well I guess we should remember the name of the game was trick or treat. We got tricked and they got the treat.

I think next Halloween—we shouldn't be home.

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>07/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-38</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-13-A2

2026-09-22T15:22:39Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-13-A1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-13-A3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= UNICEF =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
The American people are the most charitable and generous people in the world—maybe that's why once in awhile we get taken for a ride.—I’ll be right back.

Colonel Robert D. Heine Jr. has just had a story published (a story I might add that appears to be fully documented) that indicating that advantage has been taken of American generosity.

The Colonel asks if you were aware last Halloween when you gave trick or treat money for [[wikipedia:UNICEF|UNICEF]]—(the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund) that you were helping the communist takeover of South Vietnam? I’m sure the answer from all of us would have to be—"No we didn’t know that."

We're not only a generous people—we're darned ingenious at thinking up new and different ways to raise money for good causes. Usually the idea is to make giving easier and a mite less painful. In that framework it seemed logical and pretty cute to have our children sally forth on Halloween with cannisters to collect money for other less fortunate children in other parts of the world.

The kids were successful, They collected $13,649,433 for [[wikipedia:Mainland_Southeast_Asia|Indochina]] alone—that is for the children of Indochina. It broke down to 61% for the communist enemy and 39% for South Vietnam. $6,313,130 went to Hanoi and almost $2 mil. more through Hanoi to the [[wikipedia:Viet_Cong|Viet Cong]]. I didn't really know the V.C. guerrilla fighters had their children with them.

Now before you say it let me say it first; children don't start wars and can't be responsible for what their national leaders do; and yes the enemy's children innocent of any wrongdoing should be helped not penalized if they are among the hungry and deprived of the world. So my remarks are not aimed at the fact that the lions share of our money wound up in enemy hands.

No—the Colonel had more information about the results of our generosity. In South Vietnam we were in a position to check and make sure our benefactions by way of the United Nations did go to the children. There our money bought food and medicine largely. Not so in North Vietnam. No monitoring was permitted to see that the supplies shipped in thru Haiphong and dropped off at Hanoi actually reached the children. A UNICEF spokesman is quoted as saying, "UNICEF has no way to make sure the supplies to the communists got to children. They were dropped off at the airports and docks and we assume they were used as we intended." That would have been something to see—the children of Hanoi happily running trucks, bulldozers, heavy engineer construction equipment and construction tools and materials. Word of honor that was what Hanoi said it needed for the children of North Vietnam. Believe it or not they justified their choice by claiming it would be used to rebuild schools which naturally were the main targets of American bombers.

The Viet Cong being in the field got mainly food, clothing and hard to get drugs-56 medicines. Incidentally the Viet Cong even by their own estimates are only 15% or less of the pop. of South Vietnam they received 2 and a half times as much in proportion to their numbers as did the rest of the S. Vietnamese.

Well I guess we should remember the name of the game was trick or treat. We got tricked and they got the treat.

I think next Halloween—we shouldn't be home.

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>07/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-38</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-13-A2

2026-09-22T15:08:39Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-13-A1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-13-A3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= UNICEF =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
The American people are the most charitable and generous people in the world—maybe that's why once in awhile we get taken for a ride.—I’ll be right back.

Colonel Robert D. Heine Jr. has just had a story published (a story I might add that appears to be fully documented) that indicating that advantage has been taken of American generosity.

The Colonel asks if you were aware last Halloween when you gave trick or treat money for [[wikipedia:UNICEF|UNICEF]]—(the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund) that you were helping the communist takeover of South Vietnam? I’m sure the answer from all of us would have to be—"No we didn’t know that."

We're not only a generous people—we're darned ingenious at thinking up new and different ways to raise money for good causes. Usually the idea is to make giving easier and a mite less painful. In that framework it seemed logical and pretty cute to have our children sally forth on Halloween with cannisters to collect money for other less fortunate children in other parts of the world.

The kids were successful, They collected $13,649,433 for Indochina alone—that is for the children of Indochina. It broke down to 61% for the communist enemy and 39% for South Vietnam. $6,313,130 went to Hanoi and almost $2 mil. more through Hanoi to the Viet Cong. I didn't really know the V.C. guerrila fighters had their children with them.

Now before you say it let me say it first; children don't start wars and can't be responsible for what their national leaders do; and yes the enemy's children innocent of any wrongdoing should be helped not penalized if they are among the hungry and deprived of the world. So my remarks are not aimed at the fact that the lions share of our money wound up in enemy hands.

No—the Colonel had more information about the results of our generosity. In South Vietnam we were in a position to check and make sure our benefactions by way of the United Nations did go to the children. There our money bought food and medicine largely. Not so in North Vietnam. No monitoring was permitted to see that the supplies shipped in thru Haiphong and dropped off at Hanoi actually reached the children. A UNICEF spokesman is quoted as saying, "UNICEF has no way to make sure the supplies to the communists got to children. They were dropped off at the airports and docks and we assume they were used as we intended." That would have been something to see—the children of Hanoi happily running trucks, bulldozers, heavy engineer construction equipment and construction tools and materials. Word of honor that was what Hanoi said it needed for the children of North Vietnam. Believe it or not they justified their choice by claiming it would be used to rebuild schools which naturally were the main targets of American bombers.

The Viet Cong being in the field got mainly food, clothing and hard to get drugs-56 medicines. Incidentally the Viet Cong even by their own estimates are only 15% or less of the pop. of South Vietnam they received 2 and a half times as much in proportion to their numbers as did the rest of the S. Vietnamese.

Well I guess we should remember the name of the game was trick or treat. We got tricked and they got the treat.

I think next Halloween—we shouldn't be home.

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>07/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-38</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

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

75-22-6

2026-09-22T15:04:57Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-22-5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-22-7|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= SHould We Really Give-Away the Panama Canal? =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
No Transcript Currently Available

</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>09/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Written and read by [[wikipedia:William_F._Buckley_Jr.|William F. Buckley]]
* On January 13, 1978, William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan participated in a debate regarding the treaty which would turn control of the [[wikipedia:Panama_Canal|Panama Canal]] to Panamna. Buckley was in favor, Reagan was against. [[yt:CZO1bFaRNtk|Recording of the Debate]]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-22-6

2026-09-22T15:00:55Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-22-5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-22-7|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= SHould We Really Give-Away the Panama Canal? =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
No Transcript Currently Available

</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>09/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Written and read by William F. Buckley
* On January 13, 1978, William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan participated in a debate regarding the treaty which would turn control of the Panama Canal to Panamna. Buckley was in favor, Reagan was against. [[yt:CZO1bFaRNtk|Recording of the Debate]]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

Reagan Radio Commentaries

2026-09-22T14:52:54Z

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.

Radio Affiliates
</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>

Reagan Museum

2026-09-22T14:51:11Z

Reagan admin: Created page with "This Wiki's administrator and chief (only) editor had the fortune to visit the Reagan Presidential Museum in late July of 2024. It was a wonderful experience. I'd love to go back. There is a very large display about his post-gubernatorial radio show, including a full map of the United States to show the locations of the radio stations that broadcast it. 6 broadcasts and built-in to the display. Pick up a personal speaker and select one to list to. Unfortunately, none we..."

This Wiki's administrator and chief (only) editor had the fortune to visit the Reagan Presidential Museum in late July of 2024. It was a wonderful experience. I'd love to go back.

There is a very large display about his post-gubernatorial radio show, including a full map of the United States to show the locations of the radio stations that broadcast it. 6 broadcasts and built-in to the display. Pick up a personal speaker and select one to list to. Unfortunately, none were new to me.

I ''might'' have found one minor mistake in another area. I suppose it is a matter of interpretation.

The display concerning [[A Time For Choosing]] includes some information about why he made the speech, when it was given, a photo of himself and Nancy with Senator Barry Goldwater... and a pull quote of the beginning of the speech. Except, its really not.

If you sit down to watch or listen to the speech, it begins with:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
''Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used "We've never had it so good."''</BLOCKQUOTE>

Instead, the pull quote is from the ''[[Press_Release|Press]]'' edition.
<BLOCKQUOTE>
''I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.''
</BLOCKQUOTE>

A Time For Choosing

2026-09-22T14:48:05Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Speeches]]


On October 27, 1964, a recorded speech by Ronald Reagan was broadcast on TV in support of Senator [[Barry Goldwater]]. In it, he attempts to outline his feelings about the direction of the country, from a free and prosperous state, to one of welfare and debt, with [[Lyndon B Johnson]]'s [[Great Society]] at the forefront. He also discusses the role of [[communism]]/[[socialism]].

This is a transcript of the speech as it was broadcast on TV. It is sometimes called "[[The Speech]]" but this name is also applied to the many variations of it that were given by Reagan before and after the actual televised speech. This version specifically includes references to [[Barry Goldwater]], but not all did.

There is another version of 'A Time For Choosing' which floats around the Internet. It may be another version of "[[The Speech]]" which is simply mislabeled or it may be a [[Press Release]] edition of 'A Time For Choosing'.
[[A Time For Choosing-Prepared Version|It can be read here]].

== Full Text ==

Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used "We've never had it so good."

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend $17 million a day more than the government takes in. We haven't [[Balanced Budget|balanced our budget]] 28 out of the last 34 years. We have raised our [[debt limit]] three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations in the world. We have [[gold|$15 billion in gold in our treasury]] — we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are $27.3 billion, and we have just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase [[inflation|45 cents in its total value]].

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in [[Vietnam War|South Vietnam]] and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well, I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from [[Fidel Castro|Castro]], and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are! I had someplace to escape to." In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down — up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order — or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "[[Great Society]]," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a "greater government activity in the affairs of the people." But they have been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves — and all of the things that I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say "the [[Cold War]] will end through acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says that the profit motive has become outmoded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state; or our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century. [[J William Fulbright|Senator Fulbright]] has said at Stanford University that the [[Constitution]] is outmoded. He referred to the president as our moral teacher and our leader, and he said he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions in power imposed on him by this antiquated document. He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best. And [[Joseph S Clark Jr|Senator Clark]] of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines [[liberalism]] as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me — the free man and woman of this country — as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" — this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than the government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming is regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we have spent $43 in feed grain program for every bushel of corn we don't grow.

[[Hubert Humphrey|Senator Humphrey]] last week charged that [[Barry Goldwater]] as President would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he will find out that we have had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He will also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress an extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He will find that they have also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there has been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There is now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how [https://time.com/archive/6807866/foreign-trade-the-66-shiploads/ 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria] disappeared without a trace and [[Billie Sol Estes]] never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but who are farmers to know what is best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.
[[file:Planners.jpg|right|Quote about Planners]]
Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights are so diluted that public interest is almost anything that a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes for the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in [[Cleveland, Ohio]], a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "[[Eminent Domain|more compatible use of the land]]." The President tells us he is now going to start building public housing units in the thousands where heretofore we have only built them in the hundreds. But [[Federal Housing Administration|FHA]] and the [[Veterans Administration]] tell us that they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosures. For three decades, we have sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the [[Area Redevelopment Agency]]. They have just declared [[Rice County, Kansas]], a depressed area. [[Rice County, Kansas]], has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over $30 million on deposit in personal savings in their banks. When the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they've had almost 30 years of it, shouldn't we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we are told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending $45 billion on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the $45 billion up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty! Direct aid to the poor, however, is running only about $600 per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

So now we declare "[[war on poverty]]," or "you, too, can be a [[Bobby Baker]]!" Now, do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add $1 billion to the $45 million we are spending...one more program to the 30-odd we have — and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs — do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain that there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We are now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old [[Civilian Conservation Corps|CCC camps]], and we are going to put our young people in camps, but again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we are going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person that we help $4,700 a year! [[Harvard|We can send them to Harvard for $2,700!]] Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who had come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning $250 a month. She wanted a divorce so that she could get an $80 raise. She is eligible for $330 a month in the [[Aid to Dependent Children Program]]. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who had already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always "against" things, never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that [[Josh Billings|they know so much that isn't so]]. We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted [[Social Security]] as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those who depend on them for livelihood. [[Social Security|They have called it insurance to us in a hundred million pieces of literature]]. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified that it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said [[Social Security]] dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because [[Robert Myers]], the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that [[Social Security]] as of this moment is $298 billion in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble! And they are doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary...his [[Social Security]] contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee $220 a month at age 65. The government promises $127. He could live it up until he is 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than [[Social Security]]. Now, are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis so that people who do require those payments will find that they can get them when they are due...that the cupboard isn't bare? [[Barry Goldwater]] thinks we can.

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provisions for the non-earning years? Should we allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under these programs, which we cannot do? I think we are for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we are against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program was now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.

In addition, was [[Barry Goldwater]] so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate planned inflation so that when you do get your [[Social Security]] pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents' worth?
I think we are for an [[United Nations|international organization]], where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we are against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among the nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we are against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we are for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We are helping 107. We spent $146 billion. With that money, we bought a $2 million yacht for [[Haile Selassie]]. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenyan government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, [[gold|52 nations have bought $7 billion worth of our gold]], and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth. Federal employees number 2.5 million, and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force is employed by the government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury, and they can seize and sell his property in auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chicot County, Arkansas, [[James Wier]] overplanted his rice allotment. The government obtained a $17,000 judgment, and a U.S. marshal sold his 950-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work. Last February 19 at the University of Minnesota, [[Norman Thomas]], six-time candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If [[Barry Goldwater]] became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.

