 Governor's, the President of the United States. I hope you realize the difference in the hour I'm calling this. We've heard that there are certain members who prefer to sleep in. We've always thought that meetings aren't taking you too bad. I started that damn fireworks this week. All day, I don't know why they couldn't have done it earlier. We were wakened out of sound sleep. I thought it was an artillery attack. Nothing about it. We're doing there with the skyrockets blazing away. Welcome back, your recess. This is the first full-scale meeting that we've had since we submitted the budget on February 8th. We did meet with Howard and Bob and Paul Axel on the day that the recess began. We got their views on that. Of course, we wrote to all of you on February 13th. I thought it was an appropriate kind of a downtime to send to you. I don't like the deficits any more than any of you do. I would like to remind you that we promised to cut spending and we have. We promise to reduce inflation and we have. We promise to reduce interest rates and we have all of them as much as we'd like to. I'm confident that the next few months they're going to come down several points more. We promised a tax policy that was designed not only to help the individual, to help businesses look to restore the economy, provide jobs, and I think it's going to do that. And we promised to redress our defensive posture on national security. And I don't know whether I said this to you before, but during the campaign, I was asked a great many times that it came down to a choice of balancing the budget or providing national security, defense. Which side would I come down on? And every time I said I would come down the side of national security, it's a responsibility we can no longer neglect. And I never made that statement to an audience that I did not receive or won the applause. I think the people were aware we're down. Now, we're going to balance the budget. It's not going to be as soon as we thought it would because of this recession that we've had. But I believe that we have in place a program for the first time in the seven depressions or recessions that we've had since World War II. We have in place a program that's never been in place before and that is aimed at bringing us out of that and bringing us out in the sound way of working our way out, not the artificial stimulant that has been provided by governments before and which always led a few years later to another recession and higher inflation, higher interest rates, as we know. Now, I think when all of you have the chance to ponder about all of the things that are in this, I believe that you've come to the same hard choices that we have. One thing I would like to say is that you have a different... and I'd like to see it be... and I wanted to discuss a comprehensive proposal. Yes, but I just don't think that for all of these months that we can go back picking up points even there and get them to scattered individual points and get them in place. The only comprehensive proposal so far is contrary to this. I don't just complain to this bit anyway because I have your colleagues and I think I have some understanding of why he did what he did and I just want to point out something. The one advantage of that is that with all the screaming that we're destroying, the social fabric programs, the media, he proposed less spending than we have proposed on those. And then he proposed the elimination of the tax reductions, which I think puts us back to a failing economy again and offers no hope for broadening the base of the economy and getting Americans back to work. And the sprees on defense spending, we've cut defense spending over the next three years by a hundred and eight billion dollars. Now, there's no way we could do that without being worse off than we were before with regard to cybersecurity. So just a couple of things I'd like to mention and change the subject for a second and get to all of you. This is going to be a hard-to-defense spending to the answer. It sounds attractive unless you know what we're up against on the other side and the rate of distribution in the Soviet spending and how truly sophisticated they are. But our problem is not only quantity anymore. It is quality. There has been an amassing of power on that side and sophisticated power beyond anything I think that most of us realize. I think to our allies and to them, the appearance of unilateral disarmament, which we've given them over the last decades, would just be the worst signal in the world that we could send. But the other thing is how effective would it be if we eliminated all the primary, the over half a billion dollar programs, weapon system programs from our present defense policy, it would only reduce next year's budget by six and a half billion dollars. All of which would send a signal of unilateral disarmament. The bulk of our spending is for manpower or readiness and for things of that kind for maintenance. Now, I just have a little set of figures here that I have from Warren Brooks, the economist. I just thought you can answer to some of the things that we've said about this. And I realize in this kind of thing, every day, seeing the horror stories, channel seven could then be to drive you to the cocktail hour. I want you in the evening, last night, they gave the horrifying story showing the man losing his job in government and so forth, and the terrible man heard the interview with him about how he felt and all that, and then had to honestly answer after, of course he has another job now, but just think of the pain he went through before he got that job. That's the same channel that ran a story not too long ago of a man who had been taken off of social security disability. There he was with his wife and his children. His wife was crying and they didn't know what they were going to do or anything. He didn't take them off that. He was taken off in 1980 by the previous administration because they found out he had a full-time job at the same time that he was getting full-time disability pain. So the sound stories may continue, but Warren Brooks figures are kind of interesting. We're spending too much on defense. John F. Kennedy in 1962, as a percentage of the budget, defense was 47.8%. For us it's 26.2% in 1982. As a percentage of the gross national product, defense spending in 62 under Kennedy was 9%. For 82 for us it's 5.7%. Human resources, as a percentage of the federal budget, Kennedy's spending was 25.1%. Ours is 53.2% in 1982. As a percentage of the gross national product, on human resources they spent 5.1%. We're spending 11.6% in this year of 1982. On his tax program, which I have cited many times, his tax reduction program further favors the rich and well, his reduction for corporations was 29% for individuals 22%. His tax rate reduction for the five highest brackets was 29% and Ours is 23%. Could we get a zero opposite of that? Yeah, of course. We're still keeping up with them. I like them and you're enter. Yeah, we have another zero. All right, and we'll, I have not checked Mr. Brooks, although he is a very regular economist, but we'll also check on what we send him to. We can do it. We'll send these to you. We don't listen to him. We do check things out. Prepare to the last press conference when we can get to the right questions. Finish question.