Shirley Chisholm |
May 6, 1972
|
|
Shirley Chisholm
Congresswoman (D-NY); Co-founder, National Women's Political Caucus; Author, Unbought and Unbossed
Answers to Written Questions from the Floor:
Q: With the economic situation you have mentioned, why hasn't Congress forced the administration to take action? In general, the Democratic Congress has devoted more money than the administration has asked for.
A: The fact of the matter is that so many of the persons in responsible positions of the committees in Congress that make the determination as to the kind of legislation that will be brought forth on the floor or the kinds of legislation that would benefit the American people first of all, are just the kind of men that are not attuned and sensitized to what is happening in America. We have too many men in Congress, senile, and don't know exactly what is happening, but they happen to be in control. Now, you know, a lot of you are not going to like what I'm saying. I can see some expressions on some faces, but you've got to get, you've got to hear the truth. You can't have old men sleeping in the committees and not knowing what's going on. And that's what's happening. That's what's happening.
Q: This member asks, when you speak about the poor, downtrodden workers in this country, do you mean the $20,000 a year plumbers or the $15,000 a year Muni bus drivers in San Francisco?
A: Well, you know, nowadays I read just recently that it takes at least $10,000 a year - I took this from the Department of Labor and Statistics, the recent statistics. It takes at least $10,000 a year for an urban family of four to get along on. So you have to talk about these figures also in terms of the section of the country that the workers are found. $20,000 or $15,000 might not be a whole lot of money for a place like California and New York, but it might be a whole lot of money for a place like Mississippi and Alabama and what have you, in terms of the cost of living with respect to rents and utilities and all of the other factors. You cannot talk about a number statistic and say is that high income, middle income or low income. You have to talk about the statistics in relation to the sections of the country where people are working and put into the pot the cost of living for housing, the food prices there, the clothing and all of those factors before this figure becomes meaningful. $20,000 is not a whole lot of money for a state like California. It will be considered a whole lot of money for a State like Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia. There, across the board, the cost of living is usually at a much lower level.
Q: Another question on unemployment. Do you advocate the abolishment of the closed union shop principle as a means for decreasing the unemployment of minority workers?
A: Well, first of all, I think it's important to recognize that we must continue to have union shops in this nation. It's very important that you continue to have union shops to protect the gains that have been made by those in the laboring class or the workers of this country. I think it's more important for the person who submitted this question to recognize that the unions have not really addressed themselves fully to certain areas in this country that need to be addressed to immediately and that is this whole question of the opening up of the apprentice and journeyman programs to minorities who have been left out, so that they will be able to move out into the economic system eventually, as a productive citizen who is able to make his contribution to this country. The unions have been guilty in certain respects and one of the respects in which they've been very, very guilty is in terms of closing out their programs for training and skills to minority peoples in this country.
Q: Question on corporate growth. What methods would you incur to curb corporate growth and after curbing corporate growth, what about total employment?
A: I think, first of all, we recognize whether we accept it or not, that this is a capitalistic society, and I think that it might be very difficult under the capitalistic system to really completely curb corporate growth. We just have to recognize what is inherent in a capitalistic society. But I think what is more important is that we make sure that the corporations in this country pay the equitable share of taxes to help to balance out the economy. It doesn't make sense to talk about a value-added tax, which is nothing more than a thinly disguised sales tax that would have to be paid by the American people, and a sales tax is the enemy of the poor people. It's the enemy of the elderly couple on a fixed income. It makes much more sense to make sure that the corporations will pay, because it is a capitalistic society, and let's face it, but just pay their just share of the taxes to this country.
In 1970, corporations controlling 90 percent of the resources of this country paid in $26 billion in taxes. And the American people just controlling 10 percent of the resources paid in $86 billion in taxes. And every year you pick up the newspapers, it's just disgusting to read the long list, the long honor roll of those Americans who did not pay the equitable tax share, but avoided paying them because of subsidies and loopholes and what have you. You cannot curb corporate growth but so much because we're in a capitalistic society, we must make sure that the corporations pay their just taxation and stop having a tax system that is a tax system for the privileged few.
Q: I think you've answered this question partly, but it's on capitalism again. Since the foundation of our democracy is capitalism, big business, industrialism, etc., if not that, then what do you propose to base our foundation on?
