Primary Sources
Lyndon B. Johnson's Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Nationwide War on the Sources of Poverty (1964) |
Richard Nixon's Statements on Vetoing Economic Opportunity Amendments (1971) |
To the Congress of the United States: We are citizens of the richest and most fortunate nation in the history of the world. One hundred and eighty years ago we were a small country struggling for survival on the margin of a hostile land. Today we have established a civilization of free men which spans an entire continent. With the growth of our country has come opportunity for our people--opportunity to educate our children, to use our energies in productive work, to increase our leisure-opportunity for almost every American to hope that through work and talent he could create a better life for himself and his family. The path forward has not been an easy one. But we have never lost sight of our goal: an America in which every citizen shares all the opportunities of his society, in which every man has a chance to advance his welfare to the limit of his capacities. We have come a long way toward this goal. We still have a long way to go. The distance which remains is the measure of the great unfinished work of our society. To finish that work I have called for a national war on poverty. Our objective: total victory. There are millions of Americans--one fifth of our people--who have not shared in the abundance which has been granted to most of us, and on whom the gates of opportunity have been closed. What does this poverty mean to those who endure it ? It means a daily struggle to secure the necessities for even a meager existence. It means that the abundance, the comforts, the opportunities they see all around them are beyond their grasp. Worst of all, it means hopelessness for the young. The young man or woman who grows up without a decent education, in a broken home, in a hostile and squalid environment, in ill health or in the face of racial injustice-that young man or woman is often trapped in a life of poverty. He does not have the skills demanded by a complex society. He does not know how to acquire those skills. He faces a mounting sense of despair which drains initiative and ambition and energy. Our tax cut will create millions of new jobs--new exits from poverty. But we must also strike down all the barriers which keep many from using those exits. The war on poverty is not a struggle simply to support people, to make them dependent on the generosity of others. It is a struggle to give people a chance. It is an effort to allow them to develop and use their capacities, as we have been allowed to develop and use ours, so that they can share, as others share, in the promise of this nation. We do this, first of all, because it is right that we should. From the establishment of public education and land grant colleges through agricultural extension and encouragement to industry, we have pursued the goal of a nation with full and increasing opportunities for all its citizens. The war on poverty is a further step in that pursuit. We do it also because helping some will increase the prosperity of all. Our fight against poverty will be an investment in the most valuable of our resources--the skills and strength of our people. And in the future, as in the past, this investment will return its cost many fold to our entire economy. If we can raise the annual earnings of 10 million among the poor by only $1,000 we will have added 14 billion dollars a year to our national output. In addition we can make important reductions in public assistance payments which now cost us 4 billion dollars a year, and in the large costs of fighting crime and delinquency, disease and hunger. This is only part of the story. Our history has proved that each time we broaden the base of abundance, giving more people the chance to produce and consume, we create new industry, higher production, increased earnings and better income for all. Giving new opportunity to those who have little will enrich the lives of all the rest. Because it is right, because it is wise, and because, for the first time in our history, it is possible to couquer poverty, I submit, for the consideration of the Congress and the country, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964• The Act does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty. It can be a milestone in our one-hundred eighty year search for a better life for our people. This Act provides five basic opportunities. It will give almost half a million underprivileged young Americans the opportunity to develop skills, continue education, and find useful work. It will give every American community the opportunity to develop a comprehensive plan to fight its own poverty--and help them to carry out their plans. It will give dedicated Americans the opportunity to enlist as volunteers in the war against poverty. It will give many workers and farmers the opportunity to break through particular barriers which bar their escape from poverty. It will give the entire nation the opportunity for a concerted attack on poverty through the establishment, under my direction, of the Office of Economic Opportunity, a national headquarters for the war against poverty. This is how we propose to create these opportunities. First we will give high priority to helping young Americans who lack skills, who have not completed their education or who cannot complete it because they are too poor. The years of high school and college age are the most critical stage of