Ford: Facing a Fresh Gusher of Criticism

Not since he pardoned Richard Nixon had President Gerald Ford aroused such a furor. Last week he signed into law the first phase of his economy and energy program, provoking a veritable gusher of criticism from across the political spectrum. It is an outpouring that will be hard for him to cap, and it could ultimately swamp his ambitious, multi-faceted program.

The Democratic-controlled Congress threatened to hold up and reject his proposals. A bipartisan group of Governors from the Northeast pledged to go to court to thwart his plans. A summit meeting of organized labor denounced his Administration in terms that they used to reserve for Herbert Hoover. Even on the right, former California Governor Ronald Reagan was sharply disapproving.

Further Drain. What Ford had done was to bite the bullet as he had been urged, though people had differing views of the bullet he should bite. He signed a proclamation that raises the tariff on imported crude oil by $1 per bbl. starting Feb. 1 and moving up to a maximum $3 per bbl. on April 1. The tariff hike is only part of his total program, which calls for a dramatic increase in the price of oil to reduce consumption, along with a $16 billion tax cut to reimburse consumers. By launching the first part of his energy program,

Ford hopes to goad Congress into enacting the remainder. But many Congressmen and economists fear that the program will set off another round of inflation. Exactly how much is a matter of conjecture.

While the Federal Energy Administration estimates that the program will cost the average family of four an extra $171 in energy bills a year, a Library of Congress report released last week puts the annual increase at a whopping $723. But for the President, the important point seemed to be to take immediate action. On signing the proclamation, he declared: "Each day that passes without strong and tough action results in a further drain on our national wealth. The tactics of delay and proposals, which would allow our dependency and vulnerability to increase, will not be tolerated by the American people."

Even before Ford moved on tariffs, Senators Henry Jackson and Edward Kennedy had sponsored a Senate resolution to postpone the tariff increase for 60 days; in the meantime Congress, if it has the will, would be able to draft its own energy-saving program. In the House, Pennsylvania Democrat William Green offered a similar motion to defer the hike for 90 days, which the House Ways and Means Committee promptly voted, linking the deferral to an increase in the federal debt limit to $531 billion.

Ford needs that increase and thus might find it difficult to veto the bill. When Treasury Secretary William Simon testified before the Ways and Means Committee, Green denounced the Administration for acting in the tradition of Watergate. "We are being treated in an ultimatum fashion," he complained. "We are beginning this exercise in an atmosphere not of compromise but in one of confrontation." Said new Ways and Means Chairman Al Ullman, who had tried to persuade Ford to put off the proclamation: "We're extremely disappointed with the President. I wonder if the President might be playing games with Congress."

Death of Economy. Ten Northeastern Governors who met with the President just before he signed the tariff hike were equally angry (see THE PRESIDENCY). Since their region is more dependent on foreign oil than the rest of the country, it will be hardest hit by the new fees. "By this unilateral action," objected New York's Hugh Carey, "the President is going to coerce the Congress and the country." Said Connecticut Governor Ella Grasso: "The program will mean the death of our economy." The Governors pledged to file a lawsuit challenging the President's right to take unilateral action under authority of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act.

Most indignant of all were some 350 labor leaders of the AFL-CIO, who met in a Washington summit to hammer out their own economic plan. In a characteristically colorful diatribe, AFL-CIO President George Meany called the President's program "disastrous, the weirdest one I have ever seen." He drew the loudest applause when he attacked the oil-producing Arab nations along with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. "Kissinger had a new quotation for the history books: 'Pay.' And pay we did, and we will continue to pay until the U.S. deals with the blackmailers in the manner they deserve. No tribute, no foreign aid, no trade, no jet fighters to these people--nothing until the blackmail stops."

The AFL-CIO called for a total ban on oil imports from the Arab nations, as well as quotas on other foreign oil. Instead of deregulating the price of domestic oil and gas, as Ford has proposed, the union leaders asked for a program of oil allocation and gasoline rationing. They called for a tax cut of $20 billion, in the form of reduced withholding taxes for middle-and lower-income families. Interest rates, they insisted, should be reduced to 6% or 7% and credit allocated to housing and other "high priority social and economic activities." They wanted a massive federal jobs program and extended unemployment benefits.

The White House was prepared for the onslaught of criticism, and Ford fought back all week in newly confident and authoritative style. In his press conference, Ford defended his program as the most comprehensive ever proposed in the energy field. "It is so well integrated," he insisted, "that every piece is essential if we're to achieve the maximum result, which is no vulnerability against foreign sources after 1985." Talking tough to the Conference Board, a group of businessmen meeting in Washington, Ford declared: "It seems to me that the Congress, individually or collectively, should not nitpick. If they do not agree, they ought to step up with a comprehensive alternative rather than to try to move in a backward way."

Goose Egg. The President's strategy was to put the Democrats on the spot, and that is where they may be despite their heavy majorities on the Hill. Under divergent pressures from their own varied constituencies, they will not have an easy time devising an alternative to Ford's program. As Meany put it, the President at least has a program. "The Democrats' approach adds up to a great big goose egg." If the Democrats reject Ford's proposals, he will be able to attack them as a "do-nothing Congress" in the celebrated style of Harry Truman. If they replace his program with some kind of rationing or mandatory allocation, they will have to take the blame if their tactics misfire.

After a week of brandishing the stick, Ford finally offered a kind of carrot. In a winning, low-keyed interview with NBCTV, he acknowledged that his program may not be "100% right." For the first time, he suggested a fallback position. He might have to accept an oil allocation program, though he continued to view gasoline rationing or a high gasoline tax as a last resort (see ECONOMY & BUSINESS). For all the rhetorical smoke, the President and the Democrats are not that far apart on many other aspects of the program: the need for an immediate tax cut, or the long-range energy independence proposals. What is needed is some bridge building between the White House and the Hill --just the job for a onetime Congressman skilled in the art of compromise.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.