Weekly Radio Report: Cherry-Blossom Festival & Parkinson's Law

Item

Other Media

c031_021.mp3

c031_021_tr.txt

Transcription (Scripto)

Read Full Text Only (TXT)

Extent (Dublin Core)

5 Minutes, 41 Seconds

File Name (Dublin Core)

c031_021

Title (Dublin Core)

Weekly Radio Report: Cherry-Blossom Festival & Parkinson's Law

Description (Dublin Core)

In this weekly radio report, Congressman Bob Dole discusses this year’s Cherry Blossom Princess from Kansas, Patti Thiele. He also talks about Parkinson’s Law with regard to the Department of Agriculture and its continually-increasing employees and budget, despite a decrease in the number of farms and farmers over the past 30 years.

Date (Dublin Core)

1963

Date Created (Dublin Core)

1963

Congress (Dublin Core)

88th (1963-1965)

Topics (Dublin Core)

See all items with this valueUnited States. Department of Agriculture--Officials and employees

Policy Area (Curation)

Economics and Public Finance

Creator (Dublin Core)

Dole, Robert J., 1923-2021

Record Type (Dublin Core)

radio programs

Rights (Dublin Core)

http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/

Language (Dublin Core)

eng

Collection Finding Aid (Dublin Core)

https://dolearchivecollections.ku.edu/index.php?p=collections/findingaid&id=84&q=

Physical Collection (Dublin Core)

Collection 031, Box 1

Institution (Dublin Core)

Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS

Archival Collection (Dublin Core)

Dole Audio Reels Collection, 1960-1979

Full Text (Extract Text)

This is Congressman Bob Dole with my weekly radio report from Washington. First of all, I wish to again thank this station for carrying my weekly program as a public service broadcast.

Secondly, as you know, this is cherry blossom time in Washington, and we're very pleased to have in Washington, as our Cherry Blossom Princess from Western Kansas, Miss Patti Thiele. Patti, as you may know or may have read, is a senior at Fort Hays Kansas State College in Hays, Kansas, where she is majoring in mathematics. She's presently practice teaching in Great Bend, Kansas, and upon her graduation, of course, will enter the teaching profession. We are certainly pleased and honored that Patti was chosen as a Cherry Blossom Princess, and I'm certain that Scott City, her hometown, is very proud and her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Thiele, are very proud of Patti also. Her mother is here, and her father will be arriving on Thursday of this week. I think they will enjoy themselves and have a real chance to visit some of the historical sites in and around Washington, D.C. And as chairman of the Kansas State Society of Washington, D.C., we are most pleased that we were able to participate and to help Patti in some ways.

I thought I might discuss, briefly, Parkinson's Law. This is the law that many of us feel that the Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman must abide by. Parkinson's Law — that peculiarly apt description of government bureaucracy — has shown up in the Department of Agriculture to a startling degree. The law states that the number of employees in a bureaucracy tends to increase in an inverse ratio to the amount of work to be done. In other words, less work, more workers. Let's take, for example, since 1933 — when Roosevelt made bureaucracy a way of life — the Department of Agriculture has gone from 32,000 to 121,000 employees — nearly four times as many. During this same period, the Department became overly reckless with the people's money and expenditures, which total $173 million — $173 million in 1933, which will reach approximately $8.4 billion in 1964. This is 49 times the expenditures of 30 years ago.

Now in the meantime, what's happened to farming? In 1933 there were 6,800,000 farms; today, in 1963, there are 3,700,000 farms — or about half as many. And since President Kennedy has come into office, more than a million rural residents alone have left the farm. Of course the question arises: how does it happen? And how do we stop it? This is the thing that we've been fussing about and discussing in our newsletters and in our other contacts with Department officials. It would appear to me that the more complex we make farm programs, the necessity increases for having more and more federal employees to explain the program to the farmer.

And I think when he stopped to think that in a period of 30 years we've increased the number of employees from 32,000 to 121,000 — or about four times — and increased expenditures from $173 million to $8.4 billion — or nearly 49 times — then we should stop and take a hard look at what all the USDA [United States Department of Agriculture] does. And certainly this expense — or in fact, a very minor portion of it — is directly attributable to some of the programs, but the Department of Agriculture — like any other bureaucracy — has gotten into so many fields which have really no relation to the farmer, it's been very difficult to determine what's good and what's bad when we view agriculture appropriations measures. They are now launching into what they call ‘the rural development field.’ They're going to relieve all poverty on the farm. This is a very lofty, high-sounding phrase, and of course, this will add thousands and thousands of employees to payroll, and cost millions and millions of dollars. And the question is, what good will it do? And many of us feel that these type programs — though they are certainly desirable, they certainly have a high ring, they sound good, they stir up people emotionally — many times they don't produce the results for which they were originally enacted.

I think, too, that we should take this time, if you have time, to write to me expressing your views on taxes. I can say with all honesty — and as I said before, I think I've had only one or two letters from my district. We've had hundreds of letters on taxation where people have suggested that we have a tax cut without a cut in spending — in other words, about 99.9% of our mail has been that we — of course everybody likes the tax cut, everybody wants the tax cut, but the people in Western Kansas recognize the folly of this without a comparable cut in spending. Certainly, I would appreciate your views, and if you have some specific area where you feel that spending can be reduced, I would appreciate this specific information.

Thanks again, this is Congressman Bob Dole, and please send me your comments and your suggestions and your criticisms, Room 244, Washington 25, D.C.