Museado
Recent Folios
Login Register
English español (Spanish) magyar (Hungarian) हिन्दी (Hindi)

Survos folio page chat

  • Show
  • Edit
  • Bookmark
  • Ask document
  • OCR
  • Handwriting
  • Share
    • 1976/06/11 - Economic Policy Board

    Ask the Scholar

    Page 1 of 1
    I can add historical knowledge about this page.

    Page image

    Page 1

    OCR

    The original documents are located in Box 59, folder "1976/06/11 - Economic Policy Board" of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 59 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library ECONOMIC POLICY BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 8:30 a. m. Roosevelt Room June 11, 1976 1. Report of Commodities Policy Coordinating State-Treasury Committee 2. Analysis of Esch-Kemp Bill Gorog-OMB-Treasury I 3. Commerce Trade Figure Releases Commerce THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON June 9, 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR ECONOMIC POLICY BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: WILLIAM F. GOROG SUBJECT: Esch/Kemp Job Creation Legislation Congressmen Esch, Kemp and others have drafted a proposed alternative to H.R. 50 (Humphrey-Hawkins) to be offered as a substitute when the bill is brought up in the House -- probably after the Democratic National Convention in July. The Esch/Kemp proposal contains the following add-ons to our package of existing Administration proposals: "Zero budgeting", involving a four-year phased review of all Federal program authorizations with first-year priority on employment and training programs, a complicated system of GAO reports and audits, and mandated MBO budgeting by OMB. Also, Treasury would develop a consolidated financial report for the U.S. using accrual accounting. A 4 percent decrease in the corporate tax rate phased over three years (2, 1, and 1 percent). A boost in the investment tax credit to 12% across the board, plus an additional 1% for contributions to employee stock ownership (ESOP) plans. Extension nationwide of our accelerated depreciation program for high unemployment if found beneficial by Treasury upon evaluation. A special capital recovery amortization schedule providing for five-year accelerated double declining balance depreciation for equipment and ten-year accelerated double declining balance depreciation for buildings. - 2 - One-year amortization of pollution control facilities. 0 A 10% tax credit (with maximum limit of $1,000, $2,000 for joint returns) for increased personal savings. O A year-round youth employment program plus es- tablishment of a Youth Conservation Corps. o An employment tax credit program partly dependent on unemployment rates. Attached are memoranda from Treasury (Tab A) and OMB (Tab B) commenting on the tax and fiscal policy impact of the proposal as now drafted. Attachments TAB A OF THE THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20220 1789 ASSISTANT SECRETARY JUN 9 1976 MEMORANDUM TO: Economic Policy Board Executive Committee FROM: Charles M. Walker w SUBJECT: Esch-Kemp Bill This memorandum is an analysis of the revenue effects over the next 5 fiscal years of the draft Esch-Kemp Bill, which combines pending Administration tax proposals with a number of additional capital formation proposals. The revenue cost of the total package is enormous. After taking into account the effects on the economy, the total cost would be $48 billion in Fiscal Year 1977 and $83 billion in Fiscal Year 1981, which are, respectively, $20 billion and $26 billion more than the cost for pending comparable Administration proposals. The revenue estimates for the Esch-Kemp Bill have first been estimated using income levels consistent with Troika projections (line 1 of Table 1, the detail of which is shown in Table 2). These Troika projections underlie the President's proposed tax cuts for Fiscal Year 1977. However, the tax cuts in the Esch-Kemp Bill substantially exceed those recommended by the President, by more than $25 billion in Fiscal Year 1977 alone. The proposed additional tax cuts can therefore be expected to generate substantially higher levels of nominal GNP as a result of which there will be some offsetting revenue pick-up by the Treasury (line 2). The last line of Table 1 indicates the net reduction in receipts beyond the President's tax cuts and job creation proposals after taking into consideration offsetting revenue gains. It should be noted that no judgments are rendered here on the division of nominal GNP between real income changes and price changes. However, massive tax cuts such as those recommended here should substantially increase inflation in -2- the economy particularly after the first year or two when the economy may be expected to be much closer to its full employment potential. At an earlier meeting of the EPB Executive Committee it was agreed to repackage the various pending Administration proposals relating to capital formation and job creation as a single bill, but not to identify the Administration at this time with additional proposals. The draft Esch-Kemp Bill contains a number of costly additional proposals: -- A permanent 12 percent investment credit, rather than the 10 percent permanent investment credit recommended by the President, -- An additional 1 percent investment credit for contributions to employee stock owner- ship (ESOP) "plans, -- Larger corporate tax reductions than recommended by the President, -- One-year amortization