How far we have fallen.... Recalling JFK's "City Upon A Hill" Speech JAN 9th, 1961

We as a nation have allowed people who are highly unqualified to take control of our governments on the Federal, State and Local levels.  The people who are in charge are a mere shadow of those who were elected in the past..... Think about people like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, IKE and JFK....Compare them to the faux leaders who are in our halls of government now....

There is no comparison.  We do not have the quality leaders we need. There is no comparison and we need better leaders now more than ever.


Take a listen to the enclosed link and read the words that JFK spoke just before he was to be inaugurated.  This speech sums up in 8 minutes what we need from our leaders.  You don't have to agree with JFK's political views but you can't argue with his principles of what we should be getting from our leaders on all levels of the government we elect and who should serve the people, not the other way around.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/OYhUZE2Qo0-ogdV7ok900A.aspx

City Upon A Hill
President Elect John F. Kennedy
Massachusetts General Court,
January 9, 1961


I have welcomed this opportunity to address this historic body, and, through you, the people of Massachusetts to whom I am so deeply indebted for a lifetime of friendship and trust.

For fourteen years I have placed my confidence in the citizens of Massachusetts--and they have generously responded by placing their confidence in me.
 
Now, on the Friday after next, I am to assume new and broader responsibilities. But I am not here to bid farewell to Massachusetts.

For forty-three years--whether I was in London, Washington, the South Pacific, or elsewhere--this has been my home; and, God willing, wherever I serve this shall remain my home

It was here my grandparents were born--it is here I hope my grandchildren will be born.

I speak neither from false provincial pride nor artful political flattery. For no man about to enter high office in this country can ever be unmindful of the contribution this state has made to our national greatness.

Its leaders have shaped our destiny long before the great republic was born. Its principles have guided our footsteps in times of crisis as well as in times of calm. Its democratic institutions--including this historic body--have served as beacon lights for other nations as well as our sister states.

For what Pericles said to the Athenians has long been true of this commonwealth: "We do not imitate--for we are a model to others."
 
And so it is that I carry with me from this state to that high and lonely office to which I now succeed more than fond memories of firm friendships. The enduring qualities of Massachusetts--the common threads woven by the Pilgrim and the Puritan, the fisherman and the farmer, the Yankee and the immigrant--will not be and could not be forgotten in this nation's executive mansion.

They are an indelible part of my life, my convictions, my view of the past, and my hopes for the future.

Allow me to illustrate: During the last sixty days, I have been at the task of constructing an administration. It has been a long and deliberate process. Some have counseled greater speed. Others have counseled more expedient tests.
 
But I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before his shipmates on the flagship Arbella three hundred and thirty-one years ago, as they, too, faced the task of building a new government on a perilous frontier.

"We must always consider," he said, "that we shall be as a city upon a hill--the eyes of all people are upon us."
 
Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us--and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill--constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.

For we are setting out upon a voyage in 1961 no less hazardous than that undertaken by the Arabella in 1630. We are committing ourselves to tasks of statecraft no less awesome than that of governing the Massachusetts Bay Colony, beset as it was then by terror without and disorder within.

History will not judge our endeavors--and a government cannot be selected--merely on the basis of color or creed or even party affiliation. Neither will competence and loyalty and stature, while essential to the utmost, suffice in times such as these.

For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each one of us--recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state--our success or failure, in whatever office we may hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions:

First, were we truly men of courage--with the courage to stand up to one's enemies--and the courage to stand up, when necessary, to one's associates--the courage to resist public pressure, as well as private greed

Secondly, were we truly men of judgment--with perceptive judgment of the future as well as the past--of our own mistakes as well as the mistakes of others--with enough wisdom to know that we did not know, and enough candor to admit it?
 
Third, were we truly men of integrity--men who never ran out on either the principles in which they believed or the people who believed in them--men who believed in us--men whom neither financial gain nor political ambition could ever divert from the fulfillment of our sacred trust?

Finally, were we truly men of dedication--with an honor mortgaged to no single individual or group, and compromised by no private obligation or aim, but devoted solely to serving the public good and the national interest.

Courage--judgment--integrity--dedication--these are the historic qualities of the Bay Colony and the Bay State--the qualities which this state has consistently sent to this chamber on Beacon Hill here in Boston and to Capitol Hill back in Washington.

And these are the qualities which, with God's help, this son of Massachusetts hopes will characterize our government's conduct in the four stormy years that lie ahead.

Humbly I ask His help in that undertaking--but aware that on earth His will is worked by men. I ask for your help and your prayers, as I embark on this new and solemn journey.

Dog Tags at Old North Church in Boston

Located on the south side of the Old North Church, Boston, stands a small area set aside to commemorate the soldiers lost in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hundreds of dog tags representing the fallen hang closely together. When the wind blows one can hear the distinctive metal chimes as they clang together to make their eery music.

When I see this, I think that the original Patriots of the American Revolution who were from Boston, and though the loss of any Soldier/Sailor/Marine/Airman is difficult to bear, as Americans we have always been willing to provide whatever is needed to ensure our Liberty.

" Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

President John F. Kennedy

50 Years ago today - JFK demonstrates Presidential Leadership unlike our present day President who hasn't got a clue

Presidential Leadership - Then & Now

50 years ago today we had a real leader in the White House. The American public were getting whacked by steel executives driving the price for steel up and it effected all Americans.

Today, Oil goes up due to speculation and greed, and all we get from the President is " Not my job.." and excuses.

News yesterday - "The Energy Information Administration says gasoline will cost an average of $3.95 per gallon from April through September, an increase of 6.3 percent from the same period last year. The peak monthly average should be $4.01 in May.

The government says there's a small chance the price for a gallon could climb as high as $4.50 in June."


Take a listen to how a REAL leader dealt with the issues that hurt Americans economically 50 years ago today. THIS is the type of leader we need here & now but is no where in sight for our country.

And that is a crisis. ( Play the audio, really - you will enjoy listening to what REAL LEADERSHIP sounds like - Trust me.)