a young person's life. If they are not helped then, many will be condemned to a life of poverty which they, in turn, will pass on to their children. I therefore recommend the creation of a Job Corps, a Work-Training Program, and a Work Study Program. A new national Job Corps will build toward an enlistment of 100,000 young men. They will be drawn from those whose background, health and education make them least fit for useful work. Those who volunteer will enter more than 100 Camps and Centers around the country. Half of these young men will work, in the first year, on special conservation projects to give them education, useful work experience and to enrich the natural resources of the country. Half of these young men will receive, in the first year, a blend of training, basic education and work experience in Job Training Centers. These are not simply camps for the underprivileged. They are new educational institutions, comparable in innovation to the land grant colleges. Those who enter them will emerge better qualified to play a productive role in American society. A new national Work-Training Program operated by the Department of Labor will provide work and training for 200,000 American men and women between the ages of 16 and 21. This will be developed through state and local governments and non-profit agencies. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans badly need the experience, the income, and the sense of purpose which useful full or part-time work can bring. For them such work may mean the difference between finishing school or dropping out. Vital community activities from hospitals and playgrounds to libraries and settlement houses are suffering because there are not enough people to staff them. We are simply bringing these needs together. A new national Work-Study Program operated by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare will provide federal funds for part-time jobs for 140,000 young Americans who do not go to college because they cannot afford it. There is no more senseless waste than the waste of the brainpower and skill of those who are kept from college by economic circumstance. Under this program they will, in a great American tradition, be able to work their way through school. They and the country will be richer for it. Second, through a new Community Action program we intend to strike at poverty at its source--in the streets of our cities and on the farms of our countryside among the very young and the impoverished old. This program asks men and women throughout the country to prepare long-range plans for the attack on poverty in their own local communities. These are not plans prepared in Washington and imposed upon hundreds of different situations. They are based on the fact that local citizens best understand their own problems, and know best how to deal with those problems. These plans will be local plans striking at the many untilled needs which underlie poverty in each community, not just one or two. Their components and emphasis will differ as needs differ. These plans will be local plans calling upon all the resources available to the community-federal and state, local and private, human and material. And when these plans are approved by the Office of Economic Opportunity, the federal government will finance up to 9070 of the additional cost for the first two years. The most enduring strength of our nation is the huge reservoir of talent, initiative and leadership which exists at every level of our society. Through the Community Action Program we call upon this, our greatest strength, to overcome our greatest weakness. Third, I ask for the authority to recruit and train skilled volunteers for the war against poverty. Thousands of Americans have volunteered to serve the needs of other lands. Thousands more want the chance to serve the needs of their own land. They should have that chance. Among older people who have retired, as well as among the young, among women as well as men, there are many Americans who are ready to enlist in our war against poverty. They have skills and dedication. They are badly needed. If the State requests them, if the community needs and will use them, we will recruit and train them and give them the chance to serve. Fourth, we intend to create new opportunities for certain hard-hit groups to break out of the pattern of poverty. Through a new program of loans and guarantees we can provide incentives to those who will employ the unemployed. Through programs of work and retraining for unemployed fathers and mothers we can help them support their families in dignity while preparing themselves for new work. Through funds to purchase needed land, organize cooperatives, and create new and adequate family farms we can help those whose life on the land has been a struggle without hope. Filth, I do not intend that the war against poverty become a series of uncoordinated and unrelated efforts--that it perish for lack of leadership and direction. Therefore this bill creates, in the Executive Office of the President, a new Office of Economic Opportunity. Its Director will be my personal Chief of Staff for the War against poverty. I intend to appoint Sargent Shriver to this post. He will be directly responsible for these new programs. He will work with and through existing agencies of the government. This program--the Economic Opportunity Act--is the foundation of our war against poverty. But it does not stand alone. For the past three years this government has advanced a number of new proposals