-President’s position
-Three elements of Mills’ proposal
-Check off concept retained
-Timing
-Appropriations
-Court test of constitutionality of the check off
-1972 election
-Mills’ gambit
-Campaign promises
-The President’s remarks to the White House Conference on Aging,
December 2, 1971
-Possible approaches
-History of proposal
-Veto
-History
-Congress
-MacGregor’s view
-Mills
-Thoughts
-Byrnes' reaction
-Broadcast expenditures
-Limitations
-Election
-Democrats
-Money in the fund
-Provision of the law
-Check off
-Taxpayers
-Possible number
-Percentage
-Veto
-Implementation
-Congress
-The President's signature
-Historian context
-President’s attitude
-Appropriations
-Possible veto
-Mills
-Democrats' and Republicans' votes
-Speculation
12
-Veto
-Democrats
-Unpredictability
-Lawrence F. O'Brien, Jr.
-Local, county and district chairmen
-Joe D. Waggonner, Jr.
-Possible Democrat support
-Check off defeat
-MacGregor's recommendations
-Elimination of check-off
-Authorization of various expenditures
-Less chance of abuse of funds
-Byrnes
-The President's signature
-MacGregor’s forthcoming meeting with Byrnes
-Mills
-Stake
-House vote
-Modified check off
-President’s instructions
-Check off defeat
-Repeal
-The President's message
-Business committee
-Mills
-Possible action
-MacGregor's statement
-Distribution
-Ronald L. Ziegler
-Follow-up
-President’s decision
-MacGregor’s statement
-Mills
-Possible change in vote
-President’s remarks to the White House Conference on Aging
Earl L. Butz's swearing-in
-President’s schedule
-Upcoming trip to Florida
-Corn price support
-Mills [?]
13
-Hint of certain actions
-Possible withdrawal
-Cost
-Amount
-Taft-Hartley Act
-State Chairman
-County chairman
-Minneapolis
-Previous call to MacGregor
-President’s decision on Taft-Hartley Act
-Impact on rural areas
George Meany
-Health
-H. R. (“Bob”) Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman
-Meany’s attitude
-Illness