As a former Democrat, I can tell you [[Norman Thomas]] isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration. Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, [[Al Smith]], the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the part of [[Thomas Jefferson|Jefferson]], [[Andrew Jackson|Jackson]], and [[Grover Cleveland|Cleveland]] down the road under the banners of [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]]. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the [[Labour Party|labor socialist party]] of England. Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our [[Natural Rights|natural, inalienable rights]] are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men...that we are to choose just between two personalities.

Well, what of this man that they would destroy? And in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear. Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well, I have been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I have never known a man in my life I believe so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who in his own business, before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan, before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provided nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by floods from the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the [[Korean War]], and he was at the Los Angelos airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas, and he said that there were a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. Then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was this fellow named [[Barry Goldwater]] sitting in his plane. Every day in the weeks before Christmas, all day long, he would load up the plane, fly to Arizona, fly them to their homes, then fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life upon that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all of the other problems I have discussed academic, unless we realize that we are in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer — not an easy answer — but simple.
If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the [[Iron Curtain]], "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." [[Alexander Hamilton]] said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace — and you can have it in the next second — surrender.

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face — that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand — the ultimatum. And what then? When [[Nikita Khrushchev]] has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the [[Cold War]], and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one [[Kenneth Tynan|commentator]] put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin — just in the face of this enemy? Or should [[Exodus|Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs]]? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the [[Battle of Concord|patriots at Concord Bridge]] have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of [[Barry Goldwater]]'s "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits — not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that [[Barry Goldwater]] has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

== External Links ==
[http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganatimeforchoosing.htm Full Text, Audio and Video of A Time For Choosing]

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY YouTube Video of A Time For Choosing, from The Reagan Foundation]

[[c:Speeches]]

Press Release

2026-09-22T14:28:30Z

Reagan admin:

It is common for politicians to write their speech (or have it written for them) and for a copy of the speech to be given to the press shortly before the speech is to be given. Reagan's speeches were no exception.

However, Reagan, being an experienced radio-man and actor, was adept at going off-script and still hitting all his points (telling a joke along the way, often to break the ice). With this in mind, its not surprising that a transcript of the speech merely resembles, rather than mirrors, the document given to the press.

The fact that Reagan might alter a speech on the fly can sometimes help in research. In one speech transcript, he might refer to "a Democrat said", while in the press copy, the name is given and quotation marks help determine the beginning and end of the quote.

This wiki includes both the speech transcript and the press copy of several of Reagan's speeches, when available.

These Press Editions are:
<UL>
<LI>1961's [[Encroaching Control-Prepared Version|Encroaching Control]]<BR>
The [http://www.reaganlibrary.gov Reagan Presidential Library] did not have a copy of the transcript, just the press document, until this Wiki's administrator created one. This wiki is currently the only site with that transcript available.
<LI>1964's [[A Time For Choosing-Prepared Version|A Time for Choosing]]<BR>
Numerous websites (and other [[Reagan_Museum|locations]], I'm afraid to say) confuse the press version of ''A Time for Choosing'' with the actual speech. They are quite different.
<LI>1976's [[A City Upon a Hill-Prepared Version|A City Upon a Hill]]
</UL>

Differences may be subtle or they may be dramatic. In reviewing these, ''A Time For Choosing'' seems to show the most differences.

Press Release

2026-09-22T14:25:36Z

Reagan admin:

It is common for politicians to write their speech (or have it written for them) and for a copy of the speech to be given to the press shortly before the speech is to be given. Reagan's speeches were no exception.

However, Reagan, being an experienced radio-man and actor, was adept at going off-script and still hitting all his points (telling a joke along the way, often to break the ice). With this in mind, its not surprising that a transcript of the speech merely resembles, rather than mirrors, the document given to the press.

This wiki includes both the speech transcript and the press copy of several of Reagan's speeches. These Press Editions are:
<UL>
<LI>1961's [[Encroaching Control-Prepared Version|Encroaching Control]]<BR>
The [http://www.reaganlibrary.gov Reagan Presidential Library] did not have a copy of the transcript, just the press document, until this Wiki's administrator created one. This wiki is currently the only site with that transcript available.
<LI>1964's [[A Time For Choosing-Prepared Version|A Time for Choosing]]<BR>
Numerous websites (and other [[Reagan_Museum|locations]], I'm afraid to say) confuse the press version of ''A Time for Choosing'' with the actual speech. They are quite different.
<LI>1976's [[A City Upon a Hill-Prepared Version|A City Upon a Hill]]
</UL>

Differences may be subtle or they may be dramatic. In reviewing these, ''A Time For Choosing'' seems to show the most differences.

77-23-B5

2026-09-19T10:03:41Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[77-23-B4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[77-23-B6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= The Incredible Bread Machine =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
There's more truth than fiction in the story of Tom Smith's Incredible Bread Machine. I'll be right back, and I'll be reading poetry.

Recently, I came across a slender volume that contains more good sense than nearly all the economic treatises of the last four decades. It's called the incredible bread machine, authored by a group of young people at the Campus Studies Institute in San Diego. They have a sense of humor. They include this poem in their book.

<BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a legend of success and plunder<BR>
And a man, Tom Smith, who squelched world hunger.<BR>
Now, Smith, an inventor, had specialized<BR>
In toys. So, people were surprised<BR>
When they found that he instead<BR>
Of making toys, was BAKING BREAD!<BR>

The way to make bread he'd conceived<BR>
Cost less than people could believe.<BR>
And not just make it! This device<BR>
Could, in addition, wrap and slice!<BR>
The price per loaf, one loaf or many:<BR>
The miniscule sum of under a penny.<BR>

Can you imagine what this meant?<BR>
Can you comprehend the consequent?<BR>
The first time yet the world well fed!<BR>
And all because of Tom Smith's bread.<BR>

A citation from the President<BR>
For Smith's amazing bread.<BR>
This and other honors too<BR>
Were heaped upon his head.<BR>

But isn't it a wondrous thing<BR>
How quickly fame is flown?<BR>
Smith, the hero of today—<BR>
Tomorrow, scarcely known.<BR>

Yes, the fickle years passed by;<BR>
Smith was a millionaire,<BR>
But Smith himself was now forgot—<BR>
Though bread was everywhere.<BR>

People, asked from where it came,<BR>
Would very seldom know.<BR>
They would simply eat and ask,<BR>
"Was not it always so?"<BR>

However, Smith cared not a bit,<BR>
For millions ate his bread,<BR>
And "Everything is fine," thought he,<BR>
"I am rich and they are fed!"<BR>

Everything was fine, he thought?<BR>
He reckoned not with fate.<BR>
Note the sequence of events<BR>
Starting on the date<BR>
On which the business tax went up.<BR>
Then, to a slight extent,<BR>
The price on every loaf rose too:<BR>
Up to one full cent!<BR>

"What's going on?" the public cried,<BR>
"He's guilty of pure plunder.<BR>
He has no right to get so rich<BR>
On other people's hunger!"<BR>

(A prize cartoon depicted Smith<BR>
With fat and drooping jowls<BR>
Snatching bread from hungry babes<BR>
Indifferent to their howls!)<BR>

Well, since the Public does come first,<BR>
It could not be denied<BR>
That in matters such as this,<BR>
The Public must decide.<BR>
So, antitrust now took a hand.<BR>
Of course, it was appalled<BR>
At what it found was going on.<BR>
The "bread trust," it was called.<BR>

Now this was getting serious.<BR>
So Smith felt that he must<BR>
Have a friendly interview<BR>
With the men in antitrust.<BR>
So, hat in hand, he went to them.<BR>
They'd surely been misled;<BR>
No rule of law had he defied.<BR>
But then their lawyer said:<BR>

"The rule of law, in complex times,<BR>
Has proved itself deficient.<BR>
We much prefer the rule of men!<BR>
It's vastly more efficient.<BR>
Now, let me state the present rules,"<BR>
The lawyer then went on,<BR>
"These very simple guidelines<BR>
You can rely upon:<BR>
You're gouging on your prices if<BR>
You charge more than the rest.<BR>
But it's unfair competition<BR>
If you think you can charge less.<BR>

"A second point that we would make<BR>
To help avoid confusion:<BR>
Don't try to charge the same amount:<BR>
That would be collusion!<BR>
You must compete. But not too much,<BR>
For if you do, you see,<BR>
Then the market would be yours—<BR>
And that's monopoly!"<BR>

Price too high? Or price too low?<BR>
Now, which charge did they make?<BR>
Well, they weren't loath to charging both<BR>
With Public Good at stake!<BR>

In fact, they went one better—<BR>
They charged "monopoly!"<BR>
No muss, no fuss, oh woe is us,<BR>
Egad, they charged all three!<BR>

"Five years in jail," the judge then said.<BR>
“You’re lucky it’s not worse.<BR>
Robber Barons must be taught<BR>
Society Comes First!"<BR>

Now, bread is baked by government.<BR>
And as might be expected,<BR>
Everything is well controlled;<BR>
The public well protected.<BR>

True, loaves cost a dollar each.<BR>
But our leaders do their best.<BR>
The selling price is half a cent.<BR>
(Taxes pay the rest!)<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>

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:wmwrC0pfm_4|Listen]] (with [[75-05-A5|The Superintendent's Dilemma]])</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Repeated 2 additional times (75-02, 75-20)
* Used in the [[CitizenReaganPod|Citizen Reagan Podcast]]
* [https://mises.org/library/incredible-bread-machine The book Reagan would have read]
* [[amazon:0930073312|1999 update by the original author]]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-09-B4

2026-09-17T14:10:48Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-09-B3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-09-B5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Government Computers =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
To err as human. It takes a government computer to really louse things up. I'll be right back.

A New Jersey newspaper recently reported a story that bears repeating. It begins with a familiar scene, a woman and her daughter-in-law having a mid-morning cup of coffee at the kitchen table, the woman's husband leaving to go down to the store for a few groceries. He's retired on a six hundred and forty two dollar a month income as a result of serious injuries he suffered, in addition to which he has that curse of the coal miner, black lung disease. Just after his departure the mail arrives. His wife opens a letter from the Social Security Administration. According to the news story it was a good thing she was sitting down. Her daughter-in-law saw the alarm on her face and asked, "what's the matter, mom?" Her mother said, "It's Social Security! They want pop's death certificate! They got him dead!" "Don't tell him! He'll die of a heart attack!" the daughter said.

Up to here, the story gets a laugh but not for long. That $642 monthly check has been reduced to 281 dollars. You see the declaration by social security that the head of the household had passed away wipes out the disability benefits to which he's legally entitled. After all, a dead man can hardly be eligible for disability payments. The very much alive deceased and his wife widow, according to Social Security have since been patiently making periodic trips and phone calls to the Social Security Administration offices in Perth Amboy, New Jersey, trying to refute, as [[wikipedia:Mark_Twain|Mark Twain]] once did, the report of his death which he described as somewhat premature.

The officials, according to the news story, are sympathetic, courteous and a little embarrassed. They appear also to be unable to solve the problem. Heaven forbid they should tell a computer it goofed. The head of the Perth Amboy office refused to discuss the matter with the press. He said, quote, "Regulation number one forbids such a discussion." Unquote. He did say however that administrative officials in Baltimore had been notified of the mistake and that every effort was being made to restore the victim to the ranks of the living. So far they haven't suggested a trip to the Shrine of Lourdes.

One bright note, the family's financial plight has been eased a little. Social Security sent them a check for seven hundred and ten dollars... to cover the cost of the funeral.

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>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-27</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>

75-09-B1

2026-09-17T14:03:25Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-09-A5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-09-B2|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Nuclear Power =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
There isn't much talk about energy these days. Maybe there should be. I'll be right back.

Today I'm going to talk about something going on in California because it could happen to all of us. An overly excited group of Californians have formed a group called "[[nyt:1975/12/14/archives/free-speech-issue-in-nuclear-fight-coast-dispute-over-atomic-plants.html|People For Proof]]" and if they have their way we could see a halt to the building of nuclear power plants which are badly needed to provide us with economical, non-polluting, electrical power. People For Proof wants to put an [https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Nuclear_Power_Plant_Initiative_(June_1976) issue on the California June primary ballot] in 1976 which will have the people voting to receive proof of safety beyond any reasonable need before any nuclear power plants can be built.

Now everyone's for safety and I'm sure we wish our highways could be a hundred percent safe that people wouldn't slip in bathtubs and that we'd never have soup spilled on our back in a crowded restaurant, but there aren't any sure things in life except the old stand-bys death and taxes. Today, 48 nations besides our own are generating electricity at low cost by use of nuclear reactors. So far there has not been one single accidental death caused by nuclear reactors.

How many tests are too many? The most recent one was made by the [[wikipedia:United_States_Atomic_Energy_Commission|Atomic Energy Commission]] it cost three million dollars and went on for two years. When you add up the number of distinguished consultants who were involved it figures out to 50 man-years of effort. Now if you were at the racetrack and the handicappers told you the odds on a certain horse were 100-to-1 you'd figure his chances of winning were pretty slim. Well our experts in the nuclear power study have put the odds on a fatal accident occurring in a nuclear power plant at 300 million-to-1. That makes it safer than all the other causes of accidental death put together. Put another way it's about as likely as you're being run over by a horse in your bathtub.

Now the leaders in back of People For Proof know all this, which makes you wonder why there's some bent on throwing another roadblock in the path of getting some badly needed electric power production. Are they suggesting there must be an absolute guarantee of the complete impossibility of anything ever going wrong? The record, so far, is one of one hundred percent safety and, to repeat, the odds again as given by the best experts in the field a three hundred million-to-1. We don't start out in life with odds that good on making our three score in ten.