Statement of the President of the United States
John F. Kennedy
The Steel Crisis
April 11, 1962


" Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steal corporations increasing steel prices by some $6 a ton constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest. In this serious hour in our Nation's history when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking reservists to leave their homes and their families for months on end and servicemen to risk their lives--and four were killed in the last two days in Viet Nam and asking union members to hold down their wage requests at a time when restraint and sacrifice are being asked of every citizen, the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans.

If this rise in the cost of steel is imitated by the rest of the industry, instead of rescinded, it would increase the cost of homes, autos, appliances, and most other items for every American family. It would increase the cost of machinery and tools to every American businessman and farmer. It would seriously handicap our efforts to prevent an inflationary spiral from eating up the pensions of our older citizens, and our new gains in purchasing power.

It would add, Secretary McNamara informed me this morning, an estimated $1 billion to the cost of our defences, at a time when every dollar is needed for national security and other purposes. It would make it more difficult for American goods to compete in foreign markets, more difficult to withstand competition from foreign imports, and thus more difficult to improve our balance of payments position, and stem the flow of gold. And it is necessary to stem it for our national security, if we're going to pay for our security committments abroad. And it would surely handicap our efforts to induce other industries and unions to adopt reasonable price and wage policies.

The facts of the matter are that there is no justification for an increase in steel prices. The recent settlement between the industry and the union, which doesn not even take place until July 1st, was widely acknowledged to be noninflationary, and the whole purpose and effect of this Administration's role, which both parties understood, was to achieve an agreement which would make unnecessary any increase in prices. Steel output per man is rising so fast that labor costs per ton of steel can actually be expected to decline in the next 12 months. And in fact, the acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics informed me this morning that, and I quote, "employment costs per unit of steel output in 1961 were essentially the same as they were in 1958."

The cost of the major raw materials, steel scrap and coal, has also been declining, and for an industry which has generally been operating at less than two-thirds of capacity, its profit rate has been normal and can be expected to rise sharply this year in view of the reduction in idle capacity. Their lot has been easier than that of one hundred thousand steel workers thrown out of work in the last 3 years. The industry's cash dividends have exceeded $600 million in each of the last 5 years, and earnings in the first quarter of this year were estimated in the February 28th Wall Street Journal to be among the highest in history.

In short, at a time when they could be exploring how more efficiency and better prices could be obtained, reducing prices in this industry in recognition of lower costs, their unusually good labor contract, their foreign competition and their increase in production and profits which are coming this year, a few gigantic corporations have decided to increase prices in ruthless disregard of their public responsibilities.

The Steelworkers Union can be proud that it abided by its responsibilities in this agreement, and this Government also has responsibilities which we intend to meet. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are examining the significance of this action in a free, competetive economy. The Department of Defence and other agencies are reviewing its impact on their policies of procurement. And I am informed that steps are under way by those members of the Congress who plan appropriate inquiries into how these price decisions are so quickly made and reached and what legislative safeguards may be needed to protect the public interest.

Price and wage decisions in this country, except for a very limited restriction in the case of monopolies and national emergency strikes, are and ought to be freely and privately made. But the American people have a right to expect, in return for that freedom, a higher sense of business responsibility for the welfare of their country than has been shown in the last 2 days.

Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer. "

Classic Cars rule the streets of Havana

While Castro and Cuba have been a burr in the saddle of American politics and security for decades, the embargo imposed by JFK also eliminated US autos from getting to Cuba.

The result is that there is the greatest collection of "daily drivers" known to man on the streets of Havana....I would like to go just to see these relics, hand preserved and running around 50 odd years later. Without a ready supply of parts, the owners had to figure out how to rebuild these beauties when they broke down....I admire their ingenuity.

I could enjoy going there to admire them in person and enjoy a fine Cuban Cigar to boot.....such a deal.


The cars of Cuba: photos and stories from Havana
Written By Bob Ames - Hagerty.com

HAVANA, Cuba – The American trade embargo with Cuba in 1960 had the effect of instantly separating thousands of 1940s and 1950s Detroit-built cars from their spare parts supply. Amazingly, many are still on the road more than 50 years later, cherished by owners who have patched them up with Russian and Chinese tractor parts.

While the subject of Cuba still has the same effect on Congress as a full moon on a werewolf, at least American tourists are once again able to visit this 40,000 square-mile Caribbean paradise. It’s absurdly close to the U.S. mainland – only 90 miles from Miami.

In December, my wife Kathleen and I took one of the first People to People tours of Cuba, authorized by the U.S. government. A large factor in our decision to join this National Geographic-led group of 24 tourists was that leader Chris Baker wrote the coffee table tome, “Cuba Classics – a celebration of vintage American automobiles.” Baker also authored “Mi Moto Fidel,” a chronicle of his 7,000-mile tour of Cuba on a BMW R100GS Paris-Dakar motorcycle.

Click here to see more cars of Cuba from Hagerty.com

As a lifelong fan of 1950s American cars, I’ve long wanted to view these much-publicized “Cuban classics.” I can report that most of what you’ve seen in print is true. The streets of Havana reminded me of my high school parking lot …

Click here to see more classic cars from Hagerty.com

Since the American trade embargo began in 1960, there have been no U.S.-made cars exported to what was one of Detroit’s most enthusiastic customers. GM’s presence was huge, and even today Cadillacs, Buicks, Oldsmobiles and Chevrolets outnumber Ford and Chrysler products four to one on the island.

Convertibles were always popular, thanks to year-round tropical weather. The place for posing with your ride is hard to miss in Havana. The squares around Capitolio, a flattering copy of Washington’s Capitol building, are lined with 50-year-old American cars during daylight hours. Most are taxis looking for fares, and they don’t leave on their semi-fixed routes until every seat is filled. Others, however, are available for tourist hire by the hour or day. I have a particular 1958 Edsel convertible confirmed for my next visit.

If you want to be a hero and meet Cuban “car guys,” bring spark plugs. The only problem I had dispensing this capitalist largesse was convincing the recipients they were a gift. Other, more transportable ice-breakers are Ferrari and Porsche decals. These seem to be particularly popular with Buick and Lada owners.