which strike at important areas of need and distress. I ask the Congress to extend those which are already in action, and to establish those which have already been proposed. There are programs to help badly distressed areas such as the Area Redevelopment Act, and the legislation now being prepared to help Appalachia. There are programs to help those without training find a place in today's complex society--such as the Manpower Development Training Act and the Vocational Education Act for youth. There are programs to protect those who are specially vulnerable to the ravages of poverty--hospital insurance for the elderly, protection for migrant farm workers, a food stamp program for the needy, coverage for millions not now protected by a minimum wage, new and expanded unemployment benefits for men out of work, a Housing and Community Development bill for those seeking decent homes. Finally there are programs which help the entire country, such as aid to education which, by raising the quality of schooling available to every American child, will give a new chance for knowledge to the children of the poor. I ask immediate action on all these programs. What you are being asked to consider is not a simple or an easy program. But poverty is not a simple or an easy enemy. It cannot be driven from the land by a single attack on a single front. Were this so we would have conquered poverty long ago. Nor can it be conquered by government alone. For decades American labor and American business, private institutions and private individuals have been engaged in strengthening our economy and offering new opportunity to those in need. We need their help, their support, and their full participation. Through this program we offer new incentives and new opportunities for cooperation, so that all the energy of our nation, not merely the efforts of government, can be brought to bear on our common enemy. Today, for the first time in our history, we have the power to strike away the barriers [p.380] to full participation in our society. Having the power, we have the duty. The Congress is charged by the Constitution to "provide . . . for the general welfare of the United States." Our present abundance is a measure of its success in fulfilling that duty. Now Congress is being asked to extend that welfare to all our people. The President of the United States is President of all the people in every section of the country. But this office also holds a special responsibility to the distressed and disinherited, the hungry and the hopeless of this abundant nation. It is in pursuit of that special responsibility that I submit this Message to you today. The new program I propose is within our means. Its cost of 970 million dollars is 1 percent of our national budget--and every dollar I am requesting for this program is already included in the budget I sent to Congress in January. But we cannot measure its importance by its cost. For it charts an entirely new course of hope for our people. We are fully aware that this program will not eliminate all the poverty in America in a few months or a few years. Poverty is deeply rooted and its causes are many. But this program will show the way to new opportunities for millions of our fellow citizens. It will provide a lever with which we can begin to open the door to our prosperity for those who have been kept outside. It will also give us the chance to test our weapons, to try our energy and ideas and imagination for the many battles yet to come. As conditions change, and as experience illuminates our difficulties, we will be prepared to modify our strategy. And this program is much more than a beginning. Rather it is a commitment. It is a total commitment by this President, and this Congress, and this nation, to pursue victory over the most ancient of mankind's enemies. On many historic occasions the President has requested from Congress the authority to move against forces which were endangering the well-being of our country. This is such an occasion. On similar occasions in the past we have often been called upon to wage war against foreign enemies which threatened our freedom. Today we are asked to declare war on a domestic enemy which threatens the strength of our nation and the welfare of our people. If we now move forward against this enemy--if we can bring to the challenges of peace the same determination and strength which has brought us victory in war--then this day and this Congress will have won a secure and honorable place in the history of the nation, and the enduring gratitude of generations of Americans yet to come. LYNDON B. JOHNSON Source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=26109 |
To the Senate of the United States:
I return herewith without my approval S. 2007, the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1971. This legislation undertakes three major Federal commitments in the field of social welfare: extension of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, creation of a National Legal Services Corporation, and establishment of a comprehensive child development program. As currently drafted, all three proposals contain provisions that would ill serve the stated objectives of this legislation, provisions altogether unacceptable to this administration. Upon taking office, this administration sought to redesign, to redirect--indeed, to rehabilitate--the Office of Economic Opportunity, which had lost much public acceptance in the five years since its inception. Our objective has been to provide this agency with a new purpose and a new role. Our goal has been to make the Office of Economic Opportunity the primary research and development arm of the Nation's and the Government's ongoing effort to diminish and eventually eliminate poverty in the United States. Despite occasional setbacks, considerable progress has been made. That progress is now jeopardized. Two ill-advised and restrictive amendments contained in this bill would vitiate our efforts and turn back the clock. In the 1964 act the President was granted authority to delegate--by executive action--programs of OEO to other departments of the Government. That flexibility has enabled this administration to shift tried and proven programs out of OEO to other agencies--so that OEO can concentrate its resources and talents on generating and testing new ideas, new programs and new policies to assist the remaining poor in the United States. This flexibility, however, would be taken away under amendments added by the Congress--and the President would be prohibited from spinning off successful and continuing programs to the service agencies. If this congressional action were allowed to stand, OEO would become an operational agency, diluting its special role as incubator and tester of ideas and pioneer for social programs. Secondly, the Congress has written into the OEO legislation an itemized list of mandatory funding levels for 15 categorical programs. This specific earmarking of funds for specific programs at OEO is genuinely reactionary legislation; it locks OEO executives into supporting and continuing programs that may prove less productive; it inhibits the very experimentation and innovation which I believe should be the primary mission of OEO; it denies administrative discretion to the executives of OEO and, most important, it restricts and limits the amount of funds available for hopeful new initiatives. Should these amendments become law, OEO's days as the principal pioneer of the Nation's effort to combat poverty would be numbered; OEO would rapidly degenerate into just another ossified bureaucracy. Even if OEO legislation were to come separately to my desk, containing these provisions, I would be compelled to veto it as inconsistent with the best interest of America's poor. I urge the Congress to remove these restrictions. The provision creating the National Legal Services Corporation differs crucially from the proposal originally put forth by this administration. Our intention was to create a legal services corporation, to aid the poor, that was independent and free of politics, yet contained built-in safeguards to assure its operation in a responsible manner. In the Congress, however, the legislation has been substantially altered, so that the quintessential principle of accountability has been lost. In re-writing our original proposal, the door has been left wide open to those abuses which have cost one anti-poverty program after another its public enthusiasm and public support. The restrictions which the Congress has imposed upon the President in the selection of directors of the Corporation is also an affront to the principle of accountability to the American people as a whole. Under congressional revisions, the President has full discretion to appoint only six of the seventeen directors; the balance must be chosen from lists provided by various professional, client and special interest groups, some of which are actual or potential grantees of the Corporation. The sole interest to which each board member must be beholden is the public interest. The sole constituency he must represent is the whole American people. The best way to insure this in this case is the constitutional way--to provide a free hand in the appointive process to the one official accountable to, and answerable to, the whole American people--the President of the United States, and to trust to the Senate of the United States to exercise its advise and consent function. To compound the problem of accountability, Congress has further proposed that during the crucial 90 day period--when the Corporation is set into motion--its governance is to rest exclusively in the hands of designees of five private interest groups. That proposal should be dropped. It would be better to have no legal services corporation than one so irresponsibly structured. I urge the Congress to rewrite this bill, to create a new National Legal Services Corporation, truly independent of political influences, containing strict safeguards against the kind of abuses certain to erode public support--a legal services corporation which places the needs of low-income clients first, before the political concerns of either legal service attorneys or elected officials. But the most deeply flawed provision of this legislation is Title V, "Child Development Programs." Adopted as an amendment to the OEO legislation, this program points far beyond what this administration envisioned when it made a "national commitment to providing all American children an opportunity for a healthful and stimulating development during the first five years of life." Though Title V's stated purpose, "to provide every child with a full and fair opportunity to reach his full potential" is certainly laudable, the intent of Title V is overshadowed by the fiscal irresponsibility, administrative unworkability, and family-weakening implications of the system it envisions. We owe our children something more than good intentions. We cannot and will not ignore the challenge to do more for America's children in their all-important