for pollution control facilities, -- A 10 percent tax credit (with maximum limit of $1,000, $2,000 for joint returns) for increased individual savings, -- A special capital recovery amortization schedule providing for five-year accelerated double declining balance depreciation for equipment and ten-year accelerated double declining balance depreciation for buildings, -- A tax credit based on employment of individuals, partly dependent on unemployment rates. Individually, a number of these proposals present very serious difficulties from a tax policy standpoint and we would strongly oppose them. Collectively, they represent a package of tax reductions of such a magnitude that their espousal would be irresponsible. We very strongly recommend that the Economic Policy Board adhere to its previous decision. Table 1 Comparison of Estimated Receipts Effects Resulting from the Esch Substitute to H.R. 50 and the President's Comparable Proposals (1976 Law) ($ billions) : Fiscal Years : TQ : 1977 : 1978 : 1979 : 1980 : 1981 Gross revenue loss resulting from Esch substitute to H.R. 50 -9.5 -54.4 -70.2 -83.1 -95.4 -105.5 Offsetting revenue gain due to economic stimulus on nominal GNP 2/ +0.7 +6.0 +9.7 +14.3 +18.4 +22.1 Net revenue loss -8.8 -48.4 -60.5 -68.8 -77.0 -83.4 Net revenue loss resulting from the President's tax cut and job creation proposals 3/ -5.5 -28.2 -36.6 -42.0 -49.1 -57.4 Difference in net receipts (Esch proposals minus the President's proposals) -3.3 -20.2 -23.9 -26.8 -27.9 -26.0 Office of the Secretary of the Treasury June 9, 1976 Office of Tax Analysis 1/ Assumes same underlying economic assumptions as under the President's program. 2/ Estimated revenue gain resulting from additional stimulus on nominal GNP. 3/ Consists of the President's tax cut proposals plus rapid amortization in areas of high unemployment, BSOP, financial institutions reform, corporate integration, and estate and gift tax reform. Table 2 Estimated Reduction in Receipts Resulting from Congressman Esch's Substitute to H.R. 50 (1976 Law) ($ billions) Esch Substitute to H.R. 50 : Fiscal Years Section : Provision : TQ : 1977 : 1978 : 1979 : 1980 : 1981 203 Personal exemption changes 2.4 10.8 11.5 12.1 12.7 13.3 Standard deduction changes .7 4.5 4.6 4.8 204 5.0 5.3 205 Individual rate reductions 1.6 7.0 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.6 1/ --- ----------- --- 207 Per capita credit 1/ ----- --- --- --- 207 Optional taxable income credit 208 Earned income credit 1/ --- ----- --- --- ----- 211 Permanent 12 percent investment credit plus additional 1 percent ESOP credit - Individuals * .4 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 ... Corporations .3 2.6 4.4 4.7 5.0 5.4 212 Corporate tax rate reductions .9 4.4 5.9 7.1 7.7 8.2 213 Rapid amortization in high unemployment areas- --- * * Individuals .1 .1 .1 --- * .1 .3 .5 .6 Corporations 214 One-year amortization for pollution control facilities .5 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 10 percent personal savings credit .6 6.4 6.7 7.4 8.1 8.9 215 Broadened stock ownership plans --- .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 216-20 --- --- .7 3.3 6.8 222 Corporate tax integration - Individuals -- 1.1 3.0 4.6 6.5 Corporations 223-29 Estate and gift tax relief * .1 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.6 230 Capital recovery allowances - Individuals .1 1.3 2.7 3.8 5.0 5.1 Corporations 1.2 7.4 12.1 16.9 20.1 20.6 312 Job creation tax credit - Individuals .1 .6 .9 1.0 1.0 1.0 Corporations 1.2 6.6 8.5 8.7 8.9 9.2 Total individual 5.4 31.4 36.4 40.7 47.2 53.5 Total corporations 4.1 23.0 33.8 42.4 48.3 52.0 Grand total 9.5 54.4 70.2 83.1 95.4 105.5 Office of the Secretary of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis June 9, 1976 Less than 50 million. 1/ No change over present law. 2/ Differs from estimate for President's proposals because of deferral on small gifts. TAB B OFFICE STATE IMPRESIDENT STATE a UNITED EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503 June 7, 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR: DOUG METZ PP FROM: RUDY PENNER SUBJECT: Esch/Kemp Bill Attached are two memos. The memo from White to Shipley makes cost estimates for those outlay programs not in the President's Budget. The memo noted "Title I" states why OMB has testified against such measures in the past. Attachments EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DATE: June 4, 1976 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503 REPLY TO ATTN OF: CVA/Labor SUBJECT: Esch/Kemp Bill, June 2 version Jerry Shipley 1. The following sections in prior drafts have, appropriately, dropped out: reauthorization of the regular CETA titles; reauthorization of CETA Title VI; the UI amendments. The last two would have been harmful to present Administration objectives. 