There are some new cars, but the rental fleet Geeleys in the parking lot of the hotel we stayed in near Pinar del Rio, a couple of hours west of Havana, were not encouraging. I wish all the best to Warren Buffet and this emerging Chinese manufacturer, but poorly primed paint was peeling off these imports from Cuba’s No. 1 trading partner. Perhaps it’s time to sell my Berkshire Hathaway stock.

Back in Havana, there is a fascinating car museum on the Calle Officios, a historic pedestrian street lined with lovely restored 18th century buildings. One of these houses Museo del Auto Antiquo, which features Cadillacs, Rolls Royce, Packards and other reminders of the country’s splendid, decadent past. The machines on display are generally untouched originals, although Cuba’s oldest car, a 1908 Cadillac, was away for restoration.

Nearby is a street market in Plaza de Armes where I scored an original Cuban yellow or “particular” license plate for my collection. There are plastic fakes in all the souvenir shops, while the genuine variety are riveted onto cars that are rarely scrapped, and until recently could not be legally sold.

Here’s a bit of lore for automobilia collectors: Cuban license plates come in three basic colors; yellow for privately owned vehicles, red for rental cars and blue for the many official or government-owned cars. We saw a handful of Mercedes and BMWs – all with blue license plates.

Given the age of Cuba’s passenger car fleet, and the fact that most have been cut off from factory support for 50 years, mechanical ingenuity is highly developed. I saw pistons made on a belt-driven lathe and was told of a man who can make bumpers for your ’58 Caddy – out of tin.

Great cigars, cheap rum concoctions, cool jazz in the nightspots and collector cars actually being used. There are no trailer queens in Cuba. I can’t wait to go back.

A Lack of TRUE LEADERSHIP in Washington has lead the US to possible 2nd place status in Space Exploration going forward

The lack of LEADERSHIP in Washington has been apparent for decades. The genuine Leaders we had in the past have given way to the political hucksters that dominate the halls of Government.

People's confidence in Congress & the Executive Branch are at all time lows.

It seems difficult to comprehend that we have not had any real LEADERS in the White House for almost 50 years....The list of the past nine Presidents since JFK reads like a train wreck of POLS who wanted to leave a legacy but only passed through leaving some accomplishments, but not the legacy that we saw from those who lead us through the first 2/3rd of the 20th century. Johnson (Lost Vietnam),Nixon (Lost it, period.), Ford (Placeholder), Carter(Another placeholder), Reagan (nice man but only really a figurehead - bankrupted the Soviets), Bush Sr. (Did well with the Gulf War but was dumped for Bubba), Clinton ( a True POL's POL ), GW Bush ( Another nice guy but light in real Leadership chops) and lastly, and the least (scraping the bottom of the barrel) Obama.

None of these men had the LEADERSHIP qualities of JFK, IKE, Truman or FDR. Comparing the "True Leadership" abilities held by the four men from 1932-1963 to the nine men from 1964 - 2011 shows that the real issue we have suffered over the last 48 years is a lack of genuine leaders. We have elected people who said they could lead but in the end, inspired little and left behind messes for those who followed them.....Now we have another group of " Wannabees" all jockeying to get into the Oval Office to replace the worst President we've seen since Hoover.

Well we need LEADERSHIP to stay ahead in the areas of Space Exploration as that was JFK's true legacy....He took us to the MOON and man has marveled at all that followed that effort.....to stop now due to inept political folly and lack of vision is not only wrong, it is a crime.


Kennedy targeted the moon within a decade, we'll be lucky if in ten years, we are where we were ten years ago
Posted By David Rothkopf Wednesday, July 6, 2011 - http://www.foriegnpolicy.com/

Last week, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said in reference to Friday's launch of the last of 135 space shuttle missions,

" Some say that our final shuttle mission will mark the end of America's 50 years of dominance in human spaceflight. As a former astronaut and the current NASA Administrator, I want to tell you that American leadership in space will continue for at least the next half-century because we have laid the foundation for success -- and here at NASA failure is not an option. "

No, Charlie, at today's NASA, failure is not an option. It's an inevitability.

It's inevitable not because the quality of the men and women of NASA has declined. They remain among the best the United States has to offer. However, they have been drawn to a fabled program more because of what it has done in the past than what it is likely to do in the future. And that fact reveals the root cause of NASA's crisis -- and make no mistake, the program is more deeply in crisis than even during the dark hours around tragedies from the Apollo launch pad fire to the Challenger explosion to the disintegration of the Columbia on re-entry in 2003.

NASA is on a course to cede more than half a century of leadership in manned spaceflight not because of what has happened in Houston or at Kennedy Space Center in Florida or because of something that happened in space. No, NASA was undone by a loss of vision among America's political elites.

Simply put, they have forgotten how to lead and as a consequence, they have sacrificed our ability to lead as a nation. The national dialogue is devoid of a compelling vision of tomorrow, of the kind of lift that is essential if we are to head in any direction but down.

When I talk about such a dialogue, I'm not talking about the kind of reflexive, simplistic and misleading debate about whether we can afford a manned space program when the country is broke. No, I'm talking about the debate that real leaders, clear-eyed men and women who aspire to a better future, should continuously be having about how we ensure the country has the resources it needs to do those things it cannot afford to do without…including the exploration of new frontiers, the development of new technologies, and the inspiration of future generations.

You see, brain-dead political posturing of the sort that marks the current childish and irresponsible budget bickering in Washington has been going on for years. And as a consequence, the national patrimony has been given away in the form of tax breaks for rich individuals and companies that do not need them, deserve them or, in many cases, even want them. Whether George W. Bush offered up tax cuts and went into wars of choice because of deep seated ideological beliefs or for political gain, in so doing he didn't just obliterate America's surplus, he helped doom us to the period we are now entering: a period of austerity-induced withdrawal and decline.

When Republicans make the specious and childish arguments (see both David Brooks and David Leonhardt in the New York Times -- Leonhardt's piece is especially good) about not "raising taxes" at a time when we need to do everything to balance the budget, they are not just risking disaster and seeking to sacrifice the poor to pay for indulgences for the wealthy, they are effectively inviting China, Europe, India, and others to lead in the century ahead.

