Richard Nixon photo

Remarks at the Republican Governors Conference in Williamsburg, Virginia.

April 19, 1971

Mr. Vice President, Governor Nunn, Governor Holton, all of the other distinguished Governors, and all of the distinguished guests who are gathered here in this historic room and this historic city today:

I said to Governor Holton, as we were riding in from the heliport, that this is the only State in the Union that I visited twice in 1 month. I am glad that historic Williamsburg, here in Virginia, attracts such distinguished convocations as this one, and also the one which I addressed previously on law enforcement and the reform of our procedures with regard to the enforcement of law, when I addressed the Judicial Conference here.

Also, the Governor told me that in this room were, naturally, the Republican Governors who are gathered around this U-shaped table. He said that there were some others who were distinguished guests, including a number of Democrats from the State legislature.

I want all of you to know today--you who are Governors, Republicans, and you who are our guests--that my remarks will not be partisan, because I happen to believe that when we talk about such great problems as reforming government, when we talk about problems of better government, good government, making government work, making it cost less, making it more responsive to the people, that the problem of good government is not one that is a Republican problem or a Democratic problem, and you don't have a Republican solution or a Democratic solution. The business of good government is everybody's business. That is what I want to talk about today.

As I talk about it today, I want to remind those who are the Governors here that you will recall when we last met in Washington, in February, the whole Republican Governors Conference was there, joined, of course, with all from the Democratic Governors' Conference. In other words, the National Governors' Conference was meeting.

I spoke then about revenue sharing, and I found that after that particular Conference that we had very strong support for those proposals.

Since that time, there has been some progress. Every one of the six legislative proposals for special revenue sharing have now been submitted to the Congress. Of course, the general revenue sharing proposal has also been submitted to the Congress. And now, of course, you wonder how is it coming? What is going to happen? Are we going to get some action?

I know you have been reading reports, pessimistic reports in some instances, and perhaps ones not quite so pessimistic, about what the Congress may do with regard to these historic reforms of government in the field of revenue sharing, both general and special.

I expressed optimism in February with regard to what the Congress would do. I am more optimistic now. I want to tell you why. I am more optimistic because I have found, since February, in meeting with Governors, with mayors, with county officials, and people from all walks of life, that an overwhelming majority of the Governors of this country, whether they are Democrat or Republican, are for revenue sharing. An overwhelming majority of the mayors of this country, and most of them are Democratic rather than Republican-particularly where the larger cities are concerned--they are for revenue sharing.

An overwhelming majority of the county officials of this country, and most of them are Democrats rather than Republicans, are for revenue sharing. And when you look at the polls, an overwhelming majority of the people of this country are for revenue sharing.

Now, when a majority of the Governors and a majority of the mayors and a majority of the county officials and the majority of the people are for something, the Congress eventually will reflect what the people want. That is why we are going to get revenue sharing. But we need your continued support.

We do not suggest that our plan is the completely perfect plan, but we do say that there needs to be action on this front, and that until someone else in the Congress has a better plan then they should support ours. And with your continued support, we believe we can get the action.

Today I am not going to talk about revenue sharing because we covered it so completely in that other appearance. I am going to talk about another subject that is related to it. I want to begin by a statement that all of you as Governors who labor with this problem in your own budgets will agree is an accurate appraisal of the situation.

It is hardly enough to make great efforts to solve the problems on the one hand, while on the other, we pursue policies which compound the problem. In other words, where we have the problems of deficits and the rest and we say we are going to have revenue sharing to solve those problems, we must get at the heart of the problem.

Now there are several reasons why government at the State level has grown more and more expensive. There are reasons why property taxes in the States of this Union on an average have gone up two and a half times over the past 10 years; why debt at the State and local level, particularly the local level as far as bonds are concerned, has increased by a percentage of five times.

And when we look at the situation, I think that we find one of the major causes--and I say this based on conversations with many of the people around this table is the present disastrous system of public welfare. I want to talk about that system today. You have heard me talk about it before, but I have had an opportunity since I first presented our program for welfare reform almost 2 years ago-I have talked to a number of you around this table.

We have, as a result of that, amended our own proposals to make them more, it seems to me, responsive to the needs and to the problem. Rising welfare costs are not only placing heavier and heavier burdens on the Federal budget--what they are doing is crushing our States and our cities, and they will continue to do so until something is done about it.