Now I know this is a California problem-at the moment-but this kind of group is as contagious as the [[wikipedia:Hong_Kong_flu|Hong Kong Flu]]. I thought you just might like a warning.

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>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH]]-323</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 Library (National Archives) Resources

2026-09-17T14:00:46Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:ReaganRadio]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]]

While attempting to research for this Wiki, it was discovered that the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library (National Archives) had posted PDFs of a large number of the radio scripts in June of 2024. This will be a great help.

According to [[rrpl:sites/default/files/finding_aids_pdfs/219326.pdf|this PDF]], they were part of the materials used by the Hannaford and Deaver PR firm and transferred to Reagan's Presidential campaign headquarters. "Box 14" of the collection contained these scripts.

ALmost all the scripts numbered "76", "78" and "79" (recorded and broadcast from 1976-1979), which are listed and linked in the PDF on pages 24 and 25. Missing are the scripts from 1975, any numbers for "77" (which were likely scripts written after the conclusion of Reagan's 1976 campaign) and a 2 sets from 1979.

Links to these PDFs will follow (and are being integrated into the transcripts), along with any other resources that should appear through the Presidential Library.

==Radio Scripts==
*[[rrpl:sites/default/files/finding_aids_pdfs/219326.pdf|1980 Campaign Files]]: 550 pages outlining the contents of over 900 boxes of materials. Box 14 (details on pages 24-25 of the PDF) contained the radio scripts. Boxes 15-18 include other materials related to the radio show, possibly including recordings, though none have been found yet at the Reagan Library website.

===Box 14===
''Here are links to each individual set of scripts, pulled from the larger PDF above. Slowly, these will find their way into the main wiki.''

* [[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-001-2024.pdf|Radio Commentaries / Broadcasts: Disc 76-1A through 76-4 (1976)]]
* [[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-002-2024.pdf|Radio Commentaries / Broadcasts: Disc 76-5 through 76-7 (1976)]]
* [[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-003-2024.pdf|Radio Commentaries / Broadcasts: Disc 76-8 through 76-10 (1977)]]
* [[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-004-2024.pdf|Radio Commentaries / Broadcasts: Disc 76-11 through 76-13 (1977)]]
* [[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-005-2024.pdf|Radio Commentaries / Broadcasts: Disc 76-14 through 76-16 (1977)]]
* [[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-006-2024.pdf|Radio Commentaries / Broadcasts: Disc 76-17 through 76-19 (1977)]]
* [[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-007-2024.pdf|Radio Commentaries / Broadcasts: Disc 78-1 through 78-3 (1978)]]
* [[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-008-2024.pdf|Radio Commentaries / Broadcasts: Disc 78-4 through 78-6 (1978)]]
* [[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-009-2024.pdf|Radio Commentaries / Broadcasts: Disc 78-7 through 78-9 (1978)]]
* [[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-010-2024.pdf|Radio Commentaries / Broadcasts: Disc 78-10 through 78-12 (1978)]]
* [[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-011-2024.pdf|Radio Commentaries / Broadcasts: Disc 78-13 through 78-15 (1978)]]
* [[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-012-2024.pdf|Radio Commentaries / Broadcasts: Disc 78-16 through 78-17 (1978-1979)]]
* [[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-013-2024.pdf|Radio Commentaries / Broadcasts: Disc 79-1 through 79-3 (1979)]]
* [[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-014-2024.pdf|Radio Commentaries / Broadcasts: Disc 79-4 through 79-6 (1979)]]
* [[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-015-2024.pdf|Radio Commentaries / Broadcasts: Disc 79-7 through 79-9 (1979)]]
* [[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-016-2024.pdf|Radio Commentaries / Broadcasts: Disc 79-10 through 79-12 (1979)]]
* [[rrpl:public/2024-07/40-656-7386263-014-017-2024.pdf|Radio Commentaries / Broadcasts: Disc 79-14 through 79-15 (1979)]]

==Gerald R Ford Presidential Library==
Some scripts exist in the Gerald Ford Library, which has digitized them. These are for 75-08 and 75-09.
* [https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/sites/default/files/library/document/0269/1551513.pdf Scripts], Pages 16-39. Scripts are partially blocked/red-acted, but by highlighting, copying and pasting, the text will transfer to any text editor (Notepad, Word, etc.)

75-09-B1

2026-09-17T13:54:52Z

Reagan admin:

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

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-09-A5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-09-B2|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Nuclear Power =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
There isn't much talk about energy these days. Maybe there should be. I'll be right back.

Today I'm going to talk about something going on in California because it could happen to all of us. An overly excited group of Californians have formed a group called "[[nyt:1975/12/14/archives/free-speech-issue-in-nuclear-fight-coast-dispute-over-atomic-plants.html|People For Proof]]" and if they have their way we could see a halt to the building of nuclear power plants which are badly needed to provide us with economical, non-polluting, electrical power. People For Proof wants to put an [https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Nuclear_Power_Plant_Initiative_(June_1976) issue on the California June primary ballot] in 1976 which will have the people voting to receive proof of safety beyond any reasonable need before any nuclear power plants can be built.

Now everyone's for safety and I'm sure we wish our highways could be a hundred percent safe that people wouldn't slip in bathtubs and that we'd never have soup spilled on our back in a crowded restaurant, but there aren't any sure things in life except the old stand-bys death and taxes. Today, 48 nations besides our own are generating electricity at low cost by use of nuclear reactors. So far there has not been one single accidental death caused by nuclear reactors.

How many tests are too many? The most recent one was made by the Atomic Energy Commission it cost three million dollars and went on for two years. When you add up the number of distinguished consultants who were involved it figures out to 50 man-years of effort. Now if you were at the racetrack and the handicappers told you the odds on a certain horse were 100-to-1 you'd figure his chances of winning were pretty slim. Well our experts in the nuclear power study have put the odds on a fatal accident occurring in a nuclear power plant at 300 million-to-1. That makes it safer than all the other causes of accidental death put together. Put another way it's about as likely as you're being run over by a horse in your bathtub.

Now the leaders in back of People For Proof know all this, which makes you wonder why there's some bent on throwing another roadblock in the path of getting some badly needed electric power production. Are they suggesting there must be an absolute guarantee of the complete impossibility of anything ever going wrong? The record, so far, is one of one hundred percent safety and, to repeat, the odds again as given by the best experts in the field a three hundred million-to-1. We don't start out in life with odds that good on making our three score in ten.

Now I know this is a California problem-at the moment-but this kind of group is as contagious as the Hong Kong Flu. I thought you just might like a warning.

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>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH]]-323</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>

Press Release

2026-09-17T13:31:04Z

Reagan admin:

It is common for politicians to write their speech (or have it written for them) and for a copy of the speech to be given to the press shortly before the speech is to be given. Reagan's speeches were no exception.

However, Reagan, being an experienced radio-man and actor, was adept at going off-script and still hitting all his points (telling a joke along the way, often to break the ice). With this in mind, its not surprising that a transcript of the speech merely resembles, rather than mirrors, the document given to the press.

This wiki includes both the speech transcript and the press copy of several of Reagan's speeches. These Press Editions are:
<UL>
<LI>1961's [[Encroaching Control-Prepared Version|Encroaching Control]]<BR>
The [http://www.reaganlibrary.gov Reagan Presidential Library] did not have a copy of the transcript, just the press document, until this Wiki's administrator created one. This wiki is currently the only site with that transcript available.
<LI>1964's [[A Time For Choosing-Prepared Version|A Time for Choosing]]<BR>
Numerous websites confuse the press version of ''A Time for Choosing'' with the actual speech. They are quite different.
<LI>1976's [[A City Upon a Hill-Prepared Version|A City Upon a Hill]]
</UL>

Differences may be subtle or they may be dramatic. In reviewing these, ''A Time For Choosing'' seems to show the most differences.

Business, Ballots and Bureaus

2026-09-17T13:30:06Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Speeches]]

Business, Ballots and Bureaus is one variation of '[[The Speech]]' given by Ronald Reagan during his time at General Electric and after. According to [[Biographies#The_Education_of_Ronald_Reagan|''The Education of Ronald Reagan'']], he sent a copy to then Vice President Richard Nixon.

Nixon replied:
<blockquote>"You have done an excellent job of analyzing our present tax situation and the attitudes that have contributed it....Speeches such as yours should do much to cause solid thinking about the inherent dangers in this philosophy with the final result being a nationwide demand for reform."</blockquote>

This speech (most likely a [[Press Release]] edition) is available in [[amazon:0313284911|Actor, Ideologue, Politician]].

=="BUSINESS, BALLOTS, AND BUREAUS": MAY, 1959==

In view of the many misconceptions the public has about people in my
profession, it probably seems presumptuous to some of you that I should address
you on such a serious subject. We in [[Hollywood]] are well aware of the highly—
colored views that our fellow citizens have about us.

Of course, we are largely responsible for this false picture of our
industry and its people. Our stock-in-trade was "tinsel and make believe" and our
public relations and business attitudes took on the same hues.

A few years ago we received some stem lessons in the eventual price of
ignoring the business climate. We stood virtually alone and certainly
misunderstood in a fight to preserve our industry from becoming another [[Soviet Union|Soviet]]
satellite. On orders of the [[Kremlin]] we were picked for infiltration. We met
hard-core party organizers who attempted to take over our industry in order to
subvert our screens to disseminate [[Communism|Communist]] propaganda. We won that battle
and many of us today try to remain aware that it was only a battle—the war still
goes on. This effort by the [[Communism|Communists]], with its violence and bloodshed, was
easily dramatized. Not so exciting, but just as menacing, was another invasion
of our freedoms.

When the smoke had cleared, we became increasingly aware of the
extent to which we were being harassed by our own government. Because we
had never corrected the misconceptions about our people, had never really
practiced good public relations, and had never paid any attention to our business
climate. we found our part of the communications industry in this land of free
speech subjected to political censorship by law in a fourth of our states and in
more than two hundred cities. No election year passes but what we are
investigated for something. Sometimes we manage a laugh as they approach our
best comedy efforts. A few years ago a western senator proposed the
establishment of a Congressional Committee to screen actors on the basis of
their morals. Actors would be granted licenses if they passed the test; no
license—no acting in pictures. We thought that one was pretty funny because at
the time there were two U.S. Senators in jail and no actors.

Much has been said and written about the economic distress of the
motion picture industry but little mention has been made of the pan played by
our own government in this trouble. In 1948 a decision was handed down in the
anti-trust action that had been brought against the industry and action that was
called by one anti-trust authority in Washington "the government's greatest
experiment in the vertical disintegration of an industry in the history of the
Sherman Act." The result of that "experiment" in this last decade has been
employment 43% of its 1948 level and a wage scale reduced from one of the
highest to one of the lowest.

Just as we in Hollywood learned that our problem was a double, or two-
pronged attack, responsible citizens have become aware that on the larger scene
of the cold war, our country also faces a two-pronged attack. The threat of the
bomb is terrifying and recognized by all. But the dangers our country faces are
not all external. It is our responsibility to see that our freedom is not sacrificed
from within—lost by default. [[Communism]]'s greatest asset is ignorance of their
tactics. strategy and objectives. For men in high office to remain in ignorance is
irresponsibility ordering on treason, for the Communists have spelled out their
warnings over and over again. [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]], the interpreter of [[Karl Marx|Marx]], has said, "The
way to destroy capitalism is to debauch the currency. Through a continuing
process of inflation a government can quietly and unobservedly confiscate the
wealth of its citizens."

In 1923 he further said, "... first we will take [[Eastern Europe]], then we
will organize the masses of Asia and finally the United States, the last bastion of
capitalism, will be surrounded and we will not have to take it. It will fall into
our outstretched hands like over-ripe fruit." Those who talk of trade with the
Communist countries should be reminded that Lenin said that trade for them would be
for political purposes.

More recently, in answer to a direct question from an American reporter
as to the 15-year future of the cold war, Mr. [[Nikita Khrushchev|Khrushchev]] said, "In 15 years there
won't be a cold war. Your country is becoming so socialistic that in 15 years
the causes for conflict between our two countries will have disappeared."

Can we dismiss such statements as mere bombast? Most of us can
remember back when our main contact with the Federal government was to go
to the Post Office and buy a stamp. Today there is hardly a phase of our daily
living that doesn't feel the stultifying hand of government regulation and
interference. We are faced with a collection of internal powers and bureaucratic
institutions against which the individual citizen is absolutely powerless. This
power, under whatever name or ideology, is the very essence of totalitarianism.

When we question how this has come about, we are told that it is we
who have asked for and received each of our services from the government. But
how many of the current government programs have resulted from the demands
of the people? Isn't it true that government itself has dangled many programs
before us with no mention of the ultimate cost or the loss in personal freedoms?
In many cases the people in government were well-meaning. but aren't we
justified in suspecting that there are those who have fostered the growth of
government by deliberate intent and design?

In 1927 the Socialist Raushenbush, writing in the official socialist
paper. the "[[The New Leader|New Leader]]," urged his fellow [[socialism|socialists]] to recognize they could not
hope for a revolution in American. He therefore offered a new program for
promoting socialism by increasing government control of business. He called
his program "[[Encroaching Control]]." He urged socialists to place themselves in
government positions and then promote government control of banks, railroads
and other businesses and to start a program for government ownership of power.
Eventually they were to work for political control and management of all key
industries.

For an evaluation of Raushenbush's plan, perhaps we should heed the
words, issued many years later of [[Norman Thomas]], six-time candidate for
President on the Socialist Party ticket.