Manned spaceflight will continue…and Russians, Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, and others will step up to fill the void left by the fat, feckless Americans. We will be left with grainy images of John Kennedy setting the bold goal to reach the moon within a decade and wonder why such things could be achieved by greater generations that came before. How is it that once political leaders inspired by setting great goals and today our goals seem to be so defensive, so retrograde?

"We choose to go to the moon," said Kennedy in the late summer of 1962, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because the goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win…."

Now, our goals are what? To get back to where we were a decade ago? Back to a budget surplus? Back to a fairer tax code? Back to American global leadership that was untainted by missteps from Iraq to Guantanamo to Afghanistan?

To paraphrase another Kennedy, there are those -- among today's politicians -- who look at things the way they are and ask why…and then they dream of things that never were and do everything in their power to ensure we can't achieve them. In fact, in some cases, in the case of NASA and manned spaceflight -- the real stuff of dreams and inspiration and innovation and national pride and historical accomplishments -- it appears that we are going to stop even trying. As a consequence, when the Atlantis touches down, it will not just be a remarkable reusable spacecraft coming back to earth, it will also be, in a real way, a country's dreams grounded…at least until a true leader emerges again to set goals that lift us and drive us forward.

Navy's next carrier to be named CVN-79 USS JOHN F. KENNEDY

JFK would have been 94 years young on his birthday, Sunday May 29th....

He would have likely still had a spring in his step, a wink and smile for the crowd and a story or two to share.....He was the last true leader we had as President....

Many like to say that of Ronald Reagan, but Reagan was an actor. He portrayed who you wanted to see and "played" the part.....JFK was a TRUE LEADER...someone in whom Leadership was ingrained in the DNA.

John, we harldy knew ye.....we miss you and only wish that we had been able to hold on to you a little while longer.

Navy's next carrier to be named after JFK

By Lauren King
Meredith Kruse
The Virginian-Pilot
© May 30, 2011

John F. Kennedy will have a second aircraft carrier named after him.

The Navy announcement came Sunday, on what would have been the President and World War II naval veteran's 94th birthday.

Designated CVN-79, the carrier will be the second in the Gerald R. Ford class of carriers. The first, the Gerald R. Ford, CVN-78, is scheduled to be delivered to the fleet in September 2015. It was unclear when the John F. Kennedy would be completed and delivered.

The new carrier is under construction at Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries.

Ford-class aircraft carriers are designed to replace Enterprise- and Nimitz-class carriers. The new carriers should save more than $5 billion in ownership costs during their planned 50-year service lives compared with the Nimitz-class carriers, a Navy news release said.

They will retain the same hulls as the Nimitz class but will contain several advanced technology systems, including electromagnetic aircraft launching systems, advanced arresting gear, dual-band radar, a redesigned smaller island and a new propulsion plant.

The Kennedy and other Ford-class carriers will be the premier asset for crisis response, humanitarian relief and striking power in major combat operations, the Navy said.

"President John F. Kennedy exemplified the meaning of service, not just to country, but service to all humanity," Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said in a statement. "I am honored to have the opportunity to name the next aircraft carrier after this great sailor and inspirational leader, and to keep the rich tradition and history of USS John F. Kennedy sailing in the U.S. Fleet."

Kennedy entered the Navy in October 1941. Serving in the Pacific on a ship known as PT-109, he was in command on Aug. 2, 1943, when the ship was struck by an enemy vessel and split in half. Kennedy led the crew to safety over the next six days and later received the Navy and Marine Corps Medal and a Purple Heart.

The earlier carrier named after Kennedy, which bore the hull designation CV-67, was decommissioned in 2007 after serving for nearly 40 years. It stayed for several months in Hampton Roads before being towed to Philadelphia. Efforts are under way to preserve it as a museum in Rhode Island.

50 years later, JFK's words echo across time....." We choose to go to the Moon..."

John F. Kennedy was the right person at the right time to push us along into the Space Race. Russia was trying to assert itself and they had an edge in getting into space.....they also disregarded the safety of their Astronauts, unlike NASA where all efforts were in trying to keep the men we sent into Space safe.

JFK's leadership and vision are the true mark of leadership.....something that is completely missing from the White House and most of the Congress. Like driving down the highway in a restored 1961 Impala, we can imagine for a few minutes that we are back in that day & time when the whole world and our country were attentively listening the words of our 35th President who told us that we were going to the Moon and that while it would challenge our country's best, we would accomplish the task as it was the right thing to do....

Jack, we still hear you regardless of what the feckless idiot who presently sits at your desk says....We know you were the real deal, while others are only keeping the seat warm.

Race to Space, Through the Lens of Time
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: May 23, 2011
NY TIMES

It was the spring of 1961. President John F. Kennedy, speaking of new frontiers and projecting the vigor of youth, had been in office barely four months, and April had been the cruelest.

On the 12th, Yuri Gagarin became the first human to orbit Earth — one more space triumph for the Soviet Union. Though the flight was not unexpected, it was nonetheless deflating; it would be more than a month before Alan Shepard became the first American in space, and that was on a 15-minute suborbital flight. On the 17th, a force of anti-Castro exiles, trained by the C.I.A., invaded communist Cuba at the Bay of Pigs — a fiasco within 36 hours. Mr. Kennedy’s close aide Theodore Sorensen described him on the 19th as “anguished and fatigued” and “in the most emotional, self-critical state I had ever seen him.”

At one meeting, his brother Robert F. Kennedy, the attorney general, “turned on everybody,” it was reported, saying: “All you bright fellows. You got the president into this. We’ve got to do something to show the Russians we are not paper tigers.” At another, the president pleaded: “If somebody can, just tell me how to catch up. Let’s find somebody — anybody. I don’t care if it’s the janitor over there.” Heading back to the Oval Office, he told Mr. Sorensen, “There’s nothing more important.”

So, 50 years ago, on May 25, 1961, President Kennedy addressed a joint session of Congress and a national television audience, declaring: “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth.”

