Thirty Minutes With…; Howard Phillips

. . . . . . . . . .

People from Washington across the nation and abroad. People of consequence are questioned on the issues of our time by Elizabeth Drew on 30 minutes with. Tonight, Howard J. Phillips, Acting Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity. Mr. Phillips is the Acting Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, which runs the poverty program. You have the job of dismantling the program. You've been quoted as saying, I personally believe in what I'm going to be doing. So it's going to be a very easy job for me to do from that standpoint. Why do you believe in dismantling the poverty program? Well, let me go back to the premise. What we're doing is really not dismantling the poverty program. We're reorganizing the federal government's anti-poverty activity. We're saying that that, which should properly repose within the province of

a state and local government, which should be accountable to state and local officials, will be assigned to their responsibility. We're saying that service programs that are now perhaps in competition with service systems run by major social institutions will be meshed with those institutions. We're saying that research and demonstration activities will be tied in with the research and demonstration activities of other departments. For example, our educational voucher experiments will be going to the National Institute of Education. We're saying that our legal services program should be transferred to a legal services corporation. And I believe that what we're doing will be of real benefit to the poor. I think much of the activity in which OEO has been engaged has not been effective in fighting poverty. As HEW Secretary Weinberger said the other day, just because you call something an anti-poverty program doesn't make it an anti-poverty program.

All too many people have been of the view that the role of government in addressing poverty is essentially cultural or social or political. To quote some of the work programs of various grantees we've funded, the purpose of X program is to change the so-called oppressive society. I happen to think we have a great society to steal someone else's phrase in a society which has done more to overcome poverty than any other society in American history. And I think that poverty is essentially an economic condition and that if the public sector is effective in working with the private sector in dealing with the economic problems of poverty, then individuals will be able to freely make choices about the kind of political activities in which they should engage or the cultural lifestyles that they'll adopt. I'm not quite sure I understand all that.

Let's pick up on some other things that you have said about it and maybe it'll make a little clear what you've been saying. You said that you don't really want to stop having programs to help the poor. You're really rearranging them. You've also said though that you thought that the poor would be taken care of through what you call, quote, normal majoritarian safeguards. No, that's not what I said. What I said was that I think it's very destructive of liberty in a free society to get people in the habit of seeking social change through demonstrations, through marches, through rallies. I don't think the massing of bodies is any substitute for the massing of ideas. And one of the reasons our free society has endured as long as it has is that we have been able through the process of election, and nomination, and through the process of having a Congress and a judiciary and an executive branch to solve social problems in an orderly way. Now, truly in a free society, people have the right to do these other things.

They have the right to engage in marches in boycotts and the like. What I am saying is that it's very improper. It's a violation of my civil liberties for the federal government to subsidize some of the people to engage in political activity which they think is desirable. It is a violation of your right for the federal government to subsidize political activity. In other words, I think it's... Where would you draw the line on that? Are you talking about just simply marches? I mean, are we making more of that than is going on? What are you talking about? Well, for example, various of our grantees have aggregated to themselves the responsibility of lobbying before legislative bodies and have been using publicly supported funds and personnel to engage in such lobbying. Don't other recipients of federal funds lobbying? For a second, they have determined by their own lights what is good public policy and what is bad public policy.

Now, they have a perfect right to do that kind of thing. What I'm suggesting is that it's really unfair to give money to some of the people to lobby and let them, unaccountable, to any public policy, choose what is good and what is bad. If elections are to mean anything, the people we elect have to have control over the public purse so that they can be held accountable at the polls. Are you saying that this is what the poverty program has been doing? I'm saying there's been a tremendous amount of money given to people through the poverty program to organize welfare demonstrations, to organize rent strikes, chapters of the National Welfare Rights Organization, to give support to organizations like the American Friends Services Committee, which has been involved in the peace movement. We've even had some grantees that have gotten involved in gay liberation. And frankly, I think that sort of thing has very little to do with poverty. Are they using the poverty money to do that? Yes, they are.

Now, the mayor is right here this week rallying before the capital for more money. I'm sure they get federal money. Do you take offense at that? I think that it's perfectly proper for elected public officials to do whatever they choose to do within the context of the law and the Constitution, because they can be held accountable by the men and women who elected them. But it's quite another thing to go into a community and say, all right, all of you people who have worked your way up to become businessman or teachers or clergyman or head of the PTA, you no longer count. We're going to give our money to the Blackstone Rangers or we're going to let Leroy Jones in Newark run the poverty program or arrange it in that way. We're arbitrarily conferring legitimacy on people at the whim of anonymous federal bureaucrats. And I think that's a real abrogation of the rights of every American citizen and to my mind it is very little to do with overcoming poverty. The poverty program when it operates that way serves the organized poor

but it doesn't serve the unorganized poor who are in real need of assistance. I believe that the changes we're making will serve the unorganized poor. How is that? Well, for example, in the area of our child development experiments, we're putting them in the office of child development at HEW, rather than having them split aside over here. In our migrant programs we're putting more emphasis on remedial education, high school equivalency programs, and taking emphasis away from organizing activities. We're putting funds on services which will actually benefit people, whether those services relate to self-help housing, whether they relate to high school equivalency programs, whether they relate to food programs, we're trying to do it with programs that really help people rather than programs which are merely seeking political change. I'd like to go back to your earlier points before we leave it entirely

because I'd like to understand where you would draw a distinction. Let's take all of the postal workers. The postal workers are federal salary. As we know, they show up in Washington from time to time to petition for higher salaries. Teachers who may be directly or indirectly the beneficiaries of federal help, maybe other people have other ways of doing it. As I say, of the maritime industry, maybe it doesn't have a march on the Capitol, but it has its lobbyists. Why do you say that the poor shouldn't do this? Well, I'm saying the poor have every right to do it. What I'm saying is that it's wrong for us to fund upper class and middle class professionals to decide what is in the best interest of the poor and to give them the resources to go out and politically organize so that they can impose on the public their views of what's good for the poor. And you're doing that. Yeah, and you're sure that the poor have not made any of these decisions themselves as to what they would like.

Well, I'm sure that there are individual poor people who would agree, there are individual poor people who would disagree. What I'm saying is that we have a tremendous political system and that we should work through it. I think it's wrong to assume that poor people are homogeneous. Poor people are very different. They're diverse in terms of the opportunities available to them in terms of their family backgrounds, in terms of their education. There are some people who will remain in poverty all of their lives and who need the assistance of government and the assistance of the private sector. There are others for whom poverty is a temporary condition. And I think that federal anti-poverty activity should be so designed as to recognize that poor people are not a homogeneous class but are diverse or as different as other people. We are not a rigidly class-oriented society and it's a mistake to assume or to suggest that public policy should be designed on the basis of class interests. Yes, you have been quoted again,

saying that really that the poverty program is a rather Marxist idea for singling out the poor as a group. No, that's really not what I said. You've been spotted a lot then. Well, the emphasis of my remarks has certainly been misquoted in certain instances. Did you not say it was a Marxist idea? What I said in the course of a long interview was that the idea of governmentally treating the poor as a homogeneous class apart with interests and aspirations separate and distinct from those of society as a whole is essentially in line with a Marxist idea of setting class against class. And I think that's wrong. I don't think the government should do that. Well, would it then logically follow that if you just, you don't have them all, all these programs that do this in a building on 19th Street, you know, in one thing that's called a poverty program. But you have programs to deal with the poor throughout the government. Absolutely. You need special programs.

That's all right with you, just as long as it's not all in one place. No, it's not that. What I'm saying is that, sure, you have to have programs that deal with the problems of poverty and respond to the needs of poor people. But that you do not have programs, if you're wise, which are based on the notion that poor people are a homogeneous class. For example, in our legal services program, the program is intended to represent individual clients, give them equal access to justice. That's an objective that I have always wholeheartedly supported. But time and time again will run into instances where attorneys will represent ineligible clients, people who are from wealthy families, or people who have voluntarily adopted a poverty lifestyle, and say, well, we're going to represent this guy with his underground newspaper because the issue involved, or the hair code, or the dress code, or the right to demonstrate against his teacher, is of interest to poor people as a class. So in that sense, I think the idea of seeking to deal

with the poor on a class basis is wrong. We have had some grantees out of OEO that have said, frankly, our job is to educate the poor to their oppression, to radicalize the poor. There was one grant that we gave to the Urban Institute and the area of cable television, the objective of which was to encourage poor people to gain control of cable television outlets so that they could change the conditions in this oppressive racist society. Well, I don't think this is an oppressive racist society, and I resent it when public funds are used to subsidize and further the political and sociological views of a few, especially when that kind of decision is being arbitrarily made by anonymous, middle-level bureaucrats who cannot be held accountable by the public for their sins of omission or commission. That's why I think it makes tremendously more sense to reallocate power out to where the people are.

It doesn't make sense for the federal government to decide for people in Peoria, Illinois what's best for people in Peoria, Illinois. The people in Peoria should have control over the decisions which affect their lives. The people in Massachusetts should have control over the decisions which affect their lives. And that's why I think the president's whole thrust of revenue sharing and governmental reorganization, especially when viewed in the long perspective of history is going to be a tremendous value in helping us. This gets into what you, I don't know now if you did or didn't refer to the humanitarian safeguards. But if all these things are sent out to Peoria or wherever, what happens to the idea that there are minorities that do need some sort of special protection? And that was the idea here. Well, are you suggesting that the... Well, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm not suggesting anything. Are you suggesting that the people in Washington are more sensitive to the rights of people and the people in Peoria or that the people in Washington

are more sensitive than the people in California or Georgia? Because if the only way you can justify retaining decision-making authority over people's lives where it's not necessary in Washington is by saying that the people in Washington are somehow more humane or better than the people who live out there. I reject that notion. I think there are at least as many intelligent people in Chicago as there are in Washington DC. Let's leave aside that. And if the people in Washington should be able to make decisions that affect their lives, the people in Chicago should make decisions that affect their lives. Let's do two things. Stop imputing views to me. All right. As I'm just in the process of trying to understand what you want to do. And two, is leaving aside words like wisdom and humanity. I'd like to understand this idea of majority and minority rights. The civil rights laws were passed because there was a recognition finally that in local areas and some areas, we needed national safeguards or some sort of national protection

to take care of a minority. And in some minds, this is the idea of the poverty program and some other social programs that there have to be some sort of special protections to take care of minority groups. Are you saying that this is no longer a national purpose? I would say that there are minimum standards, such as those set forth in our Bill of Rights, which you have to have. And I think that those standards certainly do apply. But that doesn't mean that you can't give control over resources to people who are elected at the state and local level. I really think that governors and mayors know more about the problems in their areas than people in the middle levels of bureaucracy in Washington. I'd like to move on to another subject, which, as you know, is very much with us, which is your power to do these things. You're doing vis-a-vis the Congress. There are a lot of memos floating around Washington now, as you know, and I guess you get up in the morning

and read them in the paper. One of them calls for a, quote, quote, a swift and successful dismemberment, unquote, of OEO. By June 30th, so as, quote, to present the Congress with a FedO complaint, unquote, in other words, do it. Before they have any chance to object or perhaps vote that, no, they really want to keep an OEO. Is this your strategy? Well, the irony of that much heralded memo was that it was written by a liberal Democrat careerist in the budget office at OEO. Is it your strategy? It was written over my objections before I became director of OEO, or acting director of OEO. My strategy is to be fully frank and forthcoming with the Congress. I'll be testifying twice next week before congressional committees. I intend to testify as frequently as I have the opportunity to do so. And my strategy is to be honest and frank about what we're doing and why we're doing it, because I think what we're doing is right, is justifiable, and we'll better serve the poor.

Now, you have, as I have researched the poverty law, you have the authority to move various programs around, to delegate them to the various agencies. This has historically been part of the idea that, and as you say, the Democrats had the same idea, and some programs like Head Start have already been taken from the OEO and sent HEW, and nobody, very few people, got terribly upset. But do you take the law to mean that also, that you could just up and abolish the whole program? Well, what we're doing is placing, under the legislative authorities of other departments and agencies, the money and the resources to continue programs, which are currently, physically located within OEO. And there were two instances where that authority, apparently, did not exist. One of those instances related to our community economic development programs, and in that respect, we are seeking legislation

from the Congress, which will make it possible for those programs to continue in the Office of Minority Business Enterprise. The other, is in the area of legal services, where the 1969 Economic Opportunity Amendments precluded transfer of authority for legal services programs to any federal agency or department, which then existed. So as a consequence, we are introducing legislation for a legal services corporation, which would carry on the legal services program. If that legislation is not in place by June 30, and we should explain June 30, that's the end of a year in Washington terms, this one programs end. And it is by June 30, that you hope to, or you're assigned to, and the poverty program. There's no money for the... Not to end the poverty program. All right, you're right. To end OEO. To re-assign responsibility. To re-assign responsibility. For the activities in which we're now engaged. Yes, sir. Okay. If you do not have your new legal services corporation by June 30,

will you continue the old legal services program? Legal services will continue. It would require some congressional action during the following proceeding, the following fiscal year. But it would be my expectation that if Congress had failed to act by virtue of our ability to long fund grants that the program itself would not be in jeopardy. You would keep it going. Of course I... Oh, yes. They're saying you're short funding. Well, I've never heard the term long funding, but you have these programs on a 30-day basis. Yes, we do. When I came into office on January 31st, we had a serious problem. Some people were taking advanced annual leave, which put the government in a situation where they might have to continue their employment. There was indication that travel funds were being misappropriated. There was indication that perhaps some improper grants were being made. And what we sought to do during an initial period of time was to just say,

okay, let's put a hold on things. Let's automatically continue all of those grants which you're now expiring. We haven't discontinued any grant. We have simply told them you're automatically refunded while we get our house in order during this transition period and are in a position to make long-term decisions. And as soon as we are in that position, we're going to go back to the business of funding grants for a normal period of time. And Congress says, well, we don't like your idea of the Legal Services Corporation. We want the old program to keep going. I believe that Congress is going to pass the legislation that the president submits. But what if they don't? I don't want to get into a hypothetical question. I really am convinced that the president's legislation will be passed. Well, it might not be hypothetical. I mean, maybe people would really like to know, is it Legal Services Corporation or else or not? Well, because it's hypothetical, it's very difficult for me to speculate. I believe that the president's corporation proposal will be adopted. The other program, which as I understand the law and consulted around about it,

that you're not permitted to delegate. And in fact, it says there is money to be continued. Is the Community Action Program, which in fact, you're not proposing to delegate. You're proposing to abolish. No, that's not what we're proposing. What we're saying is that after June 30, 1973, the continuation of Community Action will be a local option. And until that time, we are continuing to provide grants of up to six months in length to individual community action agencies to phase out OEO's involvement in those agencies. But for years, those organizations have been existing under local law as nonprofit corporations. There was a recent, much heralded report proclaiming the supposed success of Community Action, which said that the CAAs relied on OEO for only about 30 or 35 percent of their funding. And for example, head start programs may continue through the instrumentality of CAAs.

Which will not have any federal money, though. Oh, yes. Head start is federal money. No, I know. But the Community Action agencies would not have federal money after June 30. No, that's not true. OEO is going to continue to obligate funds until June 30. Yes. The funds we obligate on June 30 can run to the end of December of this year. All right. Funds provided them through Head Start, for example. We'll carry amounts in them, which could cover overhead costs previously covered by OEO. So what we're saying is it's a local option and local officials have to decide if that is the most effective way of dealing with poverty in their community. All right. We got a little hung up there on the word semantics of the word abolish. After June 30th, you are proposing to have no money in the budget. After June 30th, there will no longer be an Office of Economic Opportunity operating. Right. And there is no provision in the budget for a Community Action program. The Congress has funded money

for a Community Action program for two more years and it's specified. No, it's provided an authorization of funds through the end of fiscal year 74. But we're not impounding any funds in regard to Community Action. There are some funds that we may choose not to spend because during this period of phasing out OEO's responsibilities, it would be highly irresponsible for me to assign funding that we won't be around to supervise. Do you just then see that there is no congressional intent that there be a Community Action program despite this language? Well, nothing we're doing prevents local officials from continuing Community Action from assigning resources in the end. But Congress asked for a federal one for which it authorized funds. Are you saying that that is now to be ignored? The executive branch has always had the authority and the responsibility to determine how appropriated funds will be expended. And that's exactly what we're doing here.

And even though it says in the law, there shall be a Community Action program. That's not how money has to be expended. It's saying there shall be a program you're saying. But we're not stopping the Community Action program. What we're saying is that the Office of Economic Opportunity will cease to be responsible for Community Action, that it will be neutral in regard to Community Action. Community Action, after we have obligated our funds on June 30, and after those obligated funds have expired, as late as December 31, we'll have to rely on the fundings of other departments and agencies, federal, state, local, and private. You have described yourself. Maybe you want to correct that one too. You've been quoted as saying, I'm going to be this country's Cato. Carthage was destroyed because it was rotten. I think legal services is rotten, and it will be destroyed. Well, you know, that is a very interesting quote. I was not quoted as saying that. It was a young man who used to be legislative assistant to the Democratic Congressman from Indiana,

John Bratamus, who at one time was employed by OEO, who said that I was strolling down a street within one day, or at least he was reported by the Washington Post as having said that, and that I said that to him. I don't remember ever strolling down a street with the gentleman in question, and I have never indicated any intent to destroy the legal services program. What I have indicated is that I am extremely concerned that the idea that certain people in the program would seek to have legal services funds used not to serve individual clients, but to organize protest groups and to engage in an effort at law reform by their lights as to what should be changed in the law. That's what I've objected to. It has not been my effort to destroy the legal services program. It's been my effort to so reform it and strengthen it that it will serve the poor and not the whims of some nice middle-class lawyers who move into a community and think they know what's best for poor people. You are only 32 years old,

and by June 30th, if you've done your job right, you will have abolished your agency. What would you like to do after that? I would like to take two weeks off and spend it with my family. Are there other agencies or programs that you think ought to be dismantled? I am only an expert on the Office of Economic Opportunity. I've had the honor and the privilege of working in this administration since 1969, first with the President's Council on Youth Opportunity. Subsequently, with OEO, as a special assistant to Frank Carlosi, now under Secretary of H.E.W. and then as Director of the Office of Program Review at OEO. In those roles, I was able to observe the program. Sorry, excuse me, Mr. Phillips. We're out of time. You didn't get to tell me what you'll do next. We'll look forward to seeing what it is. I'd like to hear it myself. Thank you for coming. 30 minutes with Howard J. Phillips, Acting Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, an unadded, unrehearsed interview with Elizabeth Drew,

recorded February 22, 1973. This has been a production of N-PACT, a division of the Greater Washington Educational Telecommunications Association.