THE PRESIDENT . . . I would like to review briefly for you my proposals for reforming the tax system, for reducing taxes, for continuing to reduce the unemployment rate and for preventing and controlling inflation.
These proposals are the centerpiece of the administration's economic program for 1978. Economic policy depends, for its success, on a very careful balance between different interests, between sometimes conflicting national needs; between doing too much on the one hand, doing too little of the other. To modify one element of a balanced plan can often destroy this balance and can aggravate our economic problems.
I want to emphasize four elements of our proposals that carefully preserve this balance.
First, there is tax reductions. We proposed a net tax reduction of $25 billion designed to create almost a million new jobs by the end of 1979.
If they are enacted, the economy should continue to grow at a rate of about 4 1/2 to 5 per cent and unemployment should fall below 6 percent by the end of next year.
For the vast majority of taxpayers, these reductions will offset the increase in rates that was necessary to prevent bankruptcy of our social Security system.
For 1978 there will be three times as much tax reduction as there is tax increase for the Social Security system. And the same ratio, 3 to 1, will prevail in 1979.
Second, our tax reform proposal will allow us to have an immediate tax reduction while making susbtantial progress toward comprehensive reform, a simpler and a fairer tax system.
Without these needed reforms, we would not be able to afford so large a tax reduction. They comprise about $9 billion in savings, at the same time providing and fairness.
Third is jobs. I have asked for over $700 million more in new funds for youth jobs and, in addition, have asked the Congress to cotinue the high level of public service jobs for 1979, which is about twice as much as a year ago.
In addition, I will shortly forward to the Congress a $400 million program to encourage provate businesses to hire the hard-core unemployed.
We are balancing the need for public service jobs with the need for private opportunities to reduce unemployment.
Fourth, inflation: Our program is voluntary, requiring the cooperation of government, business, labor and all our citizens. I have asked each group to hold its increases in wages and prices below the level that it averaged in increases for the last two years . . .
In sum, we proposed an economic program which is balanced. It will not please everyone. As I said in my State of the Union Address, we cannot do everything for everybody . . . THE SOVIET SATELLITE
. . . I think we need to have more rigid safety precautions assured among all nations in earth-orbiting forego the deployment of any such satellite altogether and will pursue that option along with the Soviet Union.
The only time a satellite needs a long-lasting power source that is free of the use of solar energy which can be derived from the sum is when you go into deep outer space; for instance, power from atomic sources then.
But I see no reason for us to continue with the option of nations to have earth-orbiting satellites unless much more advanced safety precautions can be initiated . . .
If we cannot evolve those fail-safe methods, then I think there ought to be a total prohibition against earth-orbiting satellites.
I would favor at this moment an agreement with the Soviets to prohibit earth-orbiting satellites with atomic radiation material in them. THE COAL STRIKE
We are very hopeful that the coal mine operators and the United Mine Workers will expedite a resolution of their differences. This past weekend the news was not good. I see no immediate prospect of having to exercise the Taft-Hartley provisions. It only provides for the President the authority to intercede if the national security is in danger. We certainly have not arrived at that point yet. THE MIDEAST
We have been, of course, facing the continuing prospect for a number of years of providing some weapons into the Mideast, heavily to Israel, also to Saudi Arabia to Iran and to some degree the nonattack weapons to Egypt.
All these nations have requests to us for weapons. They have been committed to these nations to some degree by my two predecessors, and reconfirmed in some instances by me.
The National Security Council will make a report to me early this week recommending from the State Department, from the Defense Department, from the National Security Adviser, what weapons to recommend to the Congress.
After that point, the Congress will have a 30-day plus a 20-day period to respond affirmatively or not.
I will decide later on this week what to recommend to the Congress . . .
Our position on settlements in occupied territory has been that they are illegal, that they are an obstacle to peace. When Prime Minister Begin was over here and when Foreign Minister Dayan was here, this question arose.
My understanding of their commitment was that no new settlements would be authorized by the government, that any increase in settlers would be an expansion of existing settlements as much as possible within the aegis of the military.
The Geneva Conference agreement is that civilians should not go in to settle permanently in occupied territories. I think the Israeli government has not authorized the Shilo settlement other than as an archeological exploration project.
I have not yet heard from Prime Minister Begin directly but I have had information that this is a policy of the Israeli government, that this is not an authorized settlement . . . THE MARSTON CASE
I see nothing improper in the handling of the case. I made a campaign commitment will be carried out.
There has also been a statement made by me during the campaign that, all other factors equal, that I would choose someone for those positions, or even for the Supreme Court, whose basic political philosophy was compatible with mine.
The fact is at this point we have about one-third of the U.S. attorneys around the country who are Republicans. I think when I took office. And I don't think that Nixon or Ford appointed any Democrats during the eight-year period. So far as I know, they haven't.
I think that the Attorney General has handled the case as well as possible. I explained to you at the last press conference what I knew about the facts then and so far as I know, there is no impropriety at all.
I understand from the Attorney General that he has now received recommendations for five highly qualified nominees to take over that responsibility. He will begin interviewing them tomorrow. And the likelihood is that he would make a selection this week . . . THE MARSTON CASE
I do think that our actions are compatible with my campaign statements, which I have said earlier. On an average day, I get either personal letters from Congress members or telephone calls, about 10 or 12 inquiries or requests, for the replacement of a public official or the appointment of someone to fill a vacancy.
In the most instances, as relates to the federal judicary, the inquires or recommendations come from U.S. senators.
In historical terms, when both senators are Republican senators, then the members of Congress and the governors are consulted on who are qualified people and so forth.
This was a routine matter for me and I did not consider my taking the telephone call from Congressman Eilberg, nor relaying his request to the Attorney General, to be ill-advised at all. If it occurred now, I would do the same.