There it was, the challenge flung before an adversary and to a nation on edge in an unconventional war, the beginning of Project Apollo.

Echoes of this time lift off the pages of “John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon” (Palgrave Macmillan), a new book by John M. Logsdon, a political scientist and longtime space policy specialist at George Washington University. He has drawn on new research in archives, oral histories and memoirs available in recent years to shed new light on the moon race.

The famous speech came after five weeks of hand wringing, back-channel memos and closed-door conferences, often overseen by Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson. In those meetings NASA and Pentagon officials, scientists and engineers, budget analysts and others decided that sending astronauts to the Moon by the end of the sixties was the country’s best shot at overcoming the Soviet post-Sputnik command of the orbital front in the cold war.

But, Dr. Logsdon said in an interview last week, the new material highlighted some recurring themes that had been overlooked, like Mr. Kennedy’s return, time and again, to the idea of engaging the Russians in a cooperative venture, his continuing support of the project through a time of doubt, and how little was known then of Soviet capabilities and intentions.

Most of all, Dr. Logsdon said, hindsight had made him aware of his blindness to Apollo’s implications for the long run. He said he had been wrong, in a 1970 book on the subject, to think that the lunar decision “can be generalized to tell us how to proceed toward other “great new American enterprises.”

And like many others who for years lived and breathed the project, he finally had to recognize that the “impact of Apollo on the space program has on balance been negative.” It was, he explained, not the beginning of human voyages to Mars and lunar bases but “a dead-end undertaking in terms of human travel beyond the immediate vicinity of this planet.”

Of course, it takes two to have a race. The American president could not be sure the Russians had a lunar-landing program. There was no evidence that the Russians were building facilities for a booster capable of launching people to the Moon. Was the president just double-dog-daring them to come out in the schoolyard and show their stuff?

An intelligence report in 1962 had nothing to add, short of speculating that “the chances are better than even that a lunar landing is a Soviet objective.” Only in 1964 did intelligence agents detect signs that there was indeed someone to make it a race.

Initially, NASA set its sights on late 1967 for the landing attempt. As spending escalated, Apollo ran into its first sharp criticism in Congress, the science establishment and the news media in 1963. “Even some of the Kennedy advisers were eager to slip the end-of-decade date and relieve the pressure, mainly to save money,” Dr. Logsdon said.

These “winds of change,” as he put it, may have motivated Kennedy’s renewed invitation in a United Nations address in September to the Russians to join in a cooperative mission. He had proposed this informally to the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, at a meeting in Vienna shortly after his 1961 address to Congress. It was rejected out of hand. Russian accounts after the cold war have linked the rejection to a fear of exposing the technological shortcomings of the country’s program.

Walter A. McDougall, the historian who wrote “The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age,” has suggested that Kennedy’s periodic messages on space cooperation “were just exercises in image-building.” Dr. McDougall took a more skeptical view of spaceflight’s bearing on geopolitics, more in line with President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address on the spreading influence of the military-industrial complex in national affairs.

Dr. Logsdon countered that the American achievements had by 1963 progressed to the point, as Mr. Sorensen said, that there was “a very real chance that we were even with the Soviets.” And since the Cuban missile crisis the year before, it was noted, Soviet-American relations had improved.

McGeorge Bundy, the national security adviser, talked tactics with the president. Either press for cooperation with the Russians, he suggested, or continue to use their space effort as “a spur to our own.” In a memorandum, Mr. Bundy said that “if we cooperate, the pressure comes off” regarding the decade goal, and “we can easily argue that it was our crash effort in ’61 and ’62 which made the Soviets ready to cooperate.”

In the year of criticism, Kennedy wavered but never backed away from his lunar commitment. Visiting Cape Canaveral on Nov. 16, 1963, he seemed to enjoy seeing preparations for the next astronaut flights. Days later, on Nov. 22, in the speech Kennedy never lived to give in Dallas, he intended to say “the United States of America has no intention of finishing second in space.”

The goal was reached on July 20, 1969, when Neil Armstrong and then Buzz Aldrin stepped on the gray surface of the Sea of Tranquillity. Since the last of six landings, in 1972, no one has been back.

No presidents since have felt the need or believed they could marshal political support for comparable undertakings. NASA has achieved dazzling successes exploring the solar system and the cosmos with robotic craft. But the agency was driven at the outset by the challenge of human flight to the Moon. At the conclusion of Apollo, Dr. Logsdon wrote, “NASA entered a four-decade identity crisis from which it has yet to emerge.”

In the book and interview, Dr. Logsdon sought solace in thinking that flying to the Moon at least “will forever be a milestone in human experience, and particularly in the history of human exploration, perhaps eventual expansion.” Even critics like Dr. McDougall conceded that “perhaps Apollo could not be justified, but by God, we could not not do it.

Then and now.....Oil prices spike but no action from the White House....JFK handled the Steel Crisis in 1962 and showed how it should be done

President Kennedy called out the Steel manufacturers in 1962 when they jacked the price of Steel overnight by $6 a ton....He held a press conference and let everyone what he thought about what they were doing to the national economy and the budgets of American Families:


" Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steal corporations increasing steel prices by some $6 a ton constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest.

In this serious hour in our Nation's history when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking reservists to leave their homes and their families for months on end and servicemen to risk their lives--and four were killed in the last two days in Vietnam and asking union members to hold down their wage requests at a time when restraint and sacrifice are being asked of every citizen, the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans.

If this rise in the cost of steel is imitated by the rest of the industry, instead of rescinded, it would increase the cost of homes, autos, appliances, and most other items for every American family. It would increase the cost of machinery and tools to every American businessman and farmer. It would seriously handicap our efforts to prevent an inflationary spiral from eating up the pensions of our older citizens, and our new gains in purchasing power.

It would add, Secretary McNamara informed me this morning, an estimated $1 billion to the cost of our defences, at a time when every dollar is needed for national security and other purposes. It would make it more difficult for American goods to compete in foreign markets, more difficult to withstand competition from foreign imports, and thus more difficult to improve our balance of payments position, and stem the flow of gold. And it is necessary to stem it for our national security, if we're going to pay for our security committments abroad. And it would surely handicap our efforts to induce other industries and unions to adopt reasonable price and wage policies.

