Brandon and I were discussing things for his AP Government class tonight. In our ramblings (talking and looking for resources on the Internet), we found this speech.

We found it quite interesting.

(I am going to blur the obivous references to date and time.)

Brandon and I were curious about something.

Read the speech and guess:

a) the political party affiliation of the person giving the speech;
b) the person giving the speech
c) (bonus) decade the speech was given
(I will re-post the question at the end.)

Here is the speech:

I feel somewhat like I felt when I addressed in XXXX the Houston Ministerial Conference on separation of church and state. But I'm glad to have a chance to talk to you about the advantages of the free enterprise system.

This nation possesses both the will and the weapons to meet any threat. The gains we have made will not be given up, and the course we have pursued will not be abandoned. But in the long run, that security will not be determined by military or diplomatic moves alone. It will be affected by the deployment of fiscal and monetary weapons as well as by military weapons, and above all by the strength of this nation's economy, as well as by the strength of our defenses.

You recall that "Y" said he believed that the hinge of world history would begin to move when the Soviet Union out produced the United States.

America's rise to world leadership in the century since the Civil War has reflected more than anything else our unprecedented economic growth. Interrupted during the decade of the thirties, the vigorous expansion of our economy was resumed in XXXX. It demonstrated for all to see the power of freedom and the efficiency of free institutions.

The economic health of this nation has been and is now fundamentally sound. On our strength and growth depends the strength of others, the spread of free world trade and unity, and continued confidence in our leadership and our currency. The underdeveloped countries are dependent upon us for the sale of their primary commodities and for aid to their struggling economies. A growing and prosperous America is important not only to Americans - it is of vital importance to the whole Western world.

This economy is capable of producing without strain billions more than we are producing today. Business earnings could be billions higher than they are today. Utilization of existing plant and equipment could be much higher and, if it were, development would rise. We need not accept this unemployment rate. There is no need for us to be satisfied with a rate of growth that keeps good men out of work and good capacity out of use.

New York is of course familiar with problems. For in this state the rate of insured unemployment has been persistently higher than the national average, and the increases in personal income and employment have been slower here than the nation as a whole.

You have seen the tragedy of chronically depressed areas, unemployed young people. I think this might be one of our most serious national problems: Unemployed young people, particularly those of the minority groups, roaming the streets of other great cities, and others on relief at an early age. The prospect is that in this decade we will have millions of dropouts coming into the labor market at a time when the need for unskilled labor is steadily diminishing. So you share my conviction that, proud as we are of its progress, this nation's economy can and must do even better.

Our choice boils down to one of doing nothing and thereby risking a widening gap between our actual and potential growth in output, profits, and employment - or taking action at the federal level to raise our entire economy to a new and higher level of business activity.

There are a number of ways by which the federal government can meet it's responsibilities to aid economic growth. We can and must improve education and technical training.

One of the great bottlenecks for this country's economic growth in this decade will be the undersupply of highly trained manpower. We can and must step up the development of our natural resources: But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand to cut the fetters which hold back private spending.

In the past this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency.

The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrence to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system: And this administration pledged itself last summer to an across the board top to bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in XXXX.

I'm not talking about a quickie or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent; nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was in good part during "Q" to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time: That it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power: That it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking.

In short to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures. Under these circumstances, any new tax legislation enacted next year should meet the three following tests: First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required.

Early action could give us extra leverage, added results, and important insurance against recession. Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in inflation and insufficient future revenues - but the greater danger is a tax cut too little or too late to be effective. Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption as well as investment. After-tax income could and should be greater, providing stronger markets for the products of American industry.

When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases and profits are high. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment.

We have done this through the investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances - two essential parts of our first step in tax revision which amounted to a ten percent reduction in corporate income taxes. Now we need to increase consumer demand to make these measures fully effective - demand which will make more use of existing capacity and thus increase both profits and the incentive to invest. In fact, profits after taxes would be at least fifteen percent higher today if we were operating at full employment.

Next year's tax bill must reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes - for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay: And for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital. Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our tax system.

This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges. These steps are not only needed to recover lost revenue and thus make possible a larger cut in present rates.

They are also tied directly to our goal of greater growth. For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences - light was the tax loads of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others. It distorts economic judgments and channels undue amounts of energy into efforts to avoid tax liability. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings.