early years. But our response to this challenge must be a measured, evolutionary, painstakingly considered one, consciously designed to cement the family in its rightful position as the keystone of our civilization. Further, in returning this legislation to the Congress, I do not for a moment overlook the fact that there are some needs to be served, and served now. One of these needs is for day care, to enable mothers, particularly those at the lowest income levels, to take full-time jobs. Federal support for State and local day care services under Head Start and the Social Security Act already totals more than half a billion dollars a year--but this is not enough. That is why our H.R. 1 welfare reform proposals, which have been before the Congress for the past 26 months, include a request for $750 million annually in day care funds for welfare recipients and the working poor, including $50 million for construction of facilities. And that is why we support the increased tax deductions written into the Revenue Act of 1971, which will provide a significant Federal subsidy for day care in families where both parents are employed, potentially benefitting 97 percent of all such families in the country and offering parents free choice of the child care arrangements they deem best for their own families. This approach reflects my conviction that the Federal Government's role wherever possible should be one of assisting parents to purchase needed day care services in the private, open market, with Federal involvement in direct provision of such services kept to an absolute minimum. A second imperative is the protection of children from actual suffering and deprivation. The administration is already moving on this front, under a policy of concentrating assistance where it will help the most--a policy certain to suffer if Title V's scatteration of attention and resources were to become law. Action we are presently taking includes: --Expansion of nutritional assistance to poor children by nearly tripling participation in the food stamp program (from 3.6 million people to 10.6 million people) and doubling support for child nutrition programs (from less than $600 million to more than $1.2 billion) since 1969. --Improvement of medical care for poor children through the introduction of more vigorous screening and treatment procedures under Medicaid. --More effective targeting of maternal and child health services on low income mothers who need them most. Furthermore, Head Start continues to perform both valuable day care and early education services, and an important experimentation and demonstration function which identifies and paves the way for wider application of successful techniques. And the Office of Child Development which I established within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1969 provides overall leadership for these and many other activities focused on the first five years of life. But, unlike these tried and tested programs for our children, the child development envisioned in this legislation would be truly a long leap into the dark for the United States Government and the American people. I must share the view of those of its supporters who proclaim this to be the most radical piece of legislation to emerge from the Ninety-second Congress. I also hold the conviction that such far-reaching national legislation should not, must not, be enacted in the absence of a great national debate upon its merit, and broad public acceptance of its principles. Few contend that such a national debate has taken place. No one, I believe, would contend that the American people, as a whole, have determined that this is the direction in which they desire their government and nation to go. Specifically, these are my present objections to the proposed child development program: First, neither the immediate need nor the desirability of a national child development program of this character has been demonstrated. Secondly, day care centers to provide for the children of the poor so that their parents can leave the welfare rolls to go on the payrolls of the nation, are already provided for in H.R. 1, my workfare legislation. To some degree, child development centers are a duplication of these efforts. Further, these child development programs would be redundant in that they duplicate many existing and growing Federal, State and local efforts to provide social, medical, nutritional and education services to the very young. Third, given the limited resources of the Federal budget, and the growing demands upon the Federal taxpayer, the expenditure of two billions of dollars in a program whose effectiveness has yet to be demonstrated cannot be justified. And the prospect of costs which could eventually reach $20 billion annually is even more unreasonable. Fourth, for more than two years this administration has been working for the enactment of welfare reform, one of the objectives of which is to bring the family together. This child development program appears to move in precisely the opposite direction. There is a respectable school of opinion that this legislation would lead toward altering the family relationship. Before even a tentative step is made in this direction by their government, the American people should be fully consulted. Fifth, all other factors being equal, good public policy requires that we enhance rather than diminish both parental authority and parental involvement with children--particularly in those decisive early years when social attitudes and a conscience