A: I'm not attacking capitalism as such, but what I'm saying is that capitalism must make its just contribution to the republic. I wonder if you realize that statistic I just gave you. When the big corporations and big businesses and investment houses and Wall Street in this country has 90 percent of the resources and only paying $26 billion in taxes, do you know what that really means? When we, the little people who only have 10 percent of these resources spend $86 billion, that should tell us something. I think what we have to continue to say is that there are inequities even in the capitalistic system, and if we don't right these inequities, we're going to continue to have the outcries, the development of all kinds of groups in this country, black and white who will tumble the capitalistic system. Now, we have to understand that none of us are perfect and none of our systems are perfect. But we have to make our institutions more relevant and more meaningful to the kind of society in which we are now living. Because if we don't, we are going to find ourselves in the midst of certain things that will happen over which we have no control. And we've seen it already in this country with the young people on the campuses, with the Indians coming down off the reservations and setting up their own settlements all over this country - it's because they've lived in the capitalistic system. They've been told that we must go through the proper channels and procedures in order for the realization of their dream and they've been waiting. But I think what we have to recognize is that those of us who are very comfortable, we don't want to open up the base for a lot of other people in this country. I hear a lot of people talk about the brotherhood of man, the concept of democracy, and yet you know fully well that many of them who have been the beneficiaries of the status quo and are enjoying it don't really want to open up to accommodate other peoples who have long been waiting for the system just to address itself to their needs a little bit.
Q: Now a specific business question dealing with government also: Who lost most in the termination of the SST program, big business or the people of Seattle and San Diego?
A: A little of everybody. I hope you understand that when I talk about the SST and Lockheed and the amount of welfare that they got from the Congress, that I'm talking about it in proportion to what happened to major programs in this country that were cut back for thousands of poor people across this land. We know that if a community benefits and gets its economic livelihood from a submarine base or a Navy yard or a munitions factory or what have you, that you cannot actually close those plants or factories down without having some major economic effects on the community. But what we have to do is to put things in proper perspective and this is what we're not doing in this country.
We can get up in the United States Congress and we can give billions of dollars to a lot of these institutions, a lot of these plants, without demanding first of all that these institutions and these plants have a regular audit of their books; improve the management techniques within many of these situations that need improvement before we pour more money into it; do away with incremental budgeting in this country which means that whenever a large business or corporate group comes before the various Congressional committees and asks for help that so long as you had the program going the year before, you come back and you'll get some help without anybody examining whether or not there are alternatives or recommendations: incremental budgeting. The kind of thing that enables a Senator Eastland to get his money every year for not growing crops. So I'm talking about the disproportionate way our monies are spent, in this country.
Q: We move now to specific items of legislation. Federal welfare is a mess. As president, what recommendations would you make?
A: It is a mess. It is really a mess, but you can't talk about meaningful welfare in this country unless you understand certain other facts. Over one-third of the public assistance cases in this country fall in the ADC category, the Aid to Dependent Children category. These parents need the childcare centers that was vetoed in the bill. If these parents have the childcare centers, then they'll be able to go to training centers and schools and get the skills necessary for the jobs that are going begging in their specific communities.
If we do not talk about nationalization of daycare centers in this country you are not going to have meaningful welfare. You know, you can call any piece of legislation welfare reform, education reform, but you have to look exactly at what is going to be the total and end result of the piece of legislation. Again, you can't have welfare reform by asking people to go out to work for something below the federal minimum, but they should be so glad to go to work. A gentleman said to me the other day, "These men don't want to work. I had 50 jobs to offer them and Mrs. Chisholm, I only got six of them to take the job." And I said to him, "Well, what were you paying and what was the job?" He hesitated. I said, "No, no, come on, tell me. What were you paying and what were the jobs that you were offering them?" Cleaning out toilet facilities and they were offering them $1.15 an hour! Now, a lot of people in this country think that poor people don't have dignity and don't have pride, they should be so glad to get anything. I think there'd be people in this country, that we're willing to give 75 cents an hour and they should salaam!
Now, I think we have to understand that if we're going to do something about the federal welfare in this country, the whole welfare program which is a mess, we're going to have to restructure it in three basic ways. You're going to have to set up national daycare centers. You're going to have to have training programs to train those who are employable and this is another mistake. There are lots of people on welfare in this country that are not employable. But those who are employable and able to get the kind of training so that they can go out and get one of the jobs that are going begging in their specific communities. You cannot continue to handle welfare in this country in a piecemeal fashion. A lot of programs put together to appease different groups who are yelling about the situation in this country, but the program actually has no meaning or no relevance for the people for whom they're designed. And when I become president, I would be able to fix this mess up.
Q: How far is the Congress from proposing a comprehensive national health program?
A: I think that at the next session of the Congress, that comprehensive national health is going to be one of the major items of legislative business. We have sitting, in various committees right now in the Senate and in the House, many health insurance bills that have been placed there: the Kennedy bills, the Mills bills, all kinds of bills. And I've been reading the fine print; a lot of legislators don't read the fine print. And I'm finding out with these bills there are a lot of hidden agendas.