Thomas said that the American people would never knowingly vote for
socialism: but under the guise of liberalism. they would adopt every fragment of
the socialist platform until one day America would be Socialist without
knowing how it came about.

We must recognize that socialism through taxation may be slower, but
it arrives at the same end as outright nationalization of industry.

No one, certainly, would dispute the paying of adequate compensation
to our wounded veterans. We are all agreed they deserve the finest medical and
hospital care we can provide. There was little objection in the depression years
to a needy veteran suffering a non-service connected disability being given a bed
in a [[Veteran's Administration|V.A.]] hospital if the bed were not needed for a veteran with a service-
connected disability. Today 3 out of 4 of the more than 160,000 beds in [[Veteran's Administration|V.A.]]
hospitals are occupied by veteran with injuries or diseases not originated by nor
aggravated by military service. Indeed, there are only 40,000 hospitalized
service-connected disabilities in the U.S. Congress is being urged to make all
people collecting Social Security eligible for government paid medical and
hospital care, a measure conservatively estimated to add billions to our yearly
budget.

All of this is done in the name of real need and emergency, ignoring the
fact that today 127,000,000 Americans have some form of medical and hospital
private insurance.

[[Social Security]] was conceived to provide that destitution would not
result from the death, or unemployment or old age of a worker. It was never
intended to supplant private savings, pension plans or insurance, but was to
provide a foundation upon which security could be achieved. The temptation to
buy elections by urging people to vote themselves a raise was irresistible to
many politicians. This year, many, many years before it was believed likely,
Social Security payments will exceed [[Social Security]] income. In 1943 the
actuarial experts (upon whose judgment the program policies are formed)
predicted that Social Security "out-go" in 1957 would be $1.2 billion, but it
actually came to $7 billion. It has been estimated that those citizens now
collecting Social Security benefits will receive $65 billion more than they have
paid in. Social Security officials now admit that [[Social Security]] dues are a tax
for general government use and that the benefits are a welfare program.

The [[National Education Association]] has abandoned all pretense that the
ultimate aim is not Federal control of the school system. Their program has
naturally been labeled "emergency" and even bears a "defense" tag. Right now
there are 500 colleges capable of taking 200,000 students without enlarging their
facilities by so much as a chair. In the last decade, classroom space has been
built for 15 million students while there has been only an increase of 10 million
pupils. School spending at the traditional local level has increased 124 per cent
to meet 135 percent increase in students.

Most of us agreed that a program of foreign aid was a good thing to
strengthen our allies. An emergency 4-year $15 billion program was launched—
but now it's 11 years later and more than $80 billion has been authorized. The
original staff of 450 now numbers 12,000. The International Cooperation
Administration, set up to handle the lending phase of the program, is now
duplicated by seven other agencies and two more are awaiting approval by
Congress.

We adopt a program to reduce farm surpluses and then make it so
financially attractive to produce a surplus that we have $9 billion worth in
storage. The government owns 17 1/2 million pounds of butter but can't use it
and has to go into the market place to buy 500,000 pounds to feed our armed
forces. The government has enough wheat to make 25 loaves of bread for every
person in the world.

In New Mexico, citizens have rented land from the state for twenty-five
cents an acre and then applied for and received nine-dollars an acre in soil bank
payments for not planting anything on this land. When this was pointed out to
the Department of Agriculture, they replied that it was perfectly legal.

None of the foregoing is to say that there is not a very real problem.
However, it would seem that under the guise of solving the problem some
people are more in furthering their own ideas that government should
became the "[[big brother]]" to us all. No one openly says "[[Socialized Medicine]],"
but counting the 23 million veterans, one out of four citizens today is entitled to
government-paid medical care. Senator Byrd estimates that some 40 million
Americans now received some form of cash payment from government.

The government owns and operates some 19,000 businesses (including
150 ice cream plants) at an annual cost of billions of dollars, according to a New
York congressman. These businesses enjoy a tax-free status while they compete
with privately-owned businesses in 47 different lines ranging from the
manufacture of surgical equipment to rum distilleries, and from paint to
fertilizer. The book value of 700 government corporations has been estimated at
$262 billion. government-owned business accounts for 20 per cent of our total
industrial capacity.

Some defend this practice on the grounds that central government can be
more efficient and economical than either private business of local government.
Taking the government-run insurance business (our government is the biggest
insurer in the world) as an example, we find that in the claims department of the
Veterans Administration insurance program that it takes three employees twice
the time to perform the duties of one employee in a privately owned insurance
company.

All of this has led to a permanent structure of government so
complicated that some Congressmen admit Congress can no longer police
governmental activities. They must accept the word of a department or bureau
head as to his component's functions and budget needs.

A committee appointed by two administrations, both Democrat and
Republican, under the chairmanship of Herbert Hoover, attempted to recommend
some programs of fiscal sanity. They described their jobs as "a fantastic
nightmare of working in regimented chaos." Their findings ranged from the
absurdity of a government office setting out to buy 40 needed chairs and winding
up with 1,055, to a government agency declaring as obsolete and selling $20
million worth of machinery while the same agency had orders in for the same
amount of new equipment.

A subcommittee on Federal employment has reported back to Congress
that there are almost 2-1/2 million employees. In 1942 there was one top
salaried executive for every 89 government employees—today there is one for
every 17. The committee further stated it found little evidence that any bureau or
agency organized in answer to an emergency ever went out of existence, even
alter the emergency disappeared.

About a year ago the President asked Congress to review 18
government agencies with a view toward eliminating them entirely or reducing
their budgets. since they were no longer needed. Congress acted on only three,
and the sum of their effort was to increase the budgets of all three.

A century ago the French philosopher De Tocqueville said: "Our
democracy would last only until those in power learned they could perpetuate
themselves through taxation." We have ignored the prophecy because obviously
neither of our major parties has managed to hold uninterrupted sway. But
perhaps we have been looking in the wrong direction. It's possible his prophecy
refers to the staff of that permanent structure of government, the bureaus and
agencies that go on, unchanged by elections.

Many agencies employ publicity men—at the taxpayers expense—to exert
pressure on Congress in order to insure their own perpetuation. In this way they
often have a greater effect on government policy than do the citizens for whom
they work or for whom the program was intended.

The bulwark of our Democracy is the two party system, but it is
meaningless if the policy is determined by bureaus rather than those chosen by
ballot. Bureaus frozen into permanency by civil service regulation—bureaus
beyond the reach of any ballot.

This has led to and is supported by an equally complex tax structure.
Indirect and hidden taxes are levied on luxuries, and we are told that a citizen can
thus choose to pay or not to pay. But once started, the pattern is of the "foot in
the door" variety. Now we find more than 100 taxes on a simple loaf of bread.
Taxes account for more than one-fourth of the cost of your automobile, one-third
of our telephone bill and about half of your gas and oil. If sometimes your
hotel bill seems a bit too high, consider the findings of a Western hotel
association. They prorated their tax burden and found it amounted to $1.93 per
day per room, whether the room was occupied or not. The government collects
taxes on safety deposit boxes, billiard tables and bowling alleys, among other
things, which actually cost more to collect than the government grosses in
revenue. It is then explained that these are not for revenue but for regulatory
purposes.

We have seen the income tax laws in our lifetime go from thirty-one
words to more than four hundred and forty thousand words. These laws have
become a gigantic hodgepodge of contradictions so complex that even the
ordinary man in the street must get legal advice to help him compute his tax. In
the higher brackets it represents a discrimination against individual effort and
ability such as has never existed for any long period of time in any large scale
civilized community. Nor is there any ratio between the penalty imposed on the
individual and the government need for revenue. The total revenue from
personal surtaxes is around $5-1/2 billion, and above the 50% bracket, from
there through the confiscatory 91% ceiling, the government grosses less than 3/4
of 1 billion dollars.

This entire theory of progressive tax was spawned Karl Marx more
than 100 years ago. He gave it as the necessary basis for a socialist state.

Karl Marx said that the way to impose statism on a people, socialism
on a country, was to tax the middle class out of existence. Let me call to your
attention that the steepest increase of surtax rates occurs through the middle
income brackets where are to be found the bulk of our small businessmen, our
professional men, our key executives, our skilled workers and many of our
farmers. Thirty-four per cent at $8,000 of income, forty-three per cent at
$12,000, and it reaches the fifty per cent mark at $16,000 of income.

We have subscribed to this philosophy on the basis that those best able
to pay should relieve the modest wage earner of an unjust burden. But does it
work entirely this way, or isn't it true that everyone pays taxes.

The average family income of America is around $6,000. Don't stop
there. Go down to the man making $3,500 a year gross with a wife and two
children. Compiling his direct and indirect taxes, out of the $3,500 gross
income, $1,059 will be paid in total taxes in this country.

There are those who say the answer to this man's problem is to "soak
the rich" even more. Well, let's see how much leeway we have in that direction.
lf the Federal Government should confiscate all income over $6,000, the
increased revenue wouldn't pay the interest on the national debt.

History tells us that no nation has ever survived a tax burden of one-
third of its national income. Today, 31 cents out of every dollar earned in the
United States goes to the tax collector. And of this, 23 cents goes to the Federal
Government, leaving only eight cents for the state and local governments.

Some time ago I represented the Motion Picture Industry before the
Ways and Means Committee, urging the adoption of a tax reform measure
known as the [[Sadlak-Herlong Bill]]. This was an experience akin to going over
Niagara Falls in a barrel, the hard way—upstream. In a month of hearings a
virtual cross section of our citizenry appeared—small businessmen's associations,
chambers of commerce, local, state and national manufacturers groups, teachers,
farmers and labor unions—85% urged the passage of the [[Sadlak-Herlong Bill]]—
l00% requested some kind of tax reform. Nothing happened! One Congressman
told us the bill would never get out of committee because "it made too much
sense—it cut across so many lines and benefited people so generally that
Congress wasn't feeling any pressure from any particular groups."

Last November the Committee held new hearings. This time there
were no volunteers. Witnesses were invited and a number of self-styled
economists talked of tax reform which should close many loopholes. According
to these "experts," the rich and people of high income were taking advantage of
these "loopholes" to avoid paying their fair share of the tax.

You will hear a great deal more about these specific "loopholes" as the
propaganda mills start grinding. Some of the loopholes tum out to be
deductions of interest on mortgages and business loans, property tax, mineral and
oil depletion allowances, and even state income taxes. Husbands and wives, it is
recommended should no longer be allowed to split incomes for tax purposes, and
charitable contributions should not be allowed at 100 per cent. It was also
suggested that capital gains be taxed as straight income. The truth is that these
"loopholes" are legitimate deductions without which the tax program would long
since have proven unworkable.

It seems that the main idea, according to the Ways and Means
Committee, is that any tax reform must not result in the government's losing
one penny of its present income. This ignores the real reason for tax reform,
namely, the part played by government spending and the tax bite in the
inflationary spiral. It is no coincidence that in 1956 and 1957 we saw a sudden
upsurge in the rate of inflation and that in the same period we saw a $10—l/2
billion increase in cash outlay to the people by the government.

The dollar today is worth roughly half of what it was in 1939. Thus
we only have to earn 2 for l to maintain our 1939 purchasing power. But this
ignores the extra dollars we must earn because we have moved through several
different surtax brackets.

If a single man earned $5,000 a year in 1939, today he must earn
$l4,000 to stay even and pay his increased surtax. A $10,000 a year man them
must today be a $31,000 a year man and $12,000 of that will represent his
increased income tax.

That individual who in 1939 had reached the $50,000 plateau, must earn
$335,000 to have the same purchasing power, and of that amount $240,000 will
be the increase in the government share.

Does anyone are to project this same rate of inflation and our tax rates
a few years ahead and even pretend to believe that private enterprise can continue?
By 1957 the $5:000 man in our first example will have to earn $33,000 and the
$50,000 man will have to earn $835,000.

We've talked about our $265 billion debt so long we no longer really
comprehend its staggering size. Perhaps we should turn back to primary
arithmetic: "2 apples and 2 oranges" and get a visual picture of is. If I had a
stack of $1,000 bills here 4 inches high, I'd be a millionaire. The National Debt
would form a stack of $1,000 bills more than 18 miles high. Maurice Stans,
Director of the Budget, says that this is only the visible part of the "iceberg."
Including the pension and welfare payments the government is now obligated to
pay, the National Debt IS actually $750 billion.

Those who sup at the public trough have always fared better in an
atmosphere of crisis and emergency. In such times they can excuse extravagance
on the grounds of defense needs. Is there sincerity beyond question? Since 1954
defense spending has decreased more than a billion dollars. While non-defense
government expenditures have increased more than $10 billion.

To those who say that we are sacrificing a strong defense on the altar of
a balanced budget, our answer should be, "Individual liberty, freedom and our free
enterprise system are the prime sources of our strength." There can be little
security any place in the free world if there is not economic stability within the
United States.

Our free enterprise democracy is the greatest system ever evolved by
man, but it is dependent on one controlling factor—the solvency of our
government and the stability of our currency.

What to do? Edmund Burke once said, "For evil to triumph, it is only
necessary for good men to do nothing."

Perhaps what we need is a new Declaration of independence. If this is
the case, we will do well to keep the spirit and intent of one of the grievances of
the original Declaration: "He (George III) has erected a multitude of new officers
and has sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their
substance."

It is ironic that we must wage the fight against excessive spending by
defending a staggering budget of $78 billion. Senator Byrd has said that this
budget could be reduced to $65 billion without impairing a single government
program. The big spenders are so entrenched, however, that we hear talk of a
budget in excess of $80 billion and some have called for a $100 billion budget
within five years!