are formed, and religious and moral principles are first inculcated. Sixth, there has yet to be an adequate answer provided to the crucial question of who the qualified people are, and where they would come from, to staff the child development centers. Seventh, as currently written, the legislation would create, ex nihilo, a new army of bureaucrats. By making any community over 5,000 population eligible as a direct grantee for HEW child development funds, the proposal actively invites the participation of as many as 7,000 prime sponsors--each with its own plan, its own council, its own version of all the other machinery that has made Head Start, with fewer than 1,200 grantees, so difficult a management problem. Eighth, the States would be relegated to an insignificant role. This new program would not only arrogate the initiative for preschool education to the Federal Government from the States--only 8 of which even require kindergarten at present. It would also retain an excessive measure of operational control for such education at the Federal level, in the form of the standards and program guidelines to be set down by the Secretary of HEW. Ninth, for the Federal Government to plunge headlong financially into supporting child development would commit the vast moral authority of the National Government to the side of communal approaches to child rearing over against the family-centered approach. This President, this Government, is unwilling to take that step. With this message, I urge the Congress to act now to pass the OEO extension and to create the legal services corporation along the lines proposed in our original legislation. RICHARD NIXON The White House December 9, 1971 Source:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3251 |
Primary Source Analysis
In comparing these two sources, it is evident that Nixon had extended upon Johnson's policies regarding the United States economy, where they are both trying to end the "War on Poverty". However, Nixon proves to be incredibly skeptical in passing the Economic Opportunity Amendments in favor of reducing the government budget, while Johnson is shown to be more willing to risk increasing the national budget to provide equal opportunities for everyone, especially the poor. The account for these differences is that Johnson was the president after the assassination of John F. Kennedy and was therefore more concerned with continuing JFK's legacy by providing equal opportunity, while Nixon was more concerned for foreign policy over domestic policy, in light of the Vietnam War, and was thus more skeptical on where the nation's money was going, whether it be war or towards legislation.
Johnson's and Nixon's speeches tell us about the time period in that there were increasing rates of unemployment, thus needing to create legislation to mitigate such rates by educating children and creating economic opportunities for the poor. Johnson's solution was to propose an Economic Opportunity Act that educated young workers of job skills, used state and private resources, train skilled volunteers, creating opportunities for the unemployed, and creating the Office of Economic Opportunity. Johnson reveals one of his solutions on creating opportunity, in which children should be given educational opportunities, "With the growth of our country has come opportunity for our people--opportunity to educate our children, to use our energies in productive work, to increase our leisure-opportunity for almost every American to hope that through work and talent he could create a better life for himself and his family," (Johnson 1964). Johnson explains in length that the "War on Poverty" is to be led by the people and supported by the government, "Fifth, I do not intend that the war against poverty become a series of uncoordinated and unrelated efforts--that it perish for lack of leadership and direction," (Johnson 1954). Johnson further implies this by saying that "This program--the Economic Opportunity Act--is the foundation of our war against poverty. But it does not stand alone," (Johnson 1964). Johnson believes in the notion that, with the support of the government, the people can continue to fight poverty and possibly make it negligible by leading themselves, including "American labor and American businesses, private institutions and private individuals" (Johnson 1964).
In contrast with Johnson's speech, Nixon appeals to the public interest by vetoing the Economic Opportunity Amendments and justifies it by saying it allows the Office of Economic Opportunity to be separate from politics and to focus on devising new ideas to fight poverty. Nixon also shows concern of the federal budget if the amendments happen to be passed, as the amendments would further increase government costs, as seen when says "given the limited resources of the Federal budget, and the growing demands upon the Federal taxpayer, the expenditure of two billions of dollars in a program whose effectiveness has yet to be demonstrated cannot be justified," (Nixon 1971). Another stance of Nixon that contrasts with Johnson's is that Nixon views child development programs as unnecessary, saying that "these child development programs would be redundant in that they duplicate many existing and growing Federal, State and local efforts to provide social, medical, nutritional and education services to the very young," (Nixon 1971). Overall, Nixon seems more cautious of improving child development programs and in associating the Office of Economic Opportunities with politics.