What we need is not a tinkering with the present welfare system which would merely relocate the financial disaster areas from the States and the cities to Washington--what we need is an entirely new approach that will reach to the reasons for soaring welfare costs and not simply deal with the results as we are doing now.

As you know, we have an entirely new approach in this Administration, a proposal for welfare reform which is before the Congress. I consider it our most urgent legislative proposal. Now, how can I say that when everybody around this table will say, "Well, the most urgent proposal from our standpoint is revenue sharing"?

Let me tell you why it is related. I consider welfare reform the most urgent proposal because if the present welfare system is allowed to go on unchecked, it will soon erode the benefits to be gained from revenue sharing and other reforms in other areas.

The House of Representatives has recognized this fact, as Congressman Ford can well tell you when he addresses you this afternoon, because it has designated welfare reform as H.R. 1. It is going to be White House priority number one until it is enacted.

We in this Administration have urged welfare reform for 3 years, actually--not only since I have been in office, because, as you recall, I discussed it in the 1968 campaign. The country responded, and I mean the whole country, not just the taxpayer who sees his money going down the drain but also many of the welfare recipients who see their lives going down the drain.

While we are trying to bring some order into this chaos at the Federal level, some of you--and I could name many around this table--but I know that some of you particularly have moved on your own at the State level with the same purpose. I want especially to commend Governor Reagan of California, Governor Rockefeller of New York, for their efforts in this area which I have discussed with both of them in some detail.

What they have done is to bite a bullet. They have bitten the bullet that the entire country is going to have to bite if we are going to bring the financial and, worse, the human costs of the present welfare system under control.

To them, and to others around this table, from other States, who have tried to bite the bullet of welfare reform in your own States, I pledge Federal cooperation---cooperation within the existing law until we get it reformed, but to the extent the existing law will allow, we will cooperate with any State that wants to bite the bullet of welfare reform to the full extent that the law allows.

The abuses in this system are not only unconscionable, they are contagious as well, as you know. It is a system which not only destroys the incentive of those who are on welfare to get off of it but it attacks the motivation of those who are not on welfare, the working poor, to stay off.

It is incredible that we have allowed a system of law under which one person can be penalized for doing an honest day's work and another person can be rewarded for doing nothing at all. It can happen, and it does happen under the present system. The person on welfare can often have a higher income than his neighbor who holds a low-paying job. Every Governor around this table knows that that is the case in his State.

Tragically, these situations often exist right in the same neighborhood, side by side in the same apartment houses, and you can see what the effect is. It is entirely corrosive. It creates bitterness on the part of the worker, and, in the end, I would imagine that it creates resignation, and we end up with just another person on welfare. "Give up the job. Go on welfare. Everybody else is at the trough, why not me?'"

At a time when we see all about us the problems of the disintegration of the family, what we are doing is continuing with the system that encourages family disintegration. And that is what the present welfare system does.

Let's look at the man out of work, or one struggling to support his family with a low-paying job. He sees that his family can have a higher income on welfare, and yet he is torn by the knowledge that they cannot qualify for welfare as long as he is there in the house--and so what does he do? He leaves. His children grow up either entirely without a father, or with a father who sneaks in and out of the house one step ahead of the welfare worker. Now, what conclusion should his children draw about the morality and the compassion and the justice of a system which forces their father to desert them in order to feed them? This is wrong. It must be changed. We have got to .change it in this country, and I pledge to you we will.

What I say now is not news to the Governors. Virtually all of you that I have talked to have told me this. But I am going to reflect it to you, and to those on television and radio, and those in this distinguished audience here. These are my conclusions: The fact is that the welfare establishment and system in the United States is a monumental failure. It makes the taxpayer furious; it makes the welfare recipient bitter; and it inflicts the distillation of all this anger and bitterness on the children who will inherit this land. It is a disgrace to the American spirit.

And now I want to put in context our welfare program, because it is one that has been understandably, perhaps, not understood as well as it could be throughout the country. First, we do not advocate, and I do not advocate, broadening welfare. I do not advocate simply refining the present system.