2. A new Youth Incentive Program title has been added. This is essentially the same as the Youth Title from Mr. Esch's proposal of October 9, 1975, H.R. 10160, except for the elimination of the requirement that the school year jobs pay at least minimum wage, and some minor® technical changes. Attachment A provides a set of assumptions and methods used to calculate the cost of the new title. In summary, the net estimates are: Youth Incentive Program Net Outlays in Millions (amounts over President's Budget) 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 3,830 4,293 4,756 5,179 5,602 We note that the new Youth title makes no reference to the existing CETA Title I youth activity. Under that authority, prime sponsors are expected to spend about $750 million for youth in FY 1977. The bill's sponsors may wish to make some reference to this resource in their explanatory material. Perhaps they could state that their intent is that all youth needs be met by the new title, thus freeing the Title I money, if prime sponsors so desire, for service to the long-term unemployed and other priority groups. This is not quite consistent with the inclusion of the "school to work" language in Title I, but it would help explain at least one way the present resource could be accounted for. As a practical matter, the new Title I authorities for Youth would be hard to distinguish from the existing programs at the operating level. Of course, the whole 2 title is another step away from the consolidation achieved with the enactment of CETA. However, the Administration cannot object on principle, since we have proposed separate summer youth programs. 3. Part B of the Esch/Kemp Title III, Programs for the Long-Term Unemployed, does not have cost implications over existing resources. Some additional experimentation or labor market information activity might result, but there are ample discretionary resources now available to accommodate this. The majority of the amendments provide for heightened sensitivity on the part of the prime sponsors and the Secretary to the problems of the long-term unemployed and problems caused by the transition from school to work. 4. The bill still contains the language giving added emphasis to the development of job banks/job matching. The sponsors should be made aware that the Department has been unable to date to come up with a plan to spend effectively the resources now available for the expansion and further refinement of the system. GAO has recently reported to an oversight committee on the Employment Service that its analysis indicates that the Department is not ready to expand the system; further testing and development is needed. We recognize the attraction in theory of speeded job matching and enhanced labor market information made available through job banks. However, it is quite likely that more harm than good will be done by putting added pressure on the Department. 5. As a technical matter, since the reauthorization of Title VI no longer is included, Section 307, which adds priorities for the long term unemployed within Title VI, should be dropped. The Title VI authority expired December 31, 1975. 6. The Youth Conservation Employment Program was reviewed by the YCC examiner (Satterfield). The judgment on this program is that, while there will always be work that can be done, the present budgets for Agriculture and Interior are adequate to do what can be justified on reasonable cost/benefit grounds. Attachment B provides the assumptions and methods used in estimating the cost of this program. All costs are additive to the President's Budget. In summary, the estimates are: 3 Youth Conservation Employment Outlays in Millions 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 10 1,500 1,687 1,500 1,500 7. The EDA examiner (Howland) reviewed the directives to the Secretary of Commerce (pp. 138-9) to focus on areas of high unemployment. There are no direct cost implications to these portions. However, the sponsors should be aware that the President's budget for 1977 includes reductions of $137 million in EDA from the 1976 level, principally in the areas cited in Esch/ Kemp. The remaining EDA activity is to be targetted as the bill would direct. Barry White Budget Examiner Attachment A Costing of Esch/Kemp Title III Youth Incentive Program Enrollment level There is no statement in the bill as to the expected size of the program. CETA Section 304, the Summer Youth Employment Program is repealed, and the minimum appropriation for the Youth Incentive Program is the 1976 appropriation for Section 304, or $528 million, which provided almost 900,000 jobs. Since the level has gone up each year, we assume starting in 1977 at 1 million, and increasing 100,000 each year thereafter. Since the summer program is to be closely related to the school year program, we assume the same average level throughout the year. Unit cost We presently calculate average unit cost for a summer youth job as follows: 234 hours times the minimum wage ($2.30 per hour); add 7% for benefits; add 6% for administrative cost; minus out 3% lapse. This gives an FY 76 cost of $595 per summer job. For Esch/Kemp we make the following assumptions: -- retain the minimum wage as the average. Even though the bill allows going lower, we assume that the number below and the number above the minimum are likely to cancel out. We assume no increase in the statutory minimum. -- retain the 7% for benefits. -- increase the administrative cost to 10% even though the bill allows up to 15%, and permits equipment and space rental. We would see the types of jobs as not requiring major equipment and space costs. Administrative cost would increase, but using the Prime Sponsor mechanism ought to permit some continued absorption. -- retain the 3% lapse. -- hours per week and number of weeks breaks three ways: 2 (1) For the summer: 40 hours per week for all participants for 10 weeks. Some would clearly work fewer hours, but the bill emphasizes the full-time work authority. It also provides for increased efforts for training, which increase cost. (2) For school