The facts of the matter are that there is no justification for an increase in steel prices. The recent settlement between the industry and the union, which doesn not even take place until July 1st, was widely acknowledged to be noninflationary, and the whole purpose and effect of this Administration's role, which both parties understood, was to achieve an agreement which would make unnecessary any increase in prices. Steel output per man is rising so fast that labor costs per ton of steel can actually be expected to decline in the next 12 months. And in fact, the acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics informed me this morning that, and I quote, "employment costs per unit of steel output in 1961 were essentially the same as they were in 1958."

The cost of the major raw materials, steel scrap and coal, has also been declining, and for an industry which has generally been operating at less than two-thirds of capacity, its profit rate has been normal and can be expected to rise sharply this year in view of the reduction in idle capacity. Their lot has been easier than that of one hundred thousand steel workers thrown out of work in the last 3 years. The industry's cash dividends have exceeded $600 million in each of the last 5 years, and earnings in the first quarter of this year were estimated in the February 28th Wall Street Journal to be among the highest in history.

In short, at a time when they could be exploring how more efficiency and better prices could be obtained, reducing prices in this industry in recognition of lower costs, their unusually good labor contract, their foreign competition and their increase in production and profits which are coming this year, a few gigantic corporations have decided to increase prices in ruthless disregard of their public responsibilities.

The Steelworkers Union can be proud that it abided by its responsibilities in this agreement, and this Government also has responsibilities which we intend to meet. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are examining the significance of this action in a free, competetive economy. The Department of Defence and other agencies are reviewing its impact on their policies of procurement. And I am informed that steps are under way by those members of the Congress who plan appropriate inquiries into how these price decisions are so quickly made and reached and what legislative safeguards may be needed to protect the public interest.
Price and wage decisions in this country, except for a very limited restriction in the case of monopolies and national emergency strikes, are and ought to be freely and privately made. But the American people have a right to expect, in return for that freedom, a higher sense of business responsibility for the welfare of their country than has been shown in the last 2 days.

Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer."

President John F. Kennedy - April 11, 1962

Without a true leader like JFK in the White House, we all have to HOPE for some better CHANGE in the cost of living as the way it is going, the Middle Class keeps getting it in the neck....

No HOPE of any better from the Empty Suit in residence in the White House....he is just keeping the chair warm for the next person.....Feckless and ineffective.


Hope and Change: Gas Prices Have Gone Up 67 Percent Since Obama Became President
That's compared to a 7 percent increase under Bush in his first 26 months.
6:00 PM, Mar 9, 2011 • By MARK HEMINGWAY

Ah, January of 2009. Hope was in the air, but more importantly, gas was under two dollars a gallon. Since then gas prices, have gone up 67 percent and it's an ominously upward trend. Interestingly enough, the Heritage Foundation also took a look at the first 26 months of Bush's presidency -- gas only rose 7 percent during that time frame.

Now obviously turmoil in the Middle East has something to do with our current astronomical gas prices, but keep in mind that by this point in the Bush presidency 9/11 had happened and we were on the verge of invading Iraq. So while the President can't be entirely responsible for global commodity prices, it's still worth asking what Obama's doing to make things worse.

After all, this is the President who told us "We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

This is the President that appointed a Secretary of the Interior that famously said he didn't mind if gas hit $10 a gallon.

This is the President who has illegally tried to illegally enforce an offshore drilling ban.

How much higher is gas going to go before the Administration takes a long hard look at what its doing to send gas prices through the roof?

The DNC raises the flag of surrender....Their resolution provides aid and comfort to the enemies of our way of life.

The DNC has shown that they are clueless to the nature of the situation in Afghanistan. They are trying to set a timetable for the War in Afghanistan which plays into the hands of the Taliban...As the Taliban has stated publicly, they will wait us out. Their saying has been, " The West have the watches, we have the time.."

To walk away from our responsibility to assist the people of Afghanistan is similar to what these feckless bastards wanted to do to Iraq also.

2011 will be a watershed year for this conflict. The Taliban has retreated to the Waziristan area of the AF/PAK border and the people of Afghanistan are starting to take back their country, similar to what the Iraqis did in the "Awakening". It is everyone's hope that we can resolve the situation sooner rather than later BUT there can only be Victory as to surrender Afghanistan to these murderous bastards is unaccpetable.

To cut & run as the DNC requests would be disastrous and only embolden our enemies who would like nothing more than to reestablish Afghanistan as their base of operations.

The DNC needs to understand that the price of Liberty is high, but we have always been willing to pay that price as the alternative is surrender to the dark forces who would make this world a sad place.

It is truly sad that the DNC is nothing but a sad and feckless group that has followed the failed ideals of people like Nancy Pelosi.....the Democrats that came before like Truman, FDR and JFK would be horrified by the lack of will shown by today's DNC to defend Liberty.

JFK's words echo across the years, and set the standard for what out nation has done to help those who needed our help:

" Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Jack had it right - The idjits at the present day DNC are unworthy to stand in his shadow.....They knowling provide aid and comfort to the enemies of our way of life. This world is not what we want and to continue to allow our country to be attacked because we failed to act would be to surrender the security of our nation.

DNC Pressures Obama, Passes Resolution Endorsing Swift End To Afghanistan War
Posted: 02/26/11

WASHINGTON -- Members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) gave President Obama a rare push on Saturday, adopting a resolution attempting to encourage the administration to move toward a speedier withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The resolution adopted Saturday states that "the Democratic Party supports prioritizing job creation and a swift withdrawal of U.S. armed forces and military contractors in Afghanistan which must include a significant and sizable reduction no later than July 2011."

"The passage of my resolution places the Democratic Party squarely on the side of American people who overwhelmingly support a swift withdrawal from Afghanistan, beginning with a significant and sizeable reduction in U.S. troop levels by no later than July of this year," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who submitted the resolution. Other submitters were DNC Vice Chairs Donna Brazile and Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) and DNC Secretary Alice Germond.