These differences in opinions on how the government should regulate the economy may have occurred due to the different situations each president was experiencing at the time. Johnson, in approving the Civil Rights Act of 1964, would naturally try to extend opportunities to the poor in light of another step towards equality with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nixon, on the other hand, was more worried about the occurring war in Vietnam and had tried to redirect money to focus on the war effort against communism outside of the United States than on the United States economy.
Johnson's and Nixon's speeches tell us about the time period in that there were increasing rates of unemployment, thus needing to create legislation to mitigate such rates by educating children and creating economic opportunities for the poor. Johnson's solution was to propose an Economic Opportunity Act that educated young workers of job skills, used state and private resources, train skilled volunteers, creating opportunities for the unemployed, and creating the Office of Economic Opportunity. Johnson reveals one of his solutions on creating opportunity, in which children should be given educational opportunities, "With the growth of our country has come opportunity for our people--opportunity to educate our children, to use our energies in productive work, to increase our leisure-opportunity for almost every American to hope that through work and talent he could create a better life for himself and his family," (Johnson 1964). Johnson explains in length that the "War on Poverty" is to be led by the people and supported by the government, "Fifth, I do not intend that the war against poverty become a series of uncoordinated and unrelated efforts--that it perish for lack of leadership and direction," (Johnson 1954). Johnson further implies this by saying that "This program--the Economic Opportunity Act--is the foundation of our war against poverty. But it does not stand alone," (Johnson 1964). Johnson believes in the notion that, with the support of the government, the people can continue to fight poverty and possibly make it negligible by leading themselves, including "American labor and American businesses, private institutions and private individuals" (Johnson 1964).
In contrast with Johnson's speech, Nixon appeals to the public interest by vetoing the Economic Opportunity Amendments and justifies it by saying it allows the Office of Economic Opportunity to be separate from politics and to focus on devising new ideas to fight poverty. Nixon also shows concern of the federal budget if the amendments happen to be passed, as the amendments would further increase government costs, as seen when says "given the limited resources of the Federal budget, and the growing demands upon the Federal taxpayer, the expenditure of two billions of dollars in a program whose effectiveness has yet to be demonstrated cannot be justified," (Nixon 1971). Another stance of Nixon that contrasts with Johnson's is that Nixon views child development programs as unnecessary, saying that "these child development programs would be redundant in that they duplicate many existing and growing Federal, State and local efforts to provide social, medical, nutritional and education services to the very young," (Nixon 1971). Overall, Nixon seems more cautious of improving child development programs and in associating the Office of Economic Opportunities with politics.
These differences in opinions on how the government should regulate the economy may have occurred due to the different situations each president was experiencing at the time. Johnson, in approving the Civil Rights Act of 1964, would naturally try to extend opportunities to the poor in light of another step towards equality with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nixon, on the other hand, was more worried about the occurring war in Vietnam and had tried to redirect money to focus on the war effort against communism outside of the United States than on the United States economy.
Synthesis Article
The Medicaid Act passed by Lyndon B. Johnson bears incredible resemblance to Barack Obama's legislation of the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare. These acts are similar in that they try to extend medical and healthcare opportunities for the poor and unfortunate, regardless of race. However, they differ in that the Medicaid Act has insurance mainly backed and provided by the government, while the Affordable Care Act is mainly backed by private insurers within an insurance marketplace, where the government helps in finding private insurances for people that are ineligible for Medicaid, but does not provide insurance itself. The similarities between the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid tell us about the United States of America that they continue to provide more opportunities for the poor, regardless of economic position, and to prevent the poor from suffering from their economic condition. With greater life expectancy for the poor with healthcare insurance opportunities provided by the government, America could expect an increase in employment as the poor are now able to focus more on getting employed than worrying about staying healthy.
Continuities and Changes
Technology, work, and exchange changed more than stayed the same during the Cold War era, after the end of World War II as employment was desegregated and as the United States experienced a postwar prosperity.
