Thirty Minutes With…; Wilbur Mills

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . things etc. . . . . things . .

. . . . ? things . . . . things . things . . things . Things are useful anymore. We still wouldn't have about budget incidentally, but we would have a much lower deficit if we had full employment. And there's another factor that would determine whether you would have to have new taxes. And that is the question of whether or not all programs presently in existence have to remain in existence and be funded at the high level of the present situation. All those could be eliminated perhaps. I don't know which ones. You don't have any candidates for that? No, I don't. But I'm satisfied that there can be some redetermination in the area of priorities. If that happens, you might not need any additional revenues.

The Brookings Study, which you know, a lot of people have been citing, did say that even at full employment with all the commitments that the government has already made, there could be only a balance budget. There really wouldn't be money for new initiatives. I doubt that there'd really be a balance. I'd hope so. But I would doubt that actually with all the commitments we have, and no inhibitions really that eliminate these precipitous increases from fiscal year to fiscal year, we'd even have a balance I would hope we would. Well, now if you had to choose, and here we're getting to the mill's philosophy, between new starts and some of these areas of these programs that some of the other Democrats are talking about, with more taxes, which looks like that might be what would have to be done, we're not doing these things, which, what would you go? Actually, I think the important, really important new program that I'd like to see enacted is a national health insurance program.

Well, that's pretty expensive. It's very expensive. I don't believe that we can handle it all together at government expense. I think we must charge the employers with some of the expense. Now, of course, that is a reflect, when we do that, that is then reflected in some of the higher prices of the products we buy, comes back to the consumer again, and the taxpayer who's one and the same. But I feel so strongly about the problems particularly of the poor in having access to adequate health care under Medicaid or whatever the program may be, that I want us to set some degree of national standards that they will enjoy, something along the lines of what may be enjoyed now by middle income people in the way of health protection. But I know you're sponsoring health legislation, we might get to it next year, but what about

some of these other areas that the other Democrats are talking about vastly increased spending in such as education, cities, housing, jobs, and so on? Would you be for that? I'd be for it if we could afford it. Well, we could afford it if it looks like we can only afford it if we raise taxes. Well, let me make it clear, I think we've reached the day of accounting in this country. It's not a case of what we should do or what we ought to do. I think now we must view any of these increases on the basis of what we can do. If we want to increase in one area, I think then it's incumbent upon us to see if we can cut back in another area. The Brookings studies disclose that there may be as much as ten or twelve billion dollars of fat even in the defense department. They mean that could be eliminated without cutting into the muscle of our defense. Now, if that's possible, these are the kind of things that I think you'd want to do first. Get your house in order before you try to build another story on top of it.

I'd like to, we don't have very much time left, I'd like to ask you what I've asked other people who have been candidates or who've been talked about. And that is, if you were elected, what are some of the first things that you would want to do? Well, this is the first thing I'd want to do is to get our house in shape financially. But you don't have things in mind that you would cut now except for you mentioned this. No, I think you have to make a study of these things. I would want task forces looking into each and every one of these departments. People not connected with government. People who do not have some axe to grind or some preference with respect to this program or that program. I just know that it's not necessary for us to spend any $250 billion to satisfy the needs of the American people with respect to existing programs. Then what would you do? Or what else would be on your agenda? This is the key to the whole thing. I think this is the key to getting your people to the degree of confidence necessary to get the economy going.

I think when you do this, you halt the upward pressures on prices. I think this improves your balance of payments. This improves the imbalance we have in our trade. That is an area that I would be greatly concerned in. And we would be working in very rapidly to see if we could not protect our jobs here in the United States to degree better than we are doing it now. There are many of these things that we must look to. I think the first thing is to get back into a better situation with respect to what you have in the way of programs and conditions and circumstances before we undertake a whole lot of new things other than the national health program. You know your colleagues. You'd have quite a time getting these things repealed by this. It isn't a case of repealing. No, I think this can be done by the executive departments. And would you settle the war or how would you settle the war? I think the way to settle it is still through negotiation.

I've but concluded, and I'm sorry to say this, that the North Vietnamese have no intention of letting Nixon settle this war before the election. I'm fearful of that. Thank you, Mr. Mills. We're out of time. Thank you very much for coming. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 30 minutes with Democratic Representative Wilbur D. Mills of Arkansas, candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, an unedited, unrehearsed interview with Elizabeth Drew. This has been a production of Enpacked, the National Public Affairs Center for Television.