year: 1/2 the participants part- time at 20 hours; 1/2 the participants full- time for 40 hours. Each slot funded for 40 weeks. President's Budget Esch/Kemp repeals Section 304 of CETA, which is the present Summer Youth Employment Program. The Budget provides preliminary estimates for this program each year. It is the President's intent to reserve judgment on the size of the summer program needed each year until March, when the data become available projecting youth unemployment and other relevant factors. Allowances in the budget estimates are: 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 400 360 320 320 320 Costs by Fiscal Year ($ in millions) FY 1977: 1,050 1 million summer youth slots 2,100 500,000 full-time school year slots 1,080 500,000 part-time school year slots 4,230 -400 President's budget estimate for summer 3,830 FY 1978: 1,155 1.1 million summer youth slots 2,310 550,000 full-time school year slots 1,188 550,000 part-time school year slots 4,653 -360 President's budget estimate for summer 4,293 3 FY 1979: 1,260 1.2 million summer youth slots 2,520 600,000 full-time school year slots 1,296 600,000 part-time school year slots 5,076 -320 President's Budget estimate for summer 4,756 FY 1980: 1,365 1.3 million summer youth slots 2,730 650,000 full-time school year slots 1,404 650,000 part-time school year slots 5,499 --320 President's Budget estimate for summer 5,179 FY 1981: 1,470 1.4 million summer youth slots 2,940 700,000 full-time school year slots 1,512 700,000 part-time school year slots 5,922 -320 President's Budget estimate for summer 5,602 ATTACHMENT B Cost Estimate for Esch/Kemp Youth Conservation Employment Estimate of costs is based on a number of assumptions including the following: 100,000 employed for 9 months 300,000 employed for 3 months. Full-year employment cost: 100,000 @ $10,000 average annual cost = $750,000,000 300,000 @ $10,000 average annual cost = $750,000,000 Facilities cost: $750,000,000 Average annual cost based on: Wages and benefits - 5,200 Administration (direct) - 2,800 Overhead - 2,000 10,000 Facilities cost based on: Construction cost $10,000 per man if 50 man camp New facilities will be necessary to facilitate 25% of program. Program would not reach full operation until 1980. Also assumes that other constraints in bill would allow this level of operation. Costs by FY ($ in millions) FY 1977 FY 1978 FY 1979 FY 1980 FY 1981 Planning 10 -- -- : -- Construction -- 375 375 : -- Operation -- 1,125 1,312 1,500 1,500 Total 10 1,500 1,687 1,500 1,500 TITLE I The Administration supports the basic intent of Title I of the Esch amendment to H.R. 50. The Administration has gone on record in support of periodic quality assessments (evaluations) of the various activities of the Federal Govern- ment, along with the full use of such assessments in decision- making as to the future of such activities. However, this proposed amendment to H.R. 50 shares the overriding problem found in other similar legislative proposals. It is far too mechanical and inflexible. The following comments focus on provisions that directly affect the Executive Branch agencies. The Legislative Branch agencies, such as the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office, are in a better position to assess the effect of provisions that directly affect them. Required authorizing legislation coupled with program control reviews Sections 102-113 would impose a series of requirements designed to ensure that existing and proposed new programs be reviewed intensively before they are renewed. These sections would require, among other things: -- that legislation authorizing new budget authority (except when financed by a trust fund) be terminated on October 1, 1980 (Sec. 102) ; -- that, generally, subsequent bills, resolutions, or amendments authorizing budget authority for programs be limited to not more than four fiscal years (Sec. 103) ; 2 --- that new program authorizations be further limited to one fiscal year and programs previously authorized be limited to two additional fiscal years (Sec. 104) ; -- that proposed changes to programs funded by trust funds or permanent budget authority be preceded by a report of "program control review" (Sec. 105) ; --- that whenever legislation authorizing new budget authority is required, a prior congressional committee report on a "program control review" be conducted (Sec. 110) ; -- that agency heads submit an analysis of their programs and activities and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the programs and activities whenever requested to do so by authorizing committees conducting the "program control review" (Sec. 112 (1) and -- that, when requested by those committees, OMB submit a similar report from the standpoint of the budget functions, as well as the impact of the program or activity on the economy (Sec. 112(2)). These requirements would impede rather than induce serious program evaluation. They would discourage selectivity and the assignment of priorities in program evaluation efforts and would substitute for it the grinding out of reports that struggle to discuss all the items of information required for the program control reviews for all the required reauthoriza- tions. These sections of the amendment would, in short, 3 overload the ability of agencies to produce thorough program evaluation studies and flood the Congress with reports of less than adequate quality. Intentionally or otherwise, the proposed