What I advocate is a fundamental change of direction. I do not advocate putting more people on welfare rolls, as some have contended our program would do. What I advocate is getting more people off of welfare rolls. And the way to get them off is to provide incentives and disincentives, which will make them get off, while providing an opportunity for people to recapture the sense of dignity that comes with knowing that what you have, that you have earned. I have been guided from the outset by that principle, and I reaffirm my commitment to that principle now.

Now another point: Is the program that we have advocated one that provides for a guaranteed annual income? The answer is no. And let me make the record very clear right here and now. I do not favor a guaranteed annual income. This program does not provide it. I do believe in a system which insures that a man is rewarded for working, and not penalized. And I think it is a very sensible investment to insure that that reward is there in order to keep people safely out of the reach of welfare.

I advocate a system that will encourage people to take work, and that means whatever work is available. It does not mean the attitude expressed not long ago at a hearing--I read about it in the paper and heard it on television. A lady got up at a welfare hearing, and she screamed, "Don't talk to us about any of those menial jobs." I am not sure what she considers a menial job, but I have probably done quite a few in my lifetime. I never thought they were demeaning.

If a job puts bread on the table, if it gives you the satisfaction of providing for your children and lets you look everyone else in the eye, I don't think that it is menial. But it is just this attitude that makes others, particularly low-income workers, feel somehow that certain kinds of work are demeaning. Scrubbing floors, emptying bedpans--my mother used to do that--it is not enjoyable work, but a lot of people do it. And there is as much dignity in that as there is in any other work to be done in this country, including my own.

In the course of reforming the welfare system, we have to reestablish the recognition of that fact--the dignity of work, any work, which will enable an individual to take care of his responsibilities without going on welfare.

I do not think we can tolerate a system under which working people can be made to feel like fools by those who will not work.

On the contrary, I think those who refuse to register for work and accept work or training should be ineligible for welfare payments. We have written such a stipulation into our welfare reform proposal.

In addition, we have urged including in this proposal the language of section 208 of the Social Security Act, which clearly defines fraud and establishes fines and other appropriate criminal punishment for abuses of the new welfare system.

These are two new, stronger proposals that we have put into the law, into our recommendations for the law, I would say in great part because Governors around this table, mayors, and others, out on the firing line, have told us we have to have better proposals with regard to work requirements.

Now let me speak quite candidly about a subject that I know must come to your attention even more than mine, because you are out on the firing line, and you do hear from those who resent it whenever any change is made in a system in which they have a vested interest, whether they are administering the system or whether they are the recipients of what are called its benefits.

The moment that you suggest that an individual must work, if an opportunity is provided for him to work, or he doesn't get welfare, or the moment you suggest that you are going to enforce a law which clearly defines fraud and establishes fines and other punishments for abuses, then you are charged--and I know that probably every Governor in this room who has tried to reform his system has been charged with this--you are charged with being hardhearted, unkind. You don't care about the poor children; you don't care about those who can't take care of themselves.

Let me give you the answer, my answer and yours. I know every one of the men around this table, every one of you, has been in public life because you believe in this country, because you want your government to be the very best possible government it can be, and because rather than being hardhearted you want to have a country strong enough and rich enough and generous enough that we can do an even better job in taking care of those who cannot help themselves. What we want to do, in other words, is, if we possibly can in this great, rich, good country of ours, provide greater benefits for those Americans, and there are many, who cannot take care of themselves.

But I also suggest, and this is our principle, the way to be able to provide more generously for those who are unable to help themselves is to quit helping those who are able to help themselves and refuse to do so. That is what we have to do.

And so to those who see our present welfare system as a simple refinement of the old program, let me say strongly, this is not the case. We have no intention of measuring the success of this Nation's welfare programs by the money spent or the number of people supported. We are going to measure it by the money saved and the number of people who are given back the incentive and the opportunity to support themselves. We are going to measure it by the dignity it promotes and not by the dole it provides.

One of the great strengths of America has always been that we believed in the value of work. We need a system of caring for the poor, for those who are unable to care for themselves, that rewards and encourages work.

Another great strength of America is that we believe in a helping hand for those of genuine need. The Bible tells us that charity is the greatest virtue and, as all of you know, that word "charity" in the Bible, in some versions, is interpreted as love. It blesses both the giver and the receiver.

But I submit to you, gentlemen, that it is not charity to maintain a system which permits or encourages human beings to let die within themselves the energies, the dignity, the drive that gives meaning and satisfaction to life itself.