All this inhibits our growth and efficiency as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service. These various exclusions and concessions have been justified in the past as a means of overcoming the oppressively high rates in the upper brackets-and a sharp reduction in those rates, accompanied by base-broadening, loophole-closing measures, would properly make the new rates not only lower but also more widely applicable. Those are the three tests that the right kind of bill must meet.

And I am confident that the enactment of the right bill next year will in due course increase our Gross National Product by several times the amount of taxes actually cut. Profit margins will be improved and both the incentive to invest and the supply of internal funds for investment will be increased. There will be new interest in taking risks, in increasing productivity, in creating new jobs and new products for long-term economic growth. Other national problems, moreover, will be aided by full employment.

It will encourage the location of new plants in areas of labor surplus, provide new jobs, and reduce a number of government expenditures. It will not, I am confident, revive an inflationary spiral or adversely affect our balance of payments.

If the economy today were operating close to capacity levels with little unemployment, or if a sudden change in our military requirements should cause a scramble for men and resources, then I would oppose tax reductions as irresponsible and inflationary and I would not hesitate to recommend a tax increase - if that were necessary. Our resources and manpower are not being fully utilized; the general level of prices has been remarkably stable; and increased competition, both at home and abroad, along with increased productivity will help keep both prices and wages within appropriate limits.

The same is true of our balance of payments. While rising demand will expand imports, new investment in more efficient, productive facilities will aid exports and a new economic climate will both draw capital from abroad and keep capital at home. Most importantly, confidence in the dollar in the long run rests on confidence in America, in our ability to meet our economic commitments and reach our economic goals.

In a worldwide conviction that we are not drifting from recession to recession with no answer, the substantial improvement in our balance of payments position makes it clear that nothing could be more foolish than to restrict our growth merely to minimize that particular problem because a slowdown in our economy will feed that problem rather than diminish it. European governmental and financial authorities have urged us to cut taxes in order to expand our economy, attract more capital and increase confidence.

What concerns most Americans about a tax cut, I know, is not the deficit in our balance of payments but the deficit in our federal budget. When I announced that this kind of comprehensive tax reform would follow the bill enacted this year, I had hoped to present it in an atmosphere of a balanced budget.

But it has been necessary to augment sharply our nuclear and conventional forces, to step up our efforts in space, to meet the increased cost of servicing the national debt and meeting our obligations, established by law , to veterans. We shall neither postpone our tax cut plans nor cut into essential national security programs. This administration is determined to protect America's security and survival; we are also determined to step up its growth. We must do both.

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.

Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.

It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now. The experience of a number of European countries has borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction has borne this out. The reason is that only full employment can balance the budget and tax reduction can pave the way to full employment. The purpose of cutting taxes is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which will bring a budget surplus.

I repeat: Our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits; a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenue and achieve - and I believe this can be done - a future budget surplus.

The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future. As the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee pointed out, the size of the deficit is to be regarded with concern and tax reduction must be accompanied, by "increased control of the rises in expenditures." That is precisely the course we intend to follow.

At the same time as our tax program is presented to the Congress, the federal budget will also be presented. Defense and space expenditures will necessarily rise in order to carry out programs which are demanded and are necessary for our own security. But I can tell you now that the total of all other expenditures combined will be held approximately at its current level.

This is not an easy task. During the past nine years, domestic civilian expenditures in the national government have risen at an average rate of more than seven and one half percent. State and local government expenditures have risen at an annual rate of nine percent.

Expenditures by the New York State government have risen in recent years at the rate of roughly ten percent a year. At a time when government pay scales have necessarily risen, when the demand for services is thus increasing, next year's federal budget, which will hold domestic outlays at their present level, will represent a genuine effort in expenditure control. The federal debt, as a proportion of our GNP, has been steadily reduced since this administration took office.

Last year the total increase in the federal debt was only two percent-compared to an eight percent increase in the gross debt of state and local governments. This setting makes federal tax reduction both possible and appropriate next year. I do not underestimate the obstacles which the Congress will face in enacting such legislation.

A high order of statesmanship and determination will be required if the possible is not to wait on the perfect. But a nation capable of marshalling these capabilities to meet a sudden and dramatic threat to its security is surely equally capable of meeting a creeping and complex threat to our economic vitality.

This nation can afford to reduce taxes - we can afford a temporary deficit - but we cannot afford to do nothing. For on the strength of our free economy rests the hope of all free men. We shall not fail their faith - and God willing, free men and free nations shall prosper and prevail.

I know it was a long read.

So, can you guess the following?

a) the political party affiliation of the person giving the speech;
b) the person giving the speech
c) (bonus) decade the speech was given