amendment would add to the paper flow required by the Congressional Budget Act. The President is required by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to request the enactment of legislation authorizing a new program or activity for at least the first two fiscal years. The substitute would limit the Congress to report new program authorizations for only one fiscal year. The President's budget Section 114 of the proposed amendment would require that, beginning with the 1979 budget, the President's budget include, for each Government program or activity, information on the budget-year objectives as well as a comparison of past year achieved objectives with planned objectives. As Director Lynn has testified, this effort would be staggering. There are more than 1,000 Federal domestic assistance programs alone. The information required to be included in the President's budget would be so great that detailed analysis by the OMB and agency staff would--necessarily-- give way to "pro forma" examination. The quality of the information would be suspect because, over and above the extremely difficult conceptual and technical problems associated 4 with developing performance measurements, the development of measurements that would be acceptable to the several interested parties would require a managerial effort of a magnitude that neither the Executive Branch nor the Legislative Branch now has, or for that matter, would likely be willing to divert on such a scale for this purpose. Printing of fiscal note on legislation The Esch amendment would also require (Sec. 118) that every bill or joint resolution of "a public or private character which has been introduced in either House of Congress shall be printed only when there appears at the bottom of the first page thereof a fiscal note." The fiscal note is required to cover five fiscal years or the authorized duration of any program authorized by the legislation and must be furnished by Executive Branch agencies within 72 hours. The note shall state estimates of the "direct and indirect costs and savings" that would result from the bill. It is unrealistic to expect Federal agencies to review proposed bills and to provide useful estimates of direct and indirect costs and/or savings within such a short time. Moreover, to require the Federal agencies to provide this information for each of the more than 10,000 bills and joint resolutions expected to be introduced each year would impose a considerable and unnecessary workload burden. The 5 Congressional Budget Act now requires that reports accompanying legislation providing new budget authority or tax expenditures contain similar information. In fact, in recognition that five-year projections may not always be practical, that Act allows the exemption of such projections provided that the report accompanying the legislation contain a statement of the reason for such impracticability. Statement of purpose Section 2 (6) of the proposed amendment cannot be supported by the Administration. The section states that "National policy over the past decade has been to discourage, rather than encourage, job creation and growth in the private sector." Surely, this is not this Administration's view of its national policy over the past eight years. DEPARTMENT Co COMMICK THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE Washington, D.C. 20230 MNITED STATES OF AMERICA MEMORANDUM FOR L. William Seidman Executive Director, Economic Policy Board SUBJECT: Commerce Trade Figure Releases In response to the EPB Executive Committee's decision March 22. 1976, we have worked out with the Bureau of the Census as revised "Summary of U.S. Export and Import Merchandise Trade release (attached) which we believe gives parity to the c.i.f. import numbers. The Bureau of the Census has discussed this matter with OMB, and it appears no formal clearance or review will be necessary. Therefore, if the Executive Committee of the EPB concurs with the new format, we would propose to make the revision commencing with the release on June 25. To meet this deadline, perhaps the EPB Executive Committee could deal with this matter the week of June 1. John Thomas IT Acting Secretary of Commerce Attachment SUMMARY OF U.S. EXPORT AND IMPORT MERCHANDISE TRADE "February 1976 FT 900-75-2 For Release March 26. 1926 Seasonally Adjusted and Unadjusted Data 10:00 AM. (Including Unadjusted Data on imports of Petroleum and Petroleum Products) F.A.S. EXPORTS AND F.A.S. IMPORTS F.A.S. EXPORTS AND C.I.F. IMPORTS Seasonally Adjusted Seasonally Adjusted The Bureau stated that during February 1976, exports The Bureau stated that during February 1976, exports on a f.a.s. (free alongside ship) U.S. port of 2. f.a.s. (free alongside ship) U.S. port of exportati exportation basis, excluding Department of Defense basis, excluding Department of Defense (DOD) Military (DOD) Military Assistance Program Grant-Aid ship- Assistance Program Grant-Aid shipments, were valued : ments, were valued at $8,800.1 million and that $8,800.1 rillion and that general imports on a c.i.f. general imports on 2. (.a.s. foreign port of (cost, insurance, and freight) U.S. port of entry has exportation value busis, amounted to $8,910.9 amounted to $9,592.7 million. 23 million. 