Now, if you're going to talk about a comprehensive national health program, we have to be very sure that comprehensive national health programs will benefit the people of this country and not the insurance companies that are lobbying for certain bills that are put into the committees. And there is a lot of fine language that three of us have decided to get together and read very, very carefully. Because some of these bills that are coming out here are not as jolly as they appear to be. But, you know, we get taken in by slogans and words, comprehensive national health, aye, that's the thing. You'd better read what's in the bill and better read and find out whom is it going to benefit first of all? We need to have a comprehensive national health program in this country, but we better be sure that it's really going to benefit the people first of all.
Q: Question on gun control. Some black leaders, like the National Rifle Association, have opposed gun controls. Do you agree with them?
A: I don't know. I really don't know how many more assassinations and killings we need in this country before we begin to recognize that we've got to have some restrictions on weapons: the availability and accessibility of weapons in pawn shops and in all kinds of shops, mail order. I had ten friends recently sent out to get - they just wanted to see how weak it was - sent away to get rifles and do you know, they got them. And when I saw three of these rifles I was frightened.
Nobody's talking about the hunter who uses a rifle for sports. We don't want to do anything about saying that an American who is a hunter can't continue to enjoy his sport. But I think that there's something wrong when there's the accessibility and availability of handguns and other kinds of weapons in the hands of people - people who are using these weapons in our society today to cause such a scare and to destroy other human beings. I don't know if you have been following those people who have been assassinated most recently in our country, and if you look into the background of the men who assassinated them, for the most part they all had a history of some kind of pathological or psychological or mental imbalance. And yet, they were able to get these weapons either by going into a store or by mail order. We have to do something about gun controls in this country if we all want to live, as far as I'm concerned.
Q: We move now to Vietnam; I'm combining two questions here for you. Who got us into this atrocious war and does it make any difference to you if the Communists overrun South Vietnam and take the country by their invasion?
A: First of all, we got into this war via the Democratic administration and I know that's what the person wanted me to answer. I'm not going to lie. Second of all, there is an error that people constantly make in this country. I love this at the end, does it make difference to you if the Communists overrun South Vietnam and the country, you know, by their invasion.
Since when does the United States of America feel that it can police the whole world at the expense of the American people? For over eight years, millions of dollars have gone over to Vietnam to help the Vietnamese people in terms of training their troops, equipments and what have you. Military men have come back and have told us, doesn't our own military men mean anything to us in terms of the information that they bring back to us? They have told us that this is a war that we cannot win! Now remember that we've lost over 50,000 young men! How many more are we going to lose? This is a war that we cannot win. And we have to recognize that as fast as the American boys are being taken prisoners over there, that there is absolutely no indication from all of these talks we've been having for over a year right now in Paris, that the boys who are now prisoners of war will be released. And we're getting more and more of our boys taken prisoner every day. But the moment we get out of Vietnam, world pressure, the Geneva Convention, will begin to make the Vietnamese move in the direction of giving consideration for the release of our prisoners. Are we going to continue on this madness? And whether you know it or not, we are getting ready for World War number III in the Asiatic part of the world: World War number III. Sure it is true that Russia and China haven't done anything yet. Do you think that they're just sitting back there just taking it easy because the great super-power United States of America has come in? They're plotting, they're planning. You know anything about the history of those countries? They're much more brilliant in terms of diplomatic and tactical strategy. Remember, we are relatively a young nation. And I wish that a lot of these older men who constantly make the decisions about this war would get up and go on the front lines for once and bring our boys back home; the young men disproportionately in this country have put their lives on the line. Let some older folks go over there now.
We cannot be the policemen of the world. We have a domestic war going on here at home. You travel in this country and you'll see what we mean by domestic war: complete alienation. Young people can't plan a career, can't plan a future because they never know when they're going to have to go to fight for a war that has absolutely nothing to do with the national defense and security of this country. Now there comes a time when we as Americans have to say we have made some mistakes: We're not perfect; we're not superhuman. We've made some mistakes, and tell the American people - over 65 percent of the American people have said they want out. What more do we want? We can't forever police the world.
Q: There are many more questions, but I'm afraid our time is about up and we have time for just one more question. Before asking it, Congresswomen Chisholm, I'd like to thank you very, very much on behalf of the members of The Commonwealth Club of California, many of whom are gathered here today in the Rose Room of the Palace Hotel, for your most stimulating remarks, your full and thorough answers to the many difficult questions. The final question: Do you think a female president should be addressed at Miss, Mrs., Ms., Your Excellency or Madame?
A: It really doesn't make that much difference to me. The important thing, the important thing is first of all, get that female president to help straighten out a lot of things in America.
Generously funded by:
Tom Campbell
Dee Dee Myers