The Obama administration's policy is to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July 2011 and fully transfer security responsibilities over to Afghan forces by 2014. The pace of withdrawal is yet to be determined.

DNC resolutions are meant to express the sentiment of the party's members. Other measures approved at the winter meeting this year, which took place Feb. 24-26, include ones honoring the work of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), expressing solidarity with Wisconsin's protesters and memorializing Elizabeth Edwards.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.

The resolution:

Resolution Supporting Ending the War in Afghanistan Now and Transferring the Funding to Job Creation, other Crucial Domestic Priorities and Deficit Reduction
Submitted by: Hon. Barbara Lee, California

Donna Brazile, DNC Vice Chair/District of Columbia

Hon. Mike Honda, DNC Vice Chair/California

Alice Germond, DNC Secretary/West Virginia


WHEREAS, the United States has been involved in war in Afghanistan for almost a decade and remains militarily engaged in what has become the longest war in American history; and

WHEREAS, the mounting costs of the war in Afghanistan, now totaling over $100 billion a year, have constrained efforts to invest in job creation and in strengthening our country and our economy; and

WHEREAS, according to a Gallup Poll released February 2, 2011, 72% of Americans favor action to "speed up the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan"; and

WHEREAS, President Obama supports a transition to an Afghan-led security arrangement in Afghanistan "because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people's"; and

WHEREAS, a diplomatic solution in Afghanistan that emphasizes economic development, political reconciliation and inclusion, the engagement of regional and global stakeholders, and the safeguarding of basic human rights is essential to ensure long-term stability in Afghanistan and the surrounding region; and

WHEREAS, military and intelligence officials agree that the situation in Afghanistan will not ultimately be resolved by a military solution; and

WHEREAS, the national and economic security of the United States depend upon a national defense strategy which addresses the modern threat of global terrorism in an effective, sustainable, and comprehensive manner; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Democratic Party recognizes the enormous strain placed on the U.S. military servicemembers, and their families since 2001 as a result of continuing engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan and remains committed to ensuring that our troops have the support that they require when deployed as well as the care that they and their families need and deserve when they return home;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Democratic Party supports prioritizing job creation and a swift withdrawal of U.S. armed forces and military contractors in Afghanistan which must include a significant and sizable reduction no later than July 2011

Once again, POTUS makes it all about himself instead of the person he is supposed to be honoring

I read the story and saw the clip while on the plane to NYC this morning. POTUS was at a ceremony honoring President Kennedy and the 50th Anniversary of JFK's Inaugural.

While the ceremony and the sentiment is appropriate, once again, the President had to make the remarks all about himself.

He stated, " I can stand here as president because of JFK.."

Why does that have to be the focal point of what JFK means 50 years later??? How about " Because of JFK, young people of color have a richer and brighter future??"" or " Because of JFK, we live in a world where people from around the world live better lives as President Kennedy paved the way for a more peaceful world.."

Either of those remarks would have been much more PRESIDENTIAL and would have focused on the larger effect of JFK's legacy. Instead , it all comes back to him...

We need to have a leader who doesn't make everything all about himself, but instead speaks about the country and its citizens...BUT then again, we are talking about a man who has TWO Autobiographies so what the hell was I thinking.....Obama is just acting TRUE TO HIS OWN FORM...ugh.

Obama: I can stand here as president because of JFK
By David Jackson, USA TODAY

President Obama provided another reminder last night that he is leading a new political generation -- one born after the election of John F. Kennedy.


Yet in paying tribute last night to the 50th anniversary of JFK's inauguration, Obama -- age 49 -- said he has been inspired by Kennedy's example, and explained why may of his successors will likely feel the same way.

"Because of his vision, more people prospered, more people served, our union was made more perfect," Obama said during a star-studded gala at the Kennedy Center in Washington.

The nation's first African-American president added: "Because of that vision, I can stand here tonight as president of the United States."

Civil rights posed only one of the challenges facing that young president a half-century ago; Obama also cited the height of the Cold War, as the Soviet Union pledged to "bury" the United States and supported "wars of liberation" across the globe.

Said Obama: In this volatile America, this tinderbox of a world, President Kennedy led with a steadying hand, defusing the most perilous crisis of the Cold War without firing a single shot. Enforcing the rights of young black men and women to attend the university of their choice. Launching a corps of volunteers as ambassadors for peace in distant centers of the globe. Setting America's sights on the moon, unwilling to lose the Space Race in the wake of Sputnik.

The current president, fighting an economic downturn and the threat of terrorism, also drew laughter and applause with this line: "I can only imagine how he must have felt, entering the Oval Office in turbulent times."

50 years ago today....JFK becomes President

Inaugural Address
by President John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961, 12:11 EST


We observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom. . .
symbolizing an end as well as a beginning. . .signifying renewal
as well as change for I have sworn before you and Almighty God
the same solemn oath our forbears prescribed nearly a century
and three-quarters ago.

The world is very different now, for man holds in his mortal hands
the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life.
And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forbears fought
are still at issue around the globe. . .the belief that the rights of man
come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution.

Let the word go forth from this time and place. . .to friend and foe alike. . .
that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans. . .
born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace,
proud of our ancient heritage. . .and unwilling to witness or permit the slow
undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed,
and to which we are committed today. . .at home and around the world.

Let every nation know. . .whether it wishes us well or ill. . .
that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship,
support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and
the success of liberty. This much we pledge. . .and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share:
we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United. . .there is
little we cannot do in a host of co-operative ventures.
Divided. . .there is little we can do. . .for we dare not meet
a powerful challenge, at odds, and split asunder.
To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free:
we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not
have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny.
We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view.
But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their
own freedom. . .and to remember that. . .in the past. . .those who
foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.
To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe
struggling to break the bonds of mass misery: we pledge our best
efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period
is required. . .not because the Communists may be doing it,
not because we seek their votes, but because it is right.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor,
it cannot save the few who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border: we offer a special pledge. . .
to convert our good words into good deeds. . .in a new alliance for progress
. . .to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of
poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of
hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them
to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. . .and let
every other power know that this hemisphere intends to remain the master
of its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states: the United Nations. . .
our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war
have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge
of support. . .to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for
invective. . .to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak. . .
and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversaries,
we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew
the quest for peace; before the dark powers of destruction unleashed
by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient
beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from
our present course. . .both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons,
both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing
to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of Mankind's
final war.