1 = 3 Based on the above f.a.s. export and c.i.f. import Based on the above export and inport figures, the figures, the February merchandise trade balance was 5 February merchandise trade balance was in deficit deficit by $792.6 million, as compared to the January by $140.8 million, as compared to the January 1976 1976 deficit of $770.3 million. deficit of $72.6 million. During the 4-nonth period, November 1975 - February During the 1-month period, November 1975 February 1976, exports averaged $9,140.7 million per month, a 1976, exports averaged $9,140.7 million per month, level slightly above (about 1 percent) the $9,060.8 2 level slightly above (about 1 percent) the million average reported for the preceding 4-month $9,000.8 million average reported for the preceding period, July-October 1975. Imports on a c.i.f. valu. 4-month period, July-October 1975. Imports on a basis averaged $9,366.9 million per month for the cu 1.a.s. value basis, averaged $8,711.6 million per 4-month period, about 9 percent higher than the $s,6 month for the current 4-month period, about 9 million average reported for the preceding 4-month P percent higher than the $8,021.2 million average reported for the proceding Amounth paried Unviinated Table 1. U.S. Exports (f.a.s. Value Basis), General Imports (f.a.s. and c.i.f. Value Basis), and Merchandise Ti. Balance, Adjusted for Seasonal and Working-Day Variation, by Month: January 1973 to February 1576 (in millions of dollars. See Explanation of Statistics for information 00 coverage, definitions of export and i: values and trade balances, and sources of error in the data. All data shown for 1975 and 1976 reflect seasonal adjustment factors introduced in January 1976) F.a.s. Exports and f.a.s. Imports F.a.s. Exports and c.i.f. Impor Period Exports 1 Trade Imports balance Exports 1 I; Imports bai 1975 January-February 18,128.0 17,553.1 + 504.9 18,128.0 18,87S.9 January 9,373.4 9,635.5 - 262.1 9,373.4 February 10,377.7 8,754.6 7,927.6 + 827.0 March 8,751.6 8,501.2 + 8,685.2 7,466.5 +1,218.7 8,685.2 April 8,039.2 % 8,647.6 7,958.5 + 689.1 8,647.6 May 8,546.5 + S,221.5 7,266.2 + 955.3 8,221.5 June 7,816.7 + 8,716.1 7,103.5 +1,612.6 8,716.1 7,652.2 July 8,893.8 7,832.2 +1,051.6 8,893.8 August 8,413.0 8,979.2 + 7,877.2 +1,102.0 8,979.2 September 8,478.8 + 9,145.7 8,205.1 + 910.6 October 9,145.7 8,829.9 + 9,221.6 8,170.4 +1,051.2 9,224.6 November 8,795.2 + 9,109.3 8,203.5 +1,205.7 9,409.3 December 8,820.5 + 9,249.9 8,525.7 + 721.2 9,219.9 9,165.5 + 1976 January-February 17,903.5 18,116.9 - 213.4 17,903.5 19,472.4 January 9,103.4 9,176.0 - 72.6 February 9,103.4 9,879.7 8,800.1 8,940.9 - 140.8 March 8,800.1 9,592.7 April Key June July August September October November December "Represents exports of Comestic and foreign merchandise excluding Department of Defense Military Assistance Prog Grant-Aid shipments. EYES ONLY MINUTES OF THE ECONOMIC POLICY BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING June 10, 1976 Attendees: Messrs. Simon, Seidman, Lynn, Ussery, Richardson, Zarb, Walker, Porter, Penner 1. Senate Finance Committee Tax Reform Bill The Executive Committee reviewed a memorandum, prepared by the Treasury, on the Senate Finance Committee tax reform bill. The discussion focused on the legislative prospects for the bill and the Administration's position on specific provisions in the bill. Decisions The Executive Committee approved the recommended positions outlined in the memorandum with the following modifications: The Administration will seek to exclude charities from the impact of the minimum tax provision. The Administration will oppose the 2 percent investment credit for an ESOP unless the Administration's BSOP proposal is adopted. The Administration will support the 5-year amortiza- tion of pollution control equipment for the electric utility industry provided that there is a normalization provision. The Administration will oppose the provision for the nontaxability of contributions to group legal service plans. The Administration will support the provision permit- ting members of the Armed Forces Reserves or National Guard to make tax deductible IRA contributions to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) for a year in which the service in the Reserves or National Guard is less than 90 days (excluding active duty for training). Treasury will coordinate the recommended positions on the energy portions of the bill with HUD. Commerce will pro- vide Treasury with their comments. EYES ONLY RBP EYES ONLY MINUTES OF THE EPB/ERC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING June 9, 1976 Attendees: Messrs. Seidman, Lynn, Zarb, Train, Cannon, Dixon, Seamans, Darman, Zausner, MacAvoy, Moskow, Porter, Katz, Perritt, McGurk, Penner, Arena, VanHorne, Hardy, Fri, McCormick, Kearney, Duval, Leach, Lissy, Gage, Fisher, Zahradnik 1. Scrubber Technology The Executive Committee reviewed three alternative scrubber technologies currently in use or under development: (1) coal cleaning; (2) combustion modification; (3) flue-gas desul- furization. EPA reported on a series of flue-gas desulfuri- zation processes and demonstration projects currently under way and on various physical and chemical coal cleaning development processes. ERDA reported on the status of development of coal-oil slurries, solvent refining of coal, and fluidization bed combustion. The discussion focused on the incremental costs of different processes, the construction lead time differential between oil-fired plants and coal/nuclear power facilities, and the present incentives for industry to select either oil or coal as a future source of power. Decision FEA, ERDA and EPA will prepare a paper examining the trade- offs involved in the need for more coal-generated power and compliance with existing and prospective air quality standards in the context of the development of new emission control technologies. 