When you are challenged that any budget cuts would mean the
elimination of some government programs, don't be tempted into the trap of
which programs should be kept and which ones should be dropped. Senator
Byrd's $65 billion estimate was based on keeping all our present programs, but
eliminating waste in their administration.
When the budget for fiscal 1959 was discussed, we were in a recession,
and it was apparent that the government's revenue would, as a result, be
decreased. Some "old-fashioned" representatives on both sides of the aisle felt
that government spending should stay within government income. To this end
they proposed budget cuts, totaling $5-1/2 billion.

The Chairman of the Appropriations Committee said: "All of these cuts
were in the area of useless fat and hadn't scratched a single muscle fiber of the
government's programs." But deficit spending was more attractive to Congress
politically than the obvious upsurge which would have followed tax reform and
economy. So Congress indulged in what some of its own members call the
"most profligate spending orgy in the history of our nation." They spent $13
billion more than the government received.

We must end deficit spending and reduce the fodder upon which
government has fed and grown beyond the consent of the governed. Short-term
negotiable bonds are as inflationary as greenbacks ground out on government
printing presses. There are specific measures such as a tax reform measure now
before the House Ways and Means Committee. Similar to the Sadlak-Herlong
Bill, it is co-authored by Herlong, a Democrat, and Congressman Baker, a
Republican. Their identical bills are House Resolutions 3000 and 3001.

This well thought-out reform measure would, in five years, bring
income taxes down to a 15% base and a 47% ceiling on surtax in place of the
present 91% ceiling. It is one of the most carefully worked out tax reform
measures to appear in more than fifty years.

In this election year, perhaps we would be most effective, regardless of
the party of our choice, in simply demanding an end to deficit spending. Is it
wrong to ask our government to live within its income? If we can close this
back door to the Treasury, we should then demand tax reform leading to a
reduction in the government's revenue. If your son is too extravagant, you can
lecture him all you please—but the most effective measure is to reduce his
allowance.

We will be told we can't reduce taxes until we reduce government
expenditures—this is dishonest! No government in history has ever voluntarily
reduced itself in size. government doesn't tax to get the money it needs—
government will always need the money it gets.

In this election year, we should demand to know where each candidate
stands with regard to government economy and tax reform. Write to your
Congressmen and Senators. Don't belittle the device of writing—40,000 letters,
less than 100 to each Congressman, are considered evidence of a trend in
Washington.

In the closing days of a recent session of Congress, 40 bills were
proposed with a total cost over a five-year period of $365 billion. Three
newspapers, one in the East, The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times
printed asking readers to cut them out and mail them to their
representatives urging government economy. None of the 40 bills were passed,
and many Washington authorities give sole credit to the flood of mail received in
behalf of economy.

Mankind has known but a few moments of freedom in its entire
history. Most of these moments have been ours. But, this freedom is never
more than one generation away from extinction. Can we honestly say ours is
still unimpaired?

In Ohio, people of Amish faith, who have as a tenet of their religion
that they cannot accept any pension or payment from government, had their
possessions seized and their cattle sold at auction to force their payments of
Social Security dues—even though they cannot accept Social Security pensions
when they come due.

A Michigan farmer named [[Stanley Yankus|Yankus]] has the dubious distinction of being
the first American to leave these shores in search of freedom. [[United States V Haley|Evetts Haley Jr.]],
a former Texas University professor is fined $4,000 for raising wheat and feeding
it to his own cattle. Upheld by a judge, the government appeals and the
Supreme Court reverses the lower court's decision, ruling that an agency of the
government has the right to tell an American farmer what he can raise on his
own land and for his own use.

We are close to the point of no return! Close to the goal of socialism
where we find ourselves so deeply committed to socialistic practices that we dare
not face the upheaval of reversing our course. Close to the point where we
unhappily and resignedly slide all the way into socialism rather than brave the
storm.

In this land of ours occurred the only true revolution in man's history—
the only revolution that did not just exchange one set of rulers for another. Ours
was the only revolution that recognized man had the dignity and sacred right to
determine his own destiny as an individual—with the least interference from
government.

Ours has been called a generation having a rendezvous with destiny.
We must meet the challenge now, or spend our later years telling our children
and our children's children what it once was like when men were free.

Press Release

2026-09-17T13:28:33Z

Reagan admin:

It is common for politicians to write their speech (or have it written for them) and for a copy of the speech to be given to the press shortly before the speech is to be given. Reagan's speeches were no exception.

However, Reagan, being an experienced radio-man and actor, was adept at going off-script and still hitting all his points (telling a joke along the way, often to break the ice). With this in mind, its not surprising that a transcript of the speech merely resembles, rather than mirrors, the document given to the press.

This wiki includes both the speech transcript and the press copy of several of Reagan's speeches. These are:
<UL>
<LI>1961's [[Encroaching Control-Prepared Version|Encroaching Control]]<BR>
The [http://www.reaganlibrary.gov Reagan Presidential Library] did not have a copy of the transcript, just the press document, until this Wiki's administrator created one. This wiki is currently the only site with that transcript available.
<LI>1964's [[A Time For Choosing-Prepared Version|A Time for Choosing]]<BR>
Numerous websites confuse the press version of ''A Time for Choosing'' with the actual speech. They are quite different.
<LI>1976's [[A City Upon a Hill-Prepared Version|A City Upon a Hill]]
</UL>

Differences may be subtle or they may be dramatic. In reviewing these, ''A Time For Choosing'' seems to show the most differences.

Press Release

2026-09-17T13:25:56Z

Reagan admin:

It is common for politicians to write their speech (or have it written for them) and for a copy of the speech to be given to the press shortly before the speech is to be given. Reagan's speeches were no exception.

However, Reagan, being an experienced radio-man and actor, was adept at going off-script and still hitting all his points (telling a joke along the way, often to break the ice). With this in mind, its not surprising that a transcript of the speech merely resembles, rather than mirrors, the document given to the press.

This wiki includes both the speech transcript and the press copy of several of Reagan's speeches. These are:
<UL>
<LI>1961's Encroaching Control<BR>
The [http://www.reaganlibrary.gov Reagan Presidential Library] did not have a copy of the transcript, just the press document, until this Wiki's administrator created one. This wiki is currently the only site with that transcript available.
<LI>1964's A Time for Choosing<BR>
Numerous websites confuse the press version of ''A Time for Choosing'' with the actual speech. They are quite different.
<LI>1976's A City Upon a Hill
</UL>

Differences may be subtle or they may be dramatic. In reviewing these, ''A Time For Choosing'' seems to show the most differences.

A Time For Choosing-Prepared Version

2026-09-16T20:45:36Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Speeches]]
[[Category:Press-Prepared Text]]
''"The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you never know if they are genuine."''
— Abraham Lincoln

The following text is frequently attributed as Ronald Reagan's 1964 '[[A Time For Choosing]]' speech. However, if you watch the actual video of the speech, the texts are not the same. [https://web.archive.org/web/20160301154954/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/reagan-goldwater PBS] actually called this piece, 'A Time For Choosing', and theirs is an abridged version of the below text.

For the time being, this will be referred to as 'A Time for Choosing- Prepared Edition'.

== Prepared Edition ==

I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this. I have been talking on this subject for ten years, obviously under the administration of both parties. I mention this only because it seems impossible to legitimately debate the issues of the day without being subjected to name-calling and the application of labels. Those who deplore use of the terms "pink" and "leftist" are themselves guilty of branding all who oppose their liberalism as right wing extremists. How long can we afford the luxury of this family fight when we are at war with the most dangerous enemy ever known to man?

If we lose that war, and in so doing lose our freedom, it has been said history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. The guns are silent in this war but frontiers fall while those who should be warriors prefer neutrality. Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a [[Cuba|Cuban]] refugee. He was a businessman who had escaped from [[Fidel Castro|Castro]]. In the midst of his tale of horrible experiences, one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." The Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had some place to escape to." And in that sentence he told the entire story. If freedom is lost here there is no place to escape to.

It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the [[Founding Fathers]]. [[James Madison]] said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government." This idea that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. For almost two centuries we have proved man's capacity for self-government, but today we are told we must choose between a left and right or, as others suggest, a third alternative, a kind of safe middle ground. I suggest to you there is no left or right, only an up or down. Up to the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism; and regardless of their humanitarian purpose those who would sacrifice freedom for security have, whether they know it or not, chosen this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations, and benefits.

Today there is an increasing number who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without automatically coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they would seek the answer to all the problems of human need through government. [[wikipedia:Howard_K._Smith|Howard K. Smith]] of television fame has written, "The profit motive is outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." He says, "The distribution of goods must be effected by a planned economy."

Another articulate spokesman for the welfare state defines liberalism as meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government. I for one find it disturbing when a representative refers to the free men and women of this country as the masses, but beyond this the full power of centralized government was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew you don't control things; you can't control the economy without controlling people. So we have come to a time for choosing. Either we accept the responsibility for our own destiny, or we abandon the American Revolution and confess that an intellectual belief in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

Already the hour is late. Government has laid its hand on health, housing, farming, industry, commerce, education, and, to an ever-increasing degree, interferes with the people's right to know. Government tends to grow; government programs take on weight and momentum, as public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy. What better example do we have of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last thirty years. One-fourth of farming has seen a steady decline in the per capita consumption of everything it produces. That one-fourth is regulated and subsidized by government.

In contrast, the three-fourths of farming unregulated and unsubsidized has seen a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. Since 1955 the cost of the farm program has nearly doubled. Direct payment to farmers is eight times as great as it was nine years ago, but farm income remains unchanged while farm surplus is bigger. In that same period we have seen a decline of five million in the farm population, but an increase in the number of Department of Agriculture employees.

There is now one such employee for every thirty farms in the United States, and still they can't figure how sixty-six shiploads of grain headed for Austria could disappear without a trace, and [[Billie Sol Estes|Billy Sol Estes]] never left shore. Three years ago the government put into effect a program to curb the over-production of feed grain. Now, $2.5 billion later, the corn crop is one hundred million bushels bigger than before the program started. And the cost of the program pro-rates out to $43 for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow. Nor is this the only example of the price we pay for government meddling. Some government programs with the passage of time take on a sacrosanct quality.

One such considered above criticism, sacred as motherhood, is [[Tennessee Valley Authority|TVA]]. This program started as a flood control project; the Tennessee Valley was periodically ravaged by destructive floods. The Army Engineers set out to solve this problem. They said that it was possible that once in 500 years there could be a total capacity flood that would inundate some six hundred thousand acres. Well, the engineers fixed that. They made a permanent lake which inundated a million acres. This solved the problem of floods, but the annual interest on the [[Tennessee Valley Authority|TVA]] debt is five times as great as the annual flood damage they sought to correct.

Of course, you will point out that [[Tennessee Valley Authority|TVA]] gets electric power from the impounded waters, and this is true, but today 85 percent of [[Tennessee Valley Authority|TVA]]'s electricity is generated in coal-burning steam plants. Now perhaps you'll charge that I'm overlooking the navigable waterway that was created, providing cheap barge traffic, but the bulk of the freight barged on that waterway is coal being shipped to the TVA steam plants, and the cost of maintaining that channel each year would pay for shipping all of the coal by rail, and there would be money left over.

One last argument remains: the prosperity produced by such large programs of government spending. Certainly there are few areas where more spending has taken place. The Labor Department lists 50 percent of the 169 counties in the Tennessee Valley as permanent areas of poverty, distress, and unemployment.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under Urban Renewal, the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights have become so diluted that public interest is anything a few planners decide it should be. In [[Cleveland, Ohio]], to get a project under way, city officials reclassified eighty-four buildings as substandard in spite of the fact their own inspectors had previously pronounced these buildings sound. The owners stood by and watched 26 million dollars worth of property as it was destroyed by the headache ball. Senate Bill 628 says: "Any property, be it home or commercial structure, can be declared slum or blighted and the owner has no recourse at law. The Law Division of the Library of Congress and the General Accounting Office have said that the Courts will have to rule against the owner."

HOUSING.

In one key Eastern city a man owning a blighted area sold his property to Urban Renewal for several million dollars. At the same time, he submitted his own plan for the rebuilding of this area and the government sold him back his own property for 22 percent of what they paid. Now the government announces, "We are going to build subsidized housing in the thousands where we have been building in the hundreds." At the same time FHA and the [[Veterans Administration]] reveal they are holding 120 thousand housing units reclaimed from mortgage foreclosure, mostly because the low down payment and the easy terms brought the owners to a point where they realized the unpaid balance on the homes amounted to a sum greater than the homes were worth, so they just walked out the front door, possibly to take up residence in newer subsidized housing, again with little or no down payment and easy terms.

Some of the foreclosed homes have already been bulldozed into the earth, others, it has been announced, will be refurbished and put on sale for down payments as low as $100 and thirty-five years to pay. This will give the bulldozers a second crack. It is in the area of social welfare that government has found its most fertile growing bed. So many of us accept our responsibility for those less fortunate. We are susceptible to humanitarian appeals.

Federal welfare spending is today ten times greater than it was in the dark depths of the Depression. Federal, state, and local welfare combined spend 45 billion dollars a year. Now the government has announced that 20 percent, some 9.3 million families, are poverty-stricken on the basis that they have less than a $3,000 a year income.

If this present welfare spending was prorated equally among these poverty-stricken families, we could give each family more than $4,500 a year. Actually, direct aid to the poor averages less than $600 per family. There must be some administrative overhead somewhere. Now, are we to believe that another billion dollar program added to the half a hundred programs and the 45 billion dollars, will, through some magic, end poverty? For three decades we have tried to solve unemployment by government planning, without success. The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.