Continuities from the past periods are continued government intervention within the United States economy with extensions of New Deal policies, increase in military spending, and discrimination of African Americans despite desegregation. Government regulation was prominent in the Cold War era from Harry Truman to Richard Nixon, including the Fair Deal by Truman, the Great Society by Lyndon B. Johnson, and various economic regulations implemented by Nixon. The increase in military spending was warranted by the fight against the spread of communism by preparing to arm the United States against the Soviet Union, in case a war ever breaks out. Discrimination still continued for African Americans, although less than before, as desegregation policies did not immediately take effect.
Changes from the past periods include desegregation of employment after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, greater focus on nuclear research programs, increased prevalence of suburbs, urbanization of the South, and the implementation on the policy of containment. Although desegregation was not immediate, employment was an equal opportunity for everyone of all races. The greater focus on nuclear research programs was devised to find destructive ways to decimate the Soviet Union if the need arises. Suburbs came into prominence as automobiles became integrated into American life and with the implementation of zoning laws that set permitted a certain area to only contain residential buildings. The South was urbanized to produce even more weapons and munitions for the Cold War after World War II, doing so by industrializing. The policy of containment came into effect after World War II as a result of the fear of the spread of communism by the Soviet Union, prompting the United States to creates mass amounts of weapons and munitions in preparation for the possibility of a war with the Soviet Union.
Continuities from the past periods are continued government intervention within the United States economy with extensions of New Deal policies, increase in military spending, and discrimination of African Americans despite desegregation. Government regulation was prominent in the Cold War era from Harry Truman to Richard Nixon, including the Fair Deal by Truman, the Great Society by Lyndon B. Johnson, and various economic regulations implemented by Nixon. The increase in military spending was warranted by the fight against the spread of communism by preparing to arm the United States against the Soviet Union, in case a war ever breaks out. Discrimination still continued for African Americans, although less than before, as desegregation policies did not immediately take effect.
Changes from the past periods include desegregation of employment after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, greater focus on nuclear research programs, increased prevalence of suburbs, urbanization of the South, and the implementation on the policy of containment. Although desegregation was not immediate, employment was an equal opportunity for everyone of all races. The greater focus on nuclear research programs was devised to find destructive ways to decimate the Soviet Union if the need arises. Suburbs came into prominence as automobiles became integrated into American life and with the implementation of zoning laws that set permitted a certain area to only contain residential buildings. The South was urbanized to produce even more weapons and munitions for the Cold War after World War II, doing so by industrializing. The policy of containment came into effect after World War II as a result of the fear of the spread of communism by the Soviet Union, prompting the United States to creates mass amounts of weapons and munitions in preparation for the possibility of a war with the Soviet Union.
Picture of the Cold War & Vietnam War Era
This picture pertains to the theme of technology, work, and exchange as the economy was centered around manufacturing nuclear weapons and munitions during the Cold War, as to fend off the Soviet Union if a war arises. It also pertains the the theme of technology, work, and exchange in the increase of government spending towards munitions and troops, redirecting the money towards warfare. It best encapsulates the time period in that the Cold War era was largely defined by the tensions with the Soviet Union, where each succeeding president of the United States, starting with Truman, amassed a bigger army with increased productions of munitions and nuclear weapons. It also best encapsulates the Vietnam War by the amount of American troops sent to Vietnam, as represented by the picture.
Sources Cited
Johnson, L. B. (1964, March 16). Lyndon B. Johnson: Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Nationwide War on the Sources of Poverty. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=26109
Nixon, R. (1971, December 9). Richard Nixon: Veto of the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1971. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3251
USASC. (1951). Nevada - Frenchman's Flat - members of 11th AB Div. kneel on ground as they watch mushroom cloud of atomic bomb test [Photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2006688661/
Nixon, R. (1971, December 9). Richard Nixon: Veto of the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1971. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3251
USASC. (1951). Nevada - Frenchman's Flat - members of 11th AB Div. kneel on ground as they watch mushroom cloud of atomic bomb test [Photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2006688661/