2. Synthetic Fuels Legislation ERDA briefly reported on the legislative status of the synthetic fuels commercialization program. Decision ERDA will coordinate Executive Branch agency efforts to support the pending synthetic fuels legislation. EYES ONLY EYES ONLY 2 3. Administration Position on Minimum Wage Legislation The Executive Committee briefly reviewed a draft memoran- dum prepared by the Department of Labor on the Administra- tion position on minimum wage legislation and a letter from Secretary Simon outlining the views of the Department of the Treasury on the minimum wage issue. Decision A revised memorandum will be prepared to reflect the dis- cussion and will be circulated to Executive Committee members for their comments and recommendations prior to submission to the President. 4. Special Session on International Summit Conference The Executive Committee will hold a special session at 6:00 p.m. this evening in the Roosevelt Room to review the first drafts of the papers prepared for the inter- national summit conference in Puerto Rico. EYES ONLY RBP

    Page data

    Page
    1
    Source index
    0
    Type
    document
    Media ID
    1d3a398347e6cd08
    Size
    unknown

    Document data

    ID
    1535184
    Core
    doc
    Type
    document
    DTO data 
    {
    "id": "1535184",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1535184",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "1976/06/11 - Economic Policy Board",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1535184",
    "collections": [
        "James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
        "James Cannon's Meetings Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Legislation",
        "Manpower policy"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1535184.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1535184.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1535184.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

    Context sent to Scholar

    Document identity 
    {
    "localId": "1535184",
    "label": "1976/06/11 - Economic Policy Board",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1535184"
}
    Document source metadata 
    {
    "id": "1535184",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1535184",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "1976/06/11 - Economic Policy Board",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1535184",
    "collections": [
        "James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
        "James Cannon's Meetings Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Legislation",
        "Manpower policy"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1535184.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1535184.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1535184.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}
    Document source extras 
    {
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1535184",
    "naId": 1535184,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-06-30",
        "month": 6,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-06-01",
        "month": 6,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
    Page context 
    {
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1535184.pdf",
    "mediaId": "1d3a398347e6cd08",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 59, folder \"1976/06/11 - Economic Policy Board\"\nof the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 59 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nECONOMIC POLICY BOARD\nEXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING\nAGENDA\n8:30 a. m.\nRoosevelt Room\nJune 11, 1976\n1.\nReport of Commodities Policy Coordinating\nState-Treasury\nCommittee\n2.\nAnalysis of Esch-Kemp Bill\nGorog-OMB-Treasury\nI\n3.\nCommerce Trade Figure Releases\nCommerce\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 9, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR ECONOMIC POLICY BOARD\nEXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS\nFROM:\nWILLIAM F. GOROG\nSUBJECT:\nEsch/Kemp Job Creation Legislation\nCongressmen Esch, Kemp and others have drafted a proposed alternative\nto H.R. 50 (Humphrey-Hawkins) to be offered as a substitute when the\nbill is brought up in the House -- probably after the Democratic\nNational Convention in July.\nThe Esch/Kemp proposal contains the following add-ons to our package\nof existing Administration proposals:\n\"Zero budgeting\", involving a four-year phased\nreview of all Federal program authorizations with\nfirst-year priority on employment and training\nprograms, a complicated system of GAO reports\nand audits, and mandated MBO budgeting by OMB.\nAlso, Treasury would develop a consolidated financial\nreport for the U.S. using accrual accounting.\nA 4 percent decrease in the corporate tax rate phased\nover three years (2, 1, and 1 percent).\nA boost in the investment tax credit to 12% across the\nboard, plus an additional 1% for contributions to\nemployee stock ownership (ESOP) plans.\nExtension nationwide of our accelerated depreciation\nprogram for high unemployment if found beneficial\nby Treasury upon evaluation.