The latest is the [[Area Redevelopment Agency]], and in two years less than one-half of one percent of the unemployed could attribute new jobs to this agency, and the cost to the taxpayer for each job found was $5,000. But beyond the great bureaucratic waste, what are we doing to the people we seek to help?

Recently a judge told me of an incident in his court. A fairly young woman with six children, pregnant with her seventh, came to him for a divorce. Under his questioning it became apparent her husband did not share this desire. Then the whole story came out. Her husband was a laborer earning $250 a month. By divorcing him she could get an $80 raise. She was eligible for $350 a month from the [[Aid to Dependent Children Program]]. She had been talked into the divorce by two friends who had already done this very thing. But any time we question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goal. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help those less fortunate. They tell us we are always against, never for anything. Well, it isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so.

We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age. For that reason we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting that problem. However, we are against the irresponsibility of those who charge that any criticism or suggested improvement of the program means we want to end payment to those who depend on Social Security for a livelihood.

FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY.

We have been told in millions of pieces of literature and press releases that [[Social Security]] is an insurance program, but the executives of [[Social Security]] appeared before the Supreme Court in the case of Nestor v. Fleming and proved to the Court's satisfaction that it is not insurance but is a welfare program, and [[Social Security]] dues are a tax for the general use of the government. Well it can't be both: insurance and welfare. Later, appearing before a Congressional Committee, they admitted that [[Social Security]] is today 298 billion dollars in the red. This fiscal irresponsibility has already caught up with us.

Faced with a bankruptcy, we find that today a young man in his early twenties, going to work at less than an average salary, will, with his employer, pay into [[Social Security]] an amount which could provide the young man with a retirement insurance policy guaranteeing $220 a month at age 65, and the government promises him $127.

Now, are we so lacking in business sense that we cannot put this program on a sound actuarial basis, so that those who do depend on it won't come to the cupboard and find it bare, and at the same time can't we introduce voluntary features so that those who can make better provision for themselves are allowed to do so? Incidentally, we might also allow participants in Social Security to name their own beneficiaries, which they cannot do in the present program. These are not insurmountable problems.

YOUTH AID PLANS.

We have today 30 million workers protected by industrial and union pension funds that are soundly financed by some 70 billion dollars invested in corporate securities and income earning real estate. I think we are for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care for lack of funds, but we are against forcing all citizens into a compulsory government program regardless of need. Now the government has turned its attention to our young people, and suggests that it can solve the problem of school dropouts and juvenile delinquency through some kind of revival of the old C.C.C. camps. The suggested plan prorates out to a cost of $4,700 a year for each young person we want to help. We can send them to Harvard for $2,700 a year. Of course, don't get me wrong—I'm not suggesting Harvard as the answer to juvenile delinquency.

We are for an international organization where the nations of the world can legitimately seek peace. We are against subordinating American interests to an organization so structurally unsound that a two-thirds majority can be mustered in the U.N. General Assembly among nations representing less than 10 percent of the world population.

Is there not something of hypocrisy in assailing our allies for so-called vestiges of colonialism while we engage in a conspiracy of silence about the peoples enslaved by the Soviet in the satellite nations? We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with those nations which share our fundamental beliefs. We are against doling out money, government to government, which ends up financing [[socialism]] all over the world.

We set out to help nineteen war-ravaged countries at the end of [[World War II]]. We are now helping 107. We have spent 146 billion dollars. Some of that money bought a $2 million yacht for [Haile Selassie]. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers. We bought one thousand TV sets with 23-inch screens for a country where there is no electricity, and some of our foreign aid funds provided extra wives for Kenya government officials. When Congress moved to cut foreign aid they were told that if they cut it one dollar they endangered national security, and then [[Senator Byrd|Senator Harry Byrd]] revealed that since its inception foreign aid has rarely spent its allotted budget. It has today $21 billion in unexpended funds.

Some time ago Dr. [Howard Kershner] was speaking to the Prime Minister of Lebanon. The Prime Minister told him proudly that his little country balanced its budget each year. It had no public debt, no inflation, a modest tax rate, and had increased its gold holdings from seventy to 120 million dollars. When he finished, Dr. Kershner said, "Mr. Prime Minister, my country hasn't balanced its budget twenty-eight out of the last forty years. My country's debt is greater than the combined debt of all the nations of the world. We have inflation, we have a tax rate that takes from the private sector a percentage of income greater than any civilized nation has ever taken and survived. We have lost gold at such a rate that the solvency of our currency is in danger. Do you think that my country should continue to give your country millions of dollars each year?" The Prime Minister smiled and said, "No, but if you are foolish enough to do it, we are going to keep on taking the money."

NINE STALLS FOR ONE BULL.

And so we built a model stock farm in Lebanon, and we built nine stalls for each bull. I find something peculiarly appropriate in that. We have in our vaults $15 billion in gold. We don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims against that gold total $27 billion. In the last six years, fifty-two nations have bought $7 billion worth of our gold and all fifty-two are receiving foreign aid.

Because no government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size, government programs once launched never go out of existence. A government agency is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth. The United States Manual takes twenty-five pages to list by name every Congressman and Senator, and all the agencies controlled by Congress. It then lists the agencies coming under the Executive Branch, and this requires 520 pages.

Since the beginning of the century our gross national product has increased by thirty-three times. In the same period the cost of federal government has increased 234 times, and while the work force is only one and one-half times greater, federal employees number nine times as many. There are now two and one-half million federal employees. No one knows what they all do. One Congressman found out what one of them does. This man sits at a desk in Washington. Documents come to him each morning. He reads them, initials them, and passes them on to the proper agency. One day a document arrived he wasn't supposed to read, but he read it, initialed it and passed it on. Twenty-four hours later it arrived back at his desk with a memo attached that said, "You weren't supposed to read this. Erase your initials, and initial the erasure."

While the federal government is the great offender, the idea filters down. During a period in California when our population has increased 90 percent, the cost of state government has gone up 862 percent and the number of employees 500 percent. Governments, state and local, now employ one out of six of the nation's work force. If the rate of increase of the last three years continues, by 1970 one-fourth of the total work force will be employed by government. Already we have a permanent structure so big and complex it is virtually beyond the control of Congress and the comprehension of the people, and tyranny inevitably follows when this permanent structure usurps the policy-making function that belongs to elected officials.

One example of this occurred when Congress was debating whether to lend the United Nations $100 million. While they debated, the State Department gave the United Nations $217 million and the United Nations used part of that money to pay the delinquent dues of Castro's Cuba.

Under bureaucratic regulations adopted with no regard to the wish of the people, we have lost much of our Constitutional freedom. For example, federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant, can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury, and can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce payment of that fine.

RIGHTS BY DISPENSATION.

An Ohio deputy fire marshal sentenced a man to prison after a secret proceeding in which the accused was not allowed to have a lawyer present. The Supreme Court upheld that sentence, ruling that it was an administrative investigation of incidents damaging to the economy. Someplace a perversion has taken place. Our natural unalienable rights are now presumed to be a dispensation of government, divisible by a vote of the majority. The greatest good for the greatest number is a high-sounding phrase but contrary to the very basis of our nation, unless it is accompanied by recognition that we have certain rights which cannot be infringed upon, even if the individual stands outvoted by all of his fellow citizens. Without this recognition, majority rule is nothing more than mob rule.

It is time we realized that socialism can come without overt seizure of property or nationalization of private business. It matters little that you hold the title to your property or business if government can dictate policy and procedure and holds life and death power over your business. The machinery of this power already exists. Lowell Mason, former anti-trust law enforcer for the Federal Trade Commission, has written "American business is being harassed, bled and even blackjacked under a preposterous crazy quilt system of laws." There are so many that the government literally can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Are we safe in our books and records?

The natural gas producers have just been handed a 428-page questionnaire by the Federal Power Commission. It weighs ten pounds. One firm has estimated it will take 70,000 accountant man-hours to fill out this questionnaire, and it must be done in quadruplicate. The Power Commission says it must have it to determine whether a proper price is being charged for gas. The National Labor Relations Board ruled that a business firm could not discontinue its shipping department even though it was more efficient and economical to subcontract this work out.

The Supreme Court has ruled the government has the right to tell a citizen what he can grow on his own land for his own use. The Secretary of Agriculture has asked for the right to imprison farmers who violate their planting quotas. One business firm has been informed by the Internal Revenue Service that it cannot take a tax deduction for its institutional advertising because this advertising espoused views not in the public interest.

A child's prayer in a school cafeteria endangers religious freedom, but the people of the [[Amish]] religion in the State of Ohio, who cannot participate in [[Social Security]] because of their religious beliefs, have had their livestock seized and sold at auction to enforce payment of [[Social Security]] dues.

We approach a point of no return when government becomes so huge and entrenched that we fear the consequences of upheaval and just go along with it. The federal government accounts for one-fifth of the industrial capacity of the nation, one-fourth of all construction, holds or guarantees one-third of all mortgages, owns one-third of the land, and engages in some nineteen thousand businesses covering half a hundred different lines. The Defense Department runs 269 supermarkets. They do a gross business of $730 million a year, and lose $150 million. The government spends $11 million an hour every hour of the twenty-four and pretends we had a tax cut while it pursues a policy of planned inflation that will more than wipe out any benefit with depreciation of our purchasing power.

We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him. The economist Sumner Schlicter has said, "If a visitor from Mars looked at our tax policy, he would conclude it had been designed by a Communist spy to make free enterprise unworkable." But we cannot have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure. Senator [Joseph S.] Clark (D.-Pa.) says the tax issue is a class issue, and the government must use the tax to redistribute the wealth and earnings downward.

KARL MARX.

On January 15th in the White House, the President [[[Lyndon B Johnson]]] told a group of citizens they were going to take all the money they thought was being unnecessarily spent, "take it from the haves and give it to the have-nots who need it so much." When Karl Marx said this he put it: . . . "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive surtax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? Many decades ago the Scottish economist, [[wikipedia:John_Ramsey_McCulloch|John Ramsey McCulloch]], said, "The moment you abandon the cardinal principle of exacting from all individuals the same proportion of their income or their property, you are at sea without a rudder or compass and there is no amount of injustice or folly you may not commit."

No nation has survived the tax burden that reached one-third of its national income. Today in our country the tax collector's share is thirty-seven cents of every dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp. I wish I could give you some magic formula, but each of us must find his own role. One man in Virginia found what he could do, and dozens of business firms have followed his lead. Concerned because his two hundred employees seemed unworried about government extravagance he conceived the idea of taking all of their withholding out of only the fourth paycheck each month. For three paydays his employees received their full salary. On the fourth payday all withholding was taken. He has one employee who owes him $4.70 each fourth payday. It only took one month to produce two hundred conservatives.

Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.

If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is not fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. They tell us that by avoiding a direct confrontation with the enemy he will learn to love us and give up his evil ways. All who oppose this idea are blanket indicted as war-mongers. Well, let us set one thing straight, there is no argument with regard to peace and war. It is cheap demagoguery to suggest that anyone would want to send other people's sons to war. The only argument is with regard to the best way to avoid war. There is only one sure way—surrender.

APPEASEMENT OR COURAGE?

The specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face is that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and appeasement does not give you a choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. We are told that the problem is too complex for a simple answer. They are wrong. There is no easy answer, but there is a simple answer. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right, and this policy of accommodation asks us to accept the greatest possible immorality. We are being asked to buy our safety from the threat of "the bomb" by selling into permanent slavery our fellow human beings enslaved behind the [[Iron Curtain]], to tell them to give up their hope of freedom because we are ready to make a deal with their slave masters.

[[Alexander Hamilton]] warned us that a nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one. Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow. Choosing the high road cannot eliminate that risk. Already some of the architects of accommodation have hinted what their decision will be if their plan fails and we are faced with the final ultimatum. The English commentator [Kenneth] [[Kenneth Tynan|Tynan]] has put it this way: he would rather live on his knees than die on his feet. Some of our own have said "Better Red than dead." If we are to believe that nothing is worth the dying, when did this begin? Should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery rather than dare the wilderness? Should Christ have refused the Cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? Are we to believe that all the martyrs of history died in vain?

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We can preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we can sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.

Tennessee Valley Authority

2026-09-16T20:37:25Z

Reagan admin:

The Tennessee Valley Authority is a [[Government Corporations|government-owned corporation]] created as part of the [[New Deal]] in 1933. The goals of its creation were multi-fold.
<UL>
<LI>It was part of the push for the government to take control of public utilities, which at the time were viewed as abusive to their customers.
<LI>It was a works program, giving jobs to a part of the country that was extremely poor, even by the standards of the Great Depression. The federal government hoped this would help stimulate the economy and bring the country out of the Great Depression.
</UL>

Reagan would speak out against the TVA in 1962 and, as the story goes, he was fired from his job hosting the ''General Electric Theater'' for the criticism.

The TVA is mentioned in the Press edition of Reagan's 1964 A Time for Choosing speech. As a result, numerous sources refer to Reagan "saying" things about the TVA in the speech, when in actuality, he never did.

Later in his career, the TVA would come up during his radio program. The Endangered Species Act was being used to prevent the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the Tellico River, citing the status of the Snail Darter as endangered.