It is not charity to bind human beings into a cycle of despair and dependence when, with a little courage and a little imagination and a little common sense, we can end this cycle.

Let me share with you a very interesting experience I had last week in Washington, D.C. This is a beautiful time of the year in Washington, as it is here in Williamsburg. As a result, a record number of tourists are coming through the Nation's Capital, and I receive as many as I can, just as you receive them when they come to your State capitals. And particularly the high school and college groups, when they come through, I often walk out into the Rose Garden of the Capital which you have often seen--that now, incidentally, is a tulip garden, because the roses don't grow until later-and receive a group from any State that happens to be there on that particular day at that particular time.

Thursday of last week I had a request to receive a group from Texas, from Rio Grande High School. Senator Tower, who recommended strongly that I see this group, told me in advance that Rio Grande High School was in the poorest county in all of Texas. He said this group was primarily a Mexican-American group. "But," he said, "I hope that you see them." And I am awfully glad that I did.

I am awfully glad that I have seen all of the groups, but this one in particular had a message for me, and it has a message for you; it has a message for America.

Let me tell you what they did. They came from the poorest county in Texas, true, but they were not poor in spirit. A year ago some members of the junior class decided that they would like to go to Washington. They knew that they would have to get the money to go. They didn't ask the school district to provide it or the State to provide it or some foundation to provide it. And they didn't go around to all the business houses in the community and ask them to contribute as they might have, so that they would be able to take this trip to Washington.

Here in the poorest county in Texas these young Mexican-Americans said, "We want to earn the money ourselves."

For one year they washed cars, and they did babysitting; they did a lot of menial tasks. They did also some things that were really in the free enterprise tradition. One of the girls knew how to make those Texas tamales. She made them and others went around and sold them at 75 cents a dozen all over the community. And in the end, standing there in the Rose Garden in the White House, 35 young Americans, most of them Mexican-Americans, proud, because they say, "We earned our way and we're proud that we did." Oh, they didn't come by a fancy airplane; they came by a bus. But I have never been as proud of America or proud of a group of young Americans as I was of them, because I knew they could have found an easier way to do it.

Now I know there are those who say, "Wasn't it a shame, those poor young Mexican-Americans had to go out and do all those menial tasks? Wouldn't it have been better if somebody very wealthy had given them money so that they could have come?"

And my answer is: not at all. I don't mean that we want life to be hard for young people, but I do say that when any kind of activity inspires in a young person the spirit of self-reliance, the spirit of individuality, the spirit of dignity, that is something that is very precious in this country. We should not snuff it out; we should not discourage it. We should encourage it.

So I think back to that class and what I can do. I think of the great responsibility that I have to work for a world in which they can enjoy what Americans have not enjoyed in this century: a full generation of peace.

I think when my Administration is completed, that that will perhaps be, and I trust it will be, our proudest achievement.

I also shall work for an America in which we will have a strong prosperity, in which individuals who want to work will have the opportunity to work, and everybody has an equal chance not only for a job but to go up and be promoted if he has what it takes.

But also, together, we must all work for a system, a system in which young Americans, as they look at the opportunities of this country, not only will grow up in a world of peace, not only will grow up in a world in which we have prosperity--and we are the most prosperous nation in the world, and we are going to become more prosperous as time goes on--but grow up in a nation which recognizes the dignity of work, the dignity of self-reliance. This is our job. That is what the reform of this welfare system is about.

A long time ago this Nation proudly acquired a reputation as a refuge for the tired and the poor, and those "huddled masses" who sailed into New York Harbor so that they might hold their heads up again--they have their counterparts today in slums and other poor sections all across America.

And our task, our task together, is to provide a system that will help them to raise their heads, to raise them in pride and in dignity; a system that is fair to the poor, that is fair to the taxpayer, and that is true to the spirit of independence that has built America, that has made it the great and good country that it is.

Note: The President spoke at 11 :26 a.m. in the Williamsburg Conference Center.

Gov. Louie B. Nunn of Kentucky was chairman of the Republican Governors Association. Gov. A. Linwood Holton of Virginia was host Governor for the Conference.

An advance text of the President's remarks was released on the same day.

Richard Nixon, Remarks at the Republican Governors Conference in Williamsburg, Virginia. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/239861

Filed Under

Categories

Location

Virginia

Simple Search of Our Archives