\nA special capital recovery amortization schedule providing\nfor five-year accelerated double declining balance depreciation\nfor equipment and ten-year accelerated double declining\nbalance depreciation for buildings.\n- 2 -\nOne-year amortization of pollution control facilities.\n0\nA 10% tax credit (with maximum limit of $1,000,\n$2,000 for joint returns) for increased personal\nsavings.\nO\nA year-round youth employment program plus es-\ntablishment of a Youth Conservation Corps.\no\nAn employment tax credit program partly dependent\non unemployment rates.\nAttached are memoranda from Treasury (Tab A) and OMB (Tab B)\ncommenting on the tax and fiscal policy impact of the proposal as\nnow drafted.\nAttachments\nTAB A\nOF\nTHE THE TREASURY\nDEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\nWASHINGTON. D.C. 20220\n1789\nASSISTANT SECRETARY\nJUN 9 1976\nMEMORANDUM TO: Economic Policy Board\nExecutive Committee\nFROM: Charles M. Walker\nw\nSUBJECT: Esch-Kemp Bill\nThis memorandum is an analysis of the revenue effects\nover the next 5 fiscal years of the draft Esch-Kemp Bill,\nwhich combines pending Administration tax proposals with a\nnumber of additional capital formation proposals.\nThe revenue cost of the total package is enormous.\nAfter taking into account the effects on the economy, the\ntotal cost would be $48 billion in Fiscal Year 1977 and $83\nbillion in Fiscal Year 1981, which are, respectively, $20\nbillion and $26 billion more than the cost for pending\ncomparable Administration proposals.\nThe revenue estimates for the Esch-Kemp Bill have first\nbeen estimated using income levels consistent with Troika\nprojections (line 1 of Table 1, the detail of which is shown\nin Table 2). These Troika projections underlie the President's\nproposed tax cuts for Fiscal Year 1977. However, the tax\ncuts in the Esch-Kemp Bill substantially exceed those\nrecommended by the President, by more than $25 billion in\nFiscal Year 1977 alone. The proposed additional tax cuts\ncan therefore be expected to generate substantially higher\nlevels of nominal GNP as a result of which there will be\nsome offsetting revenue pick-up by the Treasury (line 2).\nThe last line of Table 1 indicates the net reduction in\nreceipts beyond the President's tax cuts and job creation\nproposals after taking into consideration offsetting\nrevenue gains.\nIt should be noted that no judgments are rendered here\non the division of nominal GNP between real income changes\nand price changes. However, massive tax cuts such as those\nrecommended here should substantially increase inflation in\n-2-\nthe economy particularly after the first year or two when\nthe economy may be expected to be much closer to its full\nemployment potential.\nAt an earlier meeting of the EPB Executive Committee\nit was agreed to repackage the various pending Administration\nproposals relating to capital formation and job creation as\na single bill, but not to identify the Administration at\nthis time with additional proposals. The draft Esch-Kemp\nBill contains a number of costly additional proposals:\n-- A permanent 12 percent investment credit,\nrather than the 10 percent permanent\ninvestment credit recommended by the President,\n-- An additional 1 percent investment credit\nfor contributions to employee stock owner-\nship (ESOP) \"plans,\n-- Larger corporate tax reductions than recommended\nby the President,\n-- One-year amortization for pollution control\nfacilities,\n-- A 10 percent tax credit (with maximum limit\nof $1,000, $2,000 for joint returns) for\nincreased individual savings,\n-- A special capital recovery amortization\nschedule providing for five-year accelerated\ndouble declining balance depreciation for\nequipment and ten-year accelerated double\ndeclining balance depreciation for buildings,\n-- A tax credit based on employment of individuals,\npartly dependent on unemployment rates.\nIndividually, a number of these proposals present very\nserious difficulties from a tax policy standpoint and we\nwould strongly oppose them. Collectively, they represent\na package of tax reductions of such a magnitude that their\nespousal would be irresponsible.\nWe very strongly recommend that the Economic Policy\nBoard adhere to its previous decision.\nTable 1\nComparison of Estimated Receipts Effects Resulting\nfrom the Esch Substitute to H.R. 50 and\nthe President's Comparable Proposals\n(1976 Law)\n($ billions)\n:\nFiscal Years\n: TQ : 1977 : 1978 : 1979 : 1980 : 1981\nGross revenue loss resulting from Esch\nsubstitute to H.R. 50\n-9.5 -54.4 -70.2 -83.1 -95.4 -105.5\nOffsetting revenue gain due to economic\nstimulus on nominal GNP 2/\n+0.7 +6.0 +9.7 +14.3 +18.4 +22.1\nNet revenue loss\n-8.8 -48.4 -60.5 -68.8 -77.0 -83.4\nNet revenue loss resulting from the President's\ntax cut and job creation proposals 3/\n-5.5 -28.2 -36.6 -42.0 -49.1 -57.4\nDifference in net receipts (Esch proposals\nminus the President's proposals)\n-3.3 -20.2 -23.9 -26.8 -27.9 -26.0\nOffice of the Secretary of the Treasury\nJune 9, 1976\nOffice of Tax Analysis\n1/ Assumes same underlying economic assumptions as under the President's program.\n2/ Estimated revenue gain resulting from additional stimulus on nominal GNP.\n3/ Consists of the President's tax cut proposals plus rapid amortization in\nareas of high unemployment, BSOP, financial institutions reform, corporate\nintegration, and estate and gift tax reform.\nTable 2\nEstimated Reduction in Receipts Resulting from\nCongressman Esch's Substitute to H.R. 50\n(1