==Source Links==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority Tennessee Valley Authority]

A Time For Choosing-Prepared Version

2026-09-16T20:32:56Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Speeches]]
[[Category:Press-Prepared Text]]
''"The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you never know if they are genuine."''
— Abraham Lincoln

The following text is frequently attributed as Ronald Reagan's 1964 '[[A Time For Choosing]]' speech. However, if you watch the actual video of the speech, the texts are not the same. [https://web.archive.org/web/20160301154954/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/reagan-goldwater PBS] actually called this piece, 'A Time For Choosing', and theirs is an abridged version of the below text.

For the time being, this will be referred to as 'A Time for Choosing- Prepared Edition'.

== Prepared Edition ==

I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this. I have been talking on this subject for ten years, obviously under the administration of both parties. I mention this only because it seems impossible to legitimately debate the issues of the day without being subjected to name-calling and the application of labels. Those who deplore use of the terms "pink" and "leftist" are themselves guilty of branding all who oppose their liberalism as right wing extremists. How long can we afford the luxury of this family fight when we are at war with the most dangerous enemy ever known to man?

If we lose that war, and in so doing lose our freedom, it has been said history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. The guns are silent in this war but frontiers fall while those who should be warriors prefer neutrality. Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a [[Cuba|Cuban]] refugee. He was a businessman who had escaped from [[Fidel Castro|Castro]]. In the midst of his tale of horrible experiences, one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." The Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had some place to escape to." And in that sentence he told the entire story. If freedom is lost here there is no place to escape to.

It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the [[Founding Fathers]]. [[James Madison]] said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government." This idea that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. For almost two centuries we have proved man's capacity for self-government, but today we are told we must choose between a left and right or, as others suggest, a third alternative, a kind of safe middle ground. I suggest to you there is no left or right, only an up or down. Up to the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism; and regardless of their humanitarian purpose those who would sacrifice freedom for security have, whether they know it or not, chosen this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations, and benefits.

Today there is an increasing number who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without automatically coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they would seek the answer to all the problems of human need through government. [[wikipedia:Howard_K._Smith|Howard K. Smith]] of television fame has written, "The profit motive is outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." He says, "The distribution of goods must be effected by a planned economy."

Another articulate spokesman for the welfare state defines liberalism as meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government. I for one find it disturbing when a representative refers to the free men and women of this country as the masses, but beyond this the full power of centralized government was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew you don't control things; you can't control the economy without controlling people. So we have come to a time for choosing. Either we accept the responsibility for our own destiny, or we abandon the American Revolution and confess that an intellectual belief in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

Already the hour is late. Government has laid its hand on health, housing, farming, industry, commerce, education, and, to an ever-increasing degree, interferes with the people's right to know. Government tends to grow; government programs take on weight and momentum, as public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy. What better example do we have of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last thirty years. One-fourth of farming has seen a steady decline in the per capita consumption of everything it produces. That one-fourth is regulated and subsidized by government.

In contrast, the three-fourths of farming unregulated and unsubsidized has seen a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. Since 1955 the cost of the farm program has nearly doubled. Direct payment to farmers is eight times as great as it was nine years ago, but farm income remains unchanged while farm surplus is bigger. In that same period we have seen a decline of five million in the farm population, but an increase in the number of Department of Agriculture employees.

There is now one such employee for every thirty farms in the United States, and still they can't figure how sixty-six shiploads of grain headed for Austria could disappear without a trace, and [[Billie Sol Estes|Billy Sol Estes]] never left shore. Three years ago the government put into effect a program to curb the over-production of feed grain. Now, $2.5 billion later, the corn crop is one hundred million bushels bigger than before the program started. And the cost of the program pro-rates out to $43 for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow. Nor is this the only example of the price we pay for government meddling. Some government programs with the passage of time take on a sacrosanct quality.

One such considered above criticism, sacred as motherhood, is [[Tennessee Valley Authority|TVA]]. This program started as a flood control project; the Tennessee Valley was periodically ravaged by destructive floods. The Army Engineers set out to solve this problem. They said that it was possible that once in 500 years there could be a total capacity flood that would inundate some six hundred thousand acres. Well, the engineers fixed that. They made a permanent lake which inundated a million acres. This solved the problem of floods, but the annual interest on the [[Tennessee Valley Authority|TVA]] debt is five times as great as the annual flood damage they sought to correct.

Of course, you will point out that [[Tennessee Valley Authority|TVA]] gets electric power from the impounded waters, and this is true, but today 85 percent of [[Tennessee Valley Authority|TVA]]'s electricity is generated in coal-burning steam plants. Now perhaps you'll charge that I'm overlooking the navigable waterway that was created, providing cheap barge traffic, but the bulk of the freight barged on that waterway is coal being shipped to the TVA steam plants, and the cost of maintaining that channel each year would pay for shipping all of the coal by rail, and there would be money left over.

One last argument remains: the prosperity produced by such large programs of government spending. Certainly there are few areas where more spending has taken place. The Labor Department lists 50 percent of the 169 counties in the Tennessee Valley as permanent areas of poverty, distress, and unemployment.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under Urban Renewal, the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights have become so diluted that public interest is anything a few planners decide it should be. In [[Cleveland, Ohio]], to get a project under way, city officials reclassified eighty-four buildings as substandard in spite of the fact their own inspectors had previously pronounced these buildings sound. The owners stood by and watched 26 million dollars worth of property as it was destroyed by the headache ball. Senate Bill 628 says: "Any property, be it home or commercial structure, can be declared slum or blighted and the owner has no recourse at law. The Law Division of the Library of Congress and the General Accounting Office have said that the Courts will have to rule against the owner."

HOUSING.

In one key Eastern city a man owning a blighted area sold his property to Urban Renewal for several million dollars. At the same time, he submitted his own plan for the rebuilding of this area and the government sold him back his own property for 22 percent of what they paid. Now the government announces, "We are going to build subsidized housing in the thousands where we have been building in the hundreds." At the same time FHA and the [[Veterans Administration]] reveal they are holding 120 thousand housing units reclaimed from mortgage foreclosure, mostly because the low down payment and the easy terms brought the owners to a point where they realized the unpaid balance on the homes amounted to a sum greater than the homes were worth, so they just walked out the front door, possibly to take up residence in newer subsidized housing, again with little or no down payment and easy terms.

Some of the foreclosed homes have already been bulldozed into the earth, others, it has been announced, will be refurbished and put on sale for down payments as low as $100 and thirty-five years to pay. This will give the bulldozers a second crack. It is in the area of social welfare that government has found its most fertile growing bed. So many of us accept our responsibility for those less fortunate. We are susceptible to humanitarian appeals.

Federal welfare spending is today ten times greater than it was in the dark depths of the Depression. Federal, state, and local welfare combined spend 45 billion dollars a year. Now the government has announced that 20 percent, some 9.3 million families, are poverty-stricken on the basis that they have less than a $3,000 a year income.

If this present welfare spending was prorated equally among these poverty-stricken families, we could give each family more than $4,500 a year. Actually, direct aid to the poor averages less than $600 per family. There must be some administrative overhead somewhere. Now, are we to believe that another billion dollar program added to the half a hundred programs and the 45 billion dollars, will, through some magic, end poverty? For three decades we have tried to solve unemployment by government planning, without success. The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.

The latest is the [[Area Redevelopment Agency]], and in two years less than one-half of one percent of the unemployed could attribute new jobs to this agency, and the cost to the taxpayer for each job found was $5,000. But beyond the great bureaucratic waste, what are we doing to the people we seek to help?

Recently a judge told me of an incident in his court. A fairly young woman with six children, pregnant with her seventh, came to him for a divorce. Under his questioning it became apparent her husband did not share this desire. Then the whole story came out. Her husband was a laborer earning $250 a month. By divorcing him she could get an $80 raise. She was eligible for $350 a month from the [[Aid to Dependent Children Program]]. She had been talked into the divorce by two friends who had already done this very thing. But any time we question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goal. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help those less fortunate. They tell us we are always against, never for anything. Well, it isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so.

We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age. For that reason we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting that problem. However, we are against the irresponsibility of those who charge that any criticism or suggested improvement of the program means we want to end payment to those who depend on Social Security for a livelihood.

FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY.

We have been told in millions of pieces of literature and press releases that [[Social Security]] is an insurance program, but the executives of [[Social Security]] appeared before the Supreme Court in the case of Nestor v. Fleming and proved to the Court's satisfaction that it is not insurance but is a welfare program, and [[Social Security]] dues are a tax for the general use of the government. Well it can't be both: insurance and welfare. Later, appearing before a Congressional Committee, they admitted that [[Social Security]] is today 298 billion dollars in the red. This fiscal irresponsibility has already caught up with us.

Faced with a bankruptcy, we find that today a young man in his early twenties, going to work at less than an average salary, will, with his employer, pay into [[Social Security]] an amount which could provide the young man with a retirement insurance policy guaranteeing $220 a month at age 65, and the government promises him $127.

Now, are we so lacking in business sense that we cannot put this program on a sound actuarial basis, so that those who do depend on it won't come to the cupboard and find it bare, and at the same time can't we introduce voluntary features so that those who can make better provision for themselves are allowed to do so? Incidentally, we might also allow participants in Social Security to name their own beneficiaries, which they cannot do in the present program. These are not insurmountable problems.

YOUTH AID PLANS.

We have today 30 million workers protected by industrial and union pension funds that are soundly financed by some 70 billion dollars invested in corporate securities and income earning real estate. I think we are for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care for lack of funds, but we are against forcing all citizens into a compulsory government program regardless of need. Now the government has turned its attention to our young people, and suggests that it can solve the problem of school dropouts and juvenile delinquency through some kind of revival of the old C.C.C. camps. The suggested plan prorates out to a cost of $4,700 a year for each young person we want to help. We can send them to Harvard for $2,700 a year. Of course, don't get me wrong—I'm not suggesting Harvard as the answer to juvenile delinquency.

We are for an international organization where the nations of the world can legitimately seek peace. We are against subordinating American interests to an organization so structurally unsound that a two-thirds majority can be mustered in the U.N. General Assembly among nations representing less than 10 percent of the world population.

Is there not something of hypocrisy in assailing our allies for so-called vestiges of colonialism while we engage in a conspiracy of silence about the peoples enslaved by the Soviet in the satellite nations? We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with those nations which share our fundamental beliefs. We are against doling out money, government to government, which ends up financing [[socialism]] all over the world.

We set out to help nineteen war-ravaged countries at the end of [[World War II]]. We are now helping 107. We have spent 146 billion dollars. Some of that money bought a $2 million yacht for [Haile Selassie]. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers. We bought one thousand TV sets with 23-inch screens for a country where there is no electricity, and some of our foreign aid funds provided extra wives for Kenya government officials. When Congress moved to cut foreign aid they were told that if they cut it one dollar they endangered national security, and then [[Senator Byrd|Senator Harry Byrd]] revealed that since its inception foreign aid has rarely spent its allotted budget. It has today $21 billion in unexpended funds.

Some time ago Dr. [Howard Kershner] was speaking to the Prime Minister of Lebanon. The Prime Minister told him proudly that his little country balanced its budget each year. It had no public debt, no inflation, a modest tax rate, and had increased its gold holdings from seventy to 120 million dollars. When he finished, Dr. Kershner said, "Mr. Prime Minister, my country hasn't balanced its budget twenty-eight out of the last forty years. My country's debt is greater than the combined debt of all the nations of the world. We have inflation, we have a tax rate that takes from the private sector a percentage of income greater than any civilized nation has ever taken and survived. We have lost gold at such a rate that the solvency of our currency is in danger. Do you think that my country should continue to give your country millions of dollars each year?" The Prime Minister smiled and said, "No, but if you are foolish enough to do it, we are going to keep on taking the money."

NINE STALLS FOR ONE BULL.

And so we built a model stock farm in Lebanon, and we built nine stalls for each bull. I find something peculiarly appropriate in that. We have in our vaults $15 billion in gold. We don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims against that gold total $27 billion. In the last six years, fifty-two nations have bought $7 billion worth of our gold and all fifty-two are receiving foreign aid.

Because no government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size, government programs once launched never go out of existence. A government agency is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth. The United States Manual takes twenty-five pages to list by name every Congressman and Senator, and all the agencies controlled by Congress. It then lists the agencies coming under the Executive Branch, and this requires 520 pages.

Since the beginning of the century our gross national product has increased by thirty-three times. In the same period the cost of federal government has increased 234 times, and while the work force is only one and one-half times greater, federal employees number nine times as many. There are now two and one-half million federal employees. No one knows what they all do. One Congressman found out what one of them does. This man sits at a desk in Washington. Documents come to him each morning. He reads them, initials them, and passes them on to the proper agency. One day a document arrived he wasn't supposed to read, but he read it, initialed it and passed it on. Twenty-four hours later it arrived back at his desk with a memo attached that said, "You weren't supposed to read this. Erase your initials, and initial the erasure."

While the federal government is the great offender, the idea filters down. During a period in California when our population has increased 90 percent, the cost of state government has gone up 862 percent and the number of employees 500 percent. Governments, state and local, now employ one out of six of the nation's work force. If the rate of increase of the last three years continues, by 1970 one-fourth of the total work force will be employed by government. Already we have a permanent structure so big and complex it is virtually beyond the control of Congress and the comprehension of the people, and tyranny inevitably follows when this permanent structure usurps the policy-making function that belongs to elected officials.

One example of this occurred when Congress was debating whether to lend the United Nations $100 million. While they debated, the State Department gave the United Nations $217 million and the United Nations used part of that money to pay the delinquent dues of Castro's Cuba.

Under bureaucratic regulations adopted with no regard to the wish of the people, we have lost much of our Constitutional freedom. For example, federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant, can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury, and can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce payment of that fine.

RIGHTS BY DISPENSATION.

An Ohio deputy fire marshal sentenced a man to prison after a secret proceeding in which the accused was not allowed to have a lawyer present. The Supreme Court upheld that sentence, ruling that it was an administrative investigation of incidents damaging to the economy. Someplace a perversion has taken place. Our natural unalienable rights are now presumed to be a dispensation of government, divisible by a vote of the majority. The greatest good for the greatest number is a high-sounding phrase but contrary to the very basis of our nation, unless it is accompanied by recognition that we have certain rights which cannot be infringed upon, even if the individual stands outvoted by all of his fellow citizens. Without this recognition, majority rule is nothing more than mob rule.

It is time we realized that socialism can come without overt seizure of property or nationalization of private business. It matters little that you hold the title to your property or business if government can dictate policy and procedure and holds life and death power over your business. The machinery of this power already exists. Lowell Mason, former anti-trust law enforcer for the Federal Trade Commission, has written "American business is being harassed, bled and even blackjacked under a preposterous crazy quilt system of laws." There are so many that the government literally can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Are we safe in our books and records?

The natural gas producers have just been handed a 428-page questionnaire by the Federal Power Commission. It weighs ten pounds. One firm has estimated it will take 70,000 accountant man-hours to fill out this questionnaire, and it must be done in quadruplicate. The Power Commission says it must have it to determine whether a proper price is being charged for gas. The National Labor Relations Board ruled that a business firm could not discontinue its shipping department even though it was more efficient and economical to subcontract this work out.

The Supreme Court has ruled the government has the right to tell a citizen what he can grow on his own land for his own use. The Secretary of Agriculture has asked for the right to imprison farmers who violate their planting quotas. One business firm has been informed by the Internal Revenue Service that it cannot take a tax deduction for its institutional advertising because this advertising espoused views not in the public interest.

A child's prayer in a school cafeteria endangers religious freedom, but the people of the [[Amish]] religion in the State of Ohio, who cannot participate in [[Social Security]] because of their religious beliefs, have had their livestock seized and sold at auction to enforce payment of [[Social Security]] dues.

We approach a point of no return when government becomes so huge and entrenched that we fear the consequences of upheaval and just go along with it. The federal government accounts for one-fifth of the industrial capacity of the nation, one-fourth of all construction, holds or guarantees one-third of all mortgages, owns one-third of the land, and engages in some nineteen thousand businesses covering half a hundred different lines. The Defense Department runs 269 supermarkets. They do a gross business of $730 million a year, and lose $150 million. The government spends $11 million an hour every hour of the twenty-four and pretends we had a tax cut while it pursues a policy of planned inflation that will more than wipe out any benefit with depreciation of our purchasing power.

We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him. The economist Sumner Schlicter has said, "If a visitor from Mars looked at our tax policy, he would conclude it had been designed by a Communist spy to make free enterprise unworkable." But we cannot have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure. Senator [Joseph S.] Clark (D.-Pa.) says the tax issue is a class issue, and the government must use the tax to redistribute the wealth and earnings downward.

KARL MARX.

On January 15th in the White House, the President [[[Lyndon B Johnson]]] told a group of citizens they were going to take all the money they thought was being unnecessarily spent, "take it from the haves and give it to the have-nots who need it so much." When Karl Marx said this he put it: . . . "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive surtax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? Many decades ago the Scottish economist, John Ramsey McCulloch, said, "The moment you abandon the cardinal principle of exacting from all individuals the same proportion of their income or their property, you are at sea without a rudder or compass and there is no amount of injustice or folly you may not commit."

No nation has survived the tax burden that reached one-third of its national income. Today in our country the tax collector's share is thirty-seven cents of every dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp. I wish I could give you some magic formula, but each of us must find his own role. One man in Virginia found what he could do, and dozens of business firms have followed his lead. Concerned because his two hundred employees seemed unworried about government extravagance he conceived the idea of taking all of their withholding out of only the fourth paycheck each month. For three paydays his employees received their full salary. On the fourth payday all withholding was taken. He has one employee who owes him $4.70 each fourth payday. It only took one month to produce two hundred conservatives.

Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.

If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is not fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. They tell us that by avoiding a direct confrontation with the enemy he will learn to love us and give up his evil ways. All who oppose this idea are blanket indicted as war-mongers. Well, let us set one thing straight, there is no argument with regard to peace and war. It is cheap demagoguery to suggest that anyone would want to send other people's sons to war. The only argument is with regard to the best way to avoid war. There is only one sure way—surrender.

APPEASEMENT OR COURAGE?

The specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face is that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and appeasement does not give you a choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. We are told that the problem is too complex for a simple answer. They are wrong. There is no easy answer, but there is a simple answer. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right, and this policy of accommodation asks us to accept the greatest possible immorality. We are being asked to buy our safety from the threat of "the bomb" by selling into permanent slavery our fellow human beings enslaved behind the [[Iron Curtain]], to tell them to give up their hope of freedom because we are ready to make a deal with their slave masters.

[[Alexander Hamilton]] warned us that a nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one. Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow. Choosing the high road cannot eliminate that risk. Already some of the architects of accommodation have hinted what their decision will be if their plan fails and we are faced with the final ultimatum. The English commentator [Kenneth] [[Kenneth Tynan|Tynan]] has put it this way: he would rather live on his knees than die on his feet. Some of our own have said "Better Red than dead." If we are to believe that nothing is worth the dying, when did this begin? Should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery rather than dare the wilderness? Should Christ have refused the Cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? Are we to believe that all the martyrs of history died in vain?

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We can preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we can sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.

Press Release

2026-09-16T20:30:21Z

Reagan admin:

Press Release

2026-09-16T20:29:03Z

Reagan admin:

Main Page

2026-09-16T20:23:45Z

Reagan admin:

During the 1960s, future governor and President Ronald Reagan began to assert himself into the political arena.

One of his best known speeches of the era was his '[[A Time For Choosing]]', sometimes also called just '[[The Speech]]', given in support of Senator [[Barry Goldwater]], then running for President against [[Lyndon B Johnson]]. Televised nationally on October 27th, 1964, some say it was the beginning of his career as a politician.

During a driving trip to Washington D.C. in August of 2010, I took the opportunity to listen to '[[A Time For Choosing]]'. It's easy to hear something, it's another thing entirely to ''listen''. As I listened, I heard facts and figures, names and events and I couldn't help but wonder, "Is that true?" or "Who is that person?" This is what sowed the seeds of curiosity in my mind and led me to this project of research on those people, events and statistics.

While doing that research, I stumbled across a lesser known speech, one referred to by the name '[[Encroaching Control]]'. This was given in Phoenix, Arizona to Phoenix's Chamber of Commerce on March 30, 1961. I loved it! I did, however, end up with more new questions than answers to old ones.

More research led to more of Reagan's speeches and writings. Then I learned about the 1975 to 1979 Reagan radio show, which ran under the titles, "Viewpoint with Ronald Reagan" and the "Ronald Reagan Radio Commentaries."

I enjoy all these speeches I have found, but the references to people and events are highly dated, yet the essence of what Reagan said is still relevant to modern history. They say that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. This wiki is being put together with the goal of sourcing these speeches and any others I become interested in researching.

You can follow on Facebook: [http://www.facebook.com/pages/For-the-Preservation-of-the-Speeches-of-Ronald-Reagan/348257988526421 The Reagan Speech Preservation Society]

'''2022 Important Update:''' After having trouble with my Screwturn Wiki system, I decided to setup this one using MediaWiki. I have taken the opportunity to significantly expand the Radio Commentaries section to include transcripts.

----
<TABLE WIDTH="100%">
<TR style="vertical-align:top;"><TD WIDTH="65%">

Speeches Currently Available:
<UL>
<LI>1957 [[Eureka College Commencement]] speech
<LI>1959 [[Business, Ballots and Bureaus]]
<LI>1961 [[Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine]]
<LI>1961 [[A Foot in the Door]]
<LI>1961 [[Encroaching Control]]
<LI>1964 [[A Time For Choosing]] ([[Rendezvous with Destiny LP]])
<LI>1965 [[Unnamed Robert Ashbrook Dinner Speech]]
<LI>1966 [[The Myth of the Great Society]]
<LI>1974 [[A City Upon a Hill]]
<LI>1975-1979 [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]]
</UL>
<UL>
<LI>[[Carson1975|Ronald Reagan appears on Johnny Carson 1975]]
</UL>
</TD><TD WIDTH="35%">
[[Press_Release|Press Prepared Editions]]
<UL>
<LI>[[Encroaching Control-Prepared Version|Encroaching Control]]
<LI>[[A Time For Choosing-Prepared Version|A Time For Choosing]]
<LI>[[A City Upon a Hill-Prepared Version|A City Upon a Hill]]
</UL>
Articles with close ties to Speeches:
<UL>
<LI>[[Losing Freedom by Installments]]
</UL>

Information about related Books:
* [[Radio Commentary Books]]
* [[Reagan Speeches]]
* [[Biographies]]
* [[Other Books|Other]]

[[Quotable Reagan|Quotable Reagan]] - with social media links
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

'''<FONT STYLE="color: Red">Update September 13, 2022, The podcast is being retooled.</FONT>'''

== External Links ==
[http://www.reaganfoundation.org/ Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library]

[https://web.archive.org/web/20210412012319/http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/rdrenka/modern_presidents/reagan_speeches.htm Speeches of Ronald Reagan]

[[wikipedia:Ronald Reagan|Ronald Reagan]]

[[yt:a6UJakGA3d4|Uncommon Knowledge: The Gipper Then and Now]] An Analysis of clips from Reagan's speeches from the 1960s

Main Page

2026-09-16T20:22:13Z

Reagan admin:

During the 1960s, future governor and President Ronald Reagan began to assert himself into the political arena.

One of his best known speeches of the era was his '[[A Time For Choosing]]', sometimes also called just '[[The Speech]]', given in support of Senator [[Barry Goldwater]], then running for President against [[Lyndon B Johnson]]. Televised nationally on October 27th, 1964, some say it was the beginning of his career as a politician.

During a driving trip to Washington D.C. in August of 2010, I took the opportunity to listen to '[[A Time For Choosing]]'. It's easy to hear something, it's another thing entirely to ''listen''. As I listened, I heard facts and figures, names and events and I couldn't help but wonder, "Is that true?" or "Who is that person?" This is what sowed the seeds of curiosity in my mind and led me to this project of research on those people, events and statistics.

While doing that research, I stumbled across a lesser known speech, one referred to by the name '[[Encroaching Control]]'. This was given in Phoenix, Arizona to Phoenix's Chamber of Commerce on March 30, 1961. I loved it! I did, however, end up with more new questions than answers to old ones.

More research led to more of Reagan's speeches and writings. Then I learned about the 1975 to 1979 Reagan radio show, which ran under the titles, "Viewpoint with Ronald Reagan" and the "Ronald Reagan Radio Commentaries."

I enjoy all these speeches I have found, but the references to people and events are highly dated, yet the essence of what Reagan said is still relevant to modern history. They say that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. This wiki is being put together with the goal of sourcing these speeches and any others I become interested in researching.

You can follow on Facebook: [http://www.facebook.com/pages/For-the-Preservation-of-the-Speeches-of-Ronald-Reagan/348257988526421 The Reagan Speech Preservation Society]

'''2022 Important Update:''' After having trouble with my Screwturn Wiki system, I decided to setup this one using MediaWiki. I have taken the opportunity to significantly expand the Radio Commentaries section to include transcripts.

----
<TABLE WIDTH="100%">
<TR style="vertical-align:top;"><TD WIDTH="65%">

Speeches Currently Available:
<UL>
<LI>1957 [[Eureka College Commencement]] speech
<LI>1959 [[Business, Ballots and Bureaus]]
<LI>1961 [[Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine]]
<LI>1961 [[A Foot in the Door]]
<LI>1961 [[Encroaching Control]]
<LI>1964 [[A Time For Choosing]]
<LI>[[Rendezvous with Destiny LP]]
<LI>1965 [[Unnamed Robert Ashbrook Dinner Speech]]
<LI>1966 [[The Myth of the Great Society]]
<LI>1974 [[A City Upon a Hill]] Given at the first CPAC
<LI>1975-1979 [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]]
</UL>
<UL>
<LI>[[Carson1975|Ronald Reagan appears on Johnny Carson 1975]]
</UL>
</TD><TD WIDTH="35%">
Press Prepared Editions
<UL>
<LI>[[Encroaching Control-Prepared Version|Encroaching Control]]
<LI>[[A Time For Choosing-Prepared Version|A Time For Choosing]]
<LI>[[A City Upon a Hill-Prepared Version|A City Upon a Hill]]
</UL>
Articles with close ties to Speeches:
<UL>
<LI>[[Losing Freedom by Installments]]
</UL>

Information about related Books:
* [[Radio Commentary Books]]
* [[Reagan Speeches]]
* [[Biographies]]
* [[Other Books|Other]]

[[Quotable Reagan|Quotable Reagan]] - with social media links
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

'''<FONT STYLE="color: Red">Update September 13, 2022, The podcast is being retooled.</FONT>'''

== External Links ==
[http://www.reaganfoundation.org/ Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library]

[https://web.archive.org/web/20210412012319/http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/rdrenka/modern_presidents/reagan_speeches.htm Speeches of Ronald Reagan]

[[wikipedia:Ronald Reagan|Ronald Reagan]]

[[yt:a6UJakGA3d4|Uncommon Knowledge: The Gipper Then and Now]] An Analysis of clips from Reagan's speeches from the 1960s