So let us begin anew. . .remembering on both sides that civility
is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof.
Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring
those problems which divide us. Let both sides, for the first time,
formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and
control of arms. . .and bring the absolute power to destroy
other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead
of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the
deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage
the arts and commerce. Let both sides unite to heed in all corners
of the earth the command of Isaiah. . .to "undo the heavy burdens. . .
let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of co-operation may push back the jungle of suspicion. . .
let both sides join in creating not a new balance of power. . .
but a new world of law. . .where the strong are just. . .
and the weak secure. . .and the peace preserved. . . .

All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days.
Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days. . .
nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps
in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens. . .more than mine. . .will rest the
final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded,
each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony
to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered
the call to service surround the globe. Now the trumpet summons us again. . .
not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need. . .not as a call to battle. . .
though embattled we are. . .but a call to bear the burden of a long
twilight struggle. . .year in and year out, rejoicing in hope,
patient in tribulation. . .a struggle against the common enemies of man:
tyranny. . .poverty. . .disease. . .and war itself. Can we forge against
these enemies a grand and global alliance. . .North and South. . .
East and West. . .that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind?
Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted
the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger; I do not shrink
from this responsibility. . .I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us
would exchange places with any other people or any other generation.
The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor
will light our country and all who serve it. . .and the glow from
that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans. . .ask not what your country can
do for you. . .ask what you can do for your country. My fellow
citizens of the world. . .ask not what America will do for you,
but what together we can do for the Freedom of Man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world,
ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice
which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward,
with history the final judge of our deeds; let us go forth to lead
the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that
here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

THE DIFFERENCE......JFK made a difference

This is the difference. READ the enclosed words from THE PRESIDENT, circa April 1962. SEE the difference in what a PRESIDENT should do compared with the light-weight we have now. John F. Kennedy took the message right to the people in a way that laid it out for all to see.

I am not pro-union, and I am not anti-business but the way the Steel Crisis played out, a small group of Steel Executives made decisions that would hurt the rest of America and JFK called them out on it. Today, we have groups of executives doing the same thing in multiple fields and no one is taking them on. They have the government in their pocket.

I support those who look out for the best interest of the country and see that any group, union or executives who believe they can do whatever they want without care for how it effects the citizens of this country needs to be called out.

Too bad we can only look to history to see the example for what a PRESIDENT should do, instead of being able to see one in the White House who can do so today.


Transcript
Official White House Transcript

Presidential News Conference #30, April 11, 1962
State Department Auditorium, Washington, D.C.
Date: April 11, 1962

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. I have several announcements to make.

Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steel corporations, increasing steel prices by some 6 dollars a ton, constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest.

In this serious hour in our nation's history, when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking Reservists to leave their homes and families for months on end, and servicemen to risk their lives -- and four were killed in the last two days in Viet Nam -- and asking union members to hold down their wage requests, at a time when restraint and sacrifice are being asked of every citizen, the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans.

If this rise in the cost of steel is imitated by the rest of the industry, instead of rescinded, it would increase the cost of homes, autos, appliances, and most other items for every American family. It would increase the cost of machinery and tools to every American businessman and farmer. It would seriously handicap our efforts to prevent an inflationary spiral from eating up the pensions of our older citizens, and our new gains in purchasing power.

It would add, Secretary McNamara informed me this morning, an estimated one billion dollars to the cost of our defenses, at a time when every dollar is needed for national security and other purposes. It would make it more difficult for American goods to compete in foreign markets, more difficult to withstand competition from foreign imports, and thus more difficult to improve our balance of payments position, and stem the flow of gold. And it is necessary to stem it for our national security, if we are going to pay for our security commitments abroad. And it would surely handicap our efforts to induce other industries and unions to adopt responsible price and wage policies.

The facts of the matter are that there is no justification for an increase in the steel prices. The recent settlement between the industry and the union, which does not even take place until July 1st, was widely acknowledged to be non-inflationary, and the whole purpose and effect of this Administration's role, which both parties understood, was to achieve an agreement which would make unnecessary any increase in prices.

Steel output per man is rising so fast that labor costs per ton of steel can actually be expected to decline in the next twelve months. And in fact, the Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics informed me this morning that, and I quote: "Employment costs per unit of steel output in 1961 were essentially the same as they were in 1958. "

The cost of major raw materials, steel scrap and coal, has also been declining, and for an industry which has been generally operating at less than two-thirds of capacity, its profit rate has been normal and can be expected to rise sharply this year in view of the reduction in idle capacity. Their lot has been easier than that of a hundred thousand steel workers thrown out of work in the last three years. The industry's cash dividends have exceeded 600 million dollars in each of the last five years, and earnings in the first quarter of this year were estimated in the February 28th Wall Street Journal to be among the highest in history.

In short, at a time when they could be exploring how more efficiency and better prices could be obtained, reducing prices in this industry in recognition of lower costs, their unusually good labor contract, their foreign competition and their increase in production and profits which are coming this year, a few gigantic corporations have decided to increase prices in ruthless disregard of their public responsibilities....

The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are examining the significance of this action in a free, competitive economy.

The Department of Defense and other agencies are reviewing its impact on their policies of procurement, and I am informed that steps are underway by those Members of the Congress who plan appropriate inquiries into how these price decisions are so quickly made, and reached, and what legislative safeguards may be needed to protect the public interest.

Price and wage decisions in this country, except for very limited restrictions in the case of monopolies and national emergency strikes, are and ought to be freely and privately made, but the American people have a right to expect in return for that freedom, a higher sense of business responsibility for the welfare of their country than has been shown in the last two days.

Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer."