The successful elections of 1957 are now behind us – the Democratic victories of 1958 are now just ahead. I have no doubt whatsoever of a Democratic victory in 1958 – I have no doubt whatsoever of our ability to increase our margins in both Houses of Congress by a sizable amount, enough to pry loose some of the more controversial legislation no narrowly-divided Congress can pass. I have no doubt whatsoever that we are going to win – and win "big".
The question is: will we deserve to win? Will we color our statesmanship with distorted partisanship, compromise our principles of democracy with displays of demagoguery? Will we, in our eagerness to seize the reins of responsibility, commit acts that will make us unworthy of assuming such responsibility?
I trust we will not – but I have one difficult issue in mind tonight as I raise these questions – and that is the issue of a tax cut in 1958.
I realize that all the statistics and predictions about tax income and surpluses and expenditures are not yet in. I realize that we have not yet received new budget requests, or calculated how many billions could be recouped if only certain tax loopholes could be plugged or certain rate structures revised. And I realize that the initial decision on this matter must originate in the House of Representatives.
But speaking for myself, as one Democrat that must seek reelection next year, I want to state here and now that I think it would be both misleading and irresponsible for us to predict a tax cut in 1958 – for us to promise that to the people – for us to stake our claim for victory upon it.
I think we would be more honest with ourselves and the people if we said, here and now, that such a cut is most unlikely. I would like to see the Democratic Party take such a stand in response to the President's talk of last night – and the resolutions to be adopted by this Young Democrats Convention may be our first and best opportunity.
I do not say that such a stand will gain us a single vote anywhere in the country – I do not say that it can answer all of the desperate pleas for tax relief from workers, housewives, pensioners, small businessmen, and farmers. But there are times when a political party must do something more than garner votes, win elections, and seek political advantages – it must offer responsibility and leadership. Instead of yielding to the pressures and petitions of the various voter blocs, it must yield only to the unavoidable requirements of national interest. Instead of appealing to the voter's pocketbook or bread-basket, it must appeal to his courage and conscience.
There is no glory to be obtained by such a stand, however noble it may sound. There will be many who will argue with telling logic that a tax cut in 1958 is not only a political necessity for our Party, but an economic necessity for the country. The Chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee has declared recently that Congress "can and must cut taxes" as "an act of responsibility." One of his colleagues on the House Ways and Mean Committee has announced:
"When (our) Committee meets next January 7, I will be there demanding tax reduction and less government spending. Let us not be stampeded. Unless I miss my guess, the people will get results – there will be tax reductions next year."
The Republican drive for a tax cut, if it is made, to woo new votes in a campaign they cannot otherwise win, may well usurp the familiar Democratic position – tax relief for those who need it most, down at the bottom of the economic ladder. The very voters we hope to win back to the Democratic columns, the underpaid and the unemployed, the little man and the little shop – they will all benefit from a Republican election-year tax bill, and they will want their Democratic friends to support it.
But, to use the words of our Republican friend, let us not be stampeded. Let us look at the hard, cold unpleasant facts as to why no tax cut is feasible in 1958 and very likely for years to come. Look at the budget figures themselves. Income to the Treasury is likely to fall below its earlier estimates by at least a small amount, due to what Secretary of Commerce Weeks calls a "sideways movement" in the economy, a "readjustment period," a chance to "catch your breath." The President also says the American economy is "taking a breather." I am not certain what those terms mean – but remembering some of the vague terms they used to reassure us about the 1954 recession, I am deeply disturbed. A real recession, of course, could create an urgent need for tax revision.
But as Federal revenues decrease the hopes for a Treasury surplus, the tide of Federal expenditures continues to rise inexorably no matter how loudly Administration spokesmen implore it to halt. Republican tight money policies mean higher charges on the national debt; Republican limitations on social security and aid to surplus labor areas mean higher costs of public assistance; Republican farm policies are costing us higher surpluses and more dollars than the previous twenty years of Democratic programs combined. Above all, the Defense Budget – which the Republicans for five years have slashed away at, hacked, clipped, stretched out, cut back and frozen – can exist under its arbitrary ceiling of 38 billion dollars only by ignoring the star and the moons – the Red Star on Soviet moons.
There is no point any longer in pretending that we can cut taxes by holding the defense budget to 38 billion dollars, when there are no prospects for disarmament, when the Soviets have surpassed or outmoded much of our defensive and deterrent strength and when the weapons of tomorrow take more and more money.
There is no point any longer in pretending that we can cut taxes by tapering off and ending our foreign aid program, when the standard of living for much of the world is getting poorer and poorer, their population pressures greater and their need for development capital desperate. There is no point any longer in talking about cutting taxes in a nation that cannot graduate as many scientists or engineers as the Russians, that lacks classrooms for some nine million children and that pays the average railway conductor nearly twice as much as it pays the teacher who conducts our elementary classes.
Let us not talk of tax cuts when we are critically short of low-rent public housing, when our blighted cities cry out for urban redevelopment, when more than one-half of our talented high school graduates are unable or unwilling to go to college, when we face a crisis of too few doctors, too few nurses, too few hospital beds, and too few health insurance policies available to the aged and chronically ill who need them most. Let us not talk of tax cuts at a time when the tottering new Polish government needs the aid that might wean her from Moscow, when the Nehru government in India must receive help or leave a vacuum only Peking will fill, when UNICEF and SUNFED and an International Food Bank have never realized their potential.
I would rather see the Democratic Party talk about the surplus labor areas all over the nation which this Administration has ignored. I would rather see us talk about the 3 Billion dollar increase in the farmer's debt, the doubled rate of farm foreclosures, and the astounding loss of several hundred farms every day under this Administration.
I would rather see us talk about our lag in basic research, missiles, jet engines, rocket motors, air defense, and atomic fuels – about our untapped or wasted natural resources, our shameful slums and our underpaid Federal employees, whether they be mail carriers or scientists.
We cannot talk about these issues and at the same time talk about tax cuts with any degree of sincerity or responsibility. The relentless facts of life in the world today, the hard facts of our national security and expanding nation, do not permit talk of tax cuts from a party that will in 1960 acquire full responsibility for facing up to these facts. Perhaps we could deceive some of our constituents – perhaps we could outmaneuver the Republicans on this issue – but there is no point in deceiving or outmaneuvering ourselves.
Last night the President delivered his first address to the Nation on this subject. The speech was well-thought out, well-written, and well-documented – and I am sure it will be well received by every American, regardless of party. The President stated that he was going to tell the Nation the "rough" facts as well as the smooth – "the sternly demanding" as well as the reassuring. He asks for the "energetic support of every American," that we "face up to certain pressing requirements and set out to meet them at once," recognizing that this problem "surmounts any division" partisan or otherwise – and to meet it we will "close ranks as Americans."
I am certain that everyone here would join me in assuring the President that as Democrats and Americans we stand ready and willing to face whatever harsh facts must be faced and to assume whatever heavy burden must be assumed.
We do not intend to make political capital out of national disasters – we do not intend to play politics with the critical issues of War and Peace.
But neither do we intend to forget our responsibility as Americans and as the minority party to offer constructive criticisms and alternatives. For this Nation will never survive unless the channels of free dissent are kept open, and the Democratic Party is necessarily the primary channel of dissent available today.
I think, therefore, that we have a right as Democrats and as Americans to ask the President to tell us all of the harsh facts we must face, and not just some of them. We have a right as Democrats and Americans to ask whether the President's proposals are not now too little and too late. And we have a responsibility – an unavoidable responsibility – as Democrats and Americans to promulgate additional proposals to meet the problem left unsolved by the President, and to implement our proposals in the Democratic Congress.
It is in this spirit that I would like to discuss with you tonight the President's address, and my own reflections upon it during the past hour.
In the first place, the American people ought to be told that the facts of our current military position are far more grim than the President indicated. The President told the Nation that we are behind in satellite development – he did not say how distressingly far behind we really are. The President stated – and though he stated it calmly, to avoid any reaction of panic, it is a critical fact to face – that we are also behind in some areas of missile development, particularly the all-important inter-continental ballistic missile. But he did not go on to say what effect this would have on our overseas bases, now that our allies are exposed to Communist blackmail, and the bases themselves are now on the bulls-eye as never before. He did not say how this might now endanger the safety of our own shores or that part of our strategic air force which cannot be kept continuously airborne.
The President stated that the Soviets are ahead of us in what he called "special areas". But he did not spell out these areas – he did not tell the people that we may also be as much as several years behind in rocket motors, new fuels, jet engines, radar, and nuclear powered planes.
In short, the President did not tell the Nation the real meaning of these "rough" facts – that the United States has never in its history stood in so critical a position in world affairs. We have been accustomed to winning, to being first – and the tragic fact of the matter is that until a few years ago, in terms of defensive and deterrent security in every line, we were first; and we could have been first today. It is not correct to say, as some do, that we lost our lead this fall – we obviously lost it long ago. Only one man was in a position during these five critical years to know all these facts, to make all the decisions, to hire and fire those responsible – and that one man was the President of the United States.
In the second place, the President did not tell the American people why it is we are lagging behind the Soviets in so many areas. That is what the American people want to know – and that is what they have a right to know. The President referred to what he called "alleged inter-service competition." May I respectfully suggest to the President that this wasteful competition is not alleged – it is proven. Since 1953, we have witnessed three separate missile development programs, duplicating each other's efforts, competing for funds, for personnel, for scientific facilities and brainpower, and surreptitiously undercutting the other two to Congress and the press. While the Navy was spending $200 million or more to build a Regulus, the Air Force was building an almost identical missile – the Matador – with other money and other scientists. When the Air Force was developing the Thor, the Army – instead of turning over its know-how, men and money, after an order keeping it out of this field – went right on building the Jupiter. Those are not allegations, Mr. President – those are facts.
The President reassured the nation last night that there has been a "high-level of expenditure on research and development for defense." The truth of the matter is that his administration has not once in five years requested a budget for Defense Research and Development as large as that requested in the last Democratic year, despite complaints and warnings from service chiefs and scientists. And even after Congress appropriated the full amount of funds requested – sometimes more – Secretary Wilson cut them back. The President did not tell us why research and development funds were cut back 10% this year just prior to the first Soviet moon-launching; or why no attention was paid to Secretary of the Air Douglas' warning about our missile cuts at the time the President was saying everything was being done "as rapidly as it can be done."
The President stated last night that missile development in our defense department got into high gear more than two years ago." He neglected to say that it should have gotten into high gear more than four years ago – but that Secretary Wilson was permitted to shelve for all practical purposes the entire missile-satellite program for two critical years, on the ground that it was "visionary" stuff that caused our Defense Department to spend more for research and development than even General Motors itself. And even when we got into what the President calls "high gear", there was no round-the-clock, "crash" priority basis, no strong leadership, and a disorganized, wasteful, rivalry-ridden management in Washington.
Third, and finally the President's proposals, while good as far as they go, must still prove that they are capable of closing the gap. I congratulate the President upon the appointment of Dr. James Killian as his special assistant – Dr. Killian is a distinguished resident of my State who will bring great energy and intelligence to this program. But the question is – will the President give to Dr. Killian a role of something more than a mere advisor? Will he be able to do more than merely round up scientific genius? Will he be able to get the money he needs, knock together heads in the Defense Department, end the complacency and the confusion that now grip his administration over this issue, and hereafter give our missile and anti-missile programs the priority, the personnel, the funds, and the attention they have sorely needed for so long? We have in the past two years already had a wealth of coordinators, special assistants, and expeditors – it takes more than new names, new jobs and new promises to get the job done.
The truth of the matter is that no special assistant and no new act of Congress is enough. Only the President of the United States has the power and the facts and the position to lead us through these critical years. Whatever fears we may entertain as Democrats, we must – as Americans – hope that he will meet the test. We shall have our initial answer next Wednesday night.
Perhaps it is already too late for us to catch up with the Soviets – perhaps there is nothing we can do – but we dare not fail to make the effort. We dare not fall back on the same policies of drift and complacency that have characterized this administration's programs at home and abroad for nearly five years.
In spite of our concern with past failures by those in high positions of responsibility, nevertheless as Democrats, I am sure we all pledge our nation and our leadership our undeviating support in the years ahead and I am confident that support will be sufficient to insure our security.
Source: Papers of John F. Kennedy. Pre-Presidential Papers. Senate Files, Box 898, "Young Democrats Club of America, Reno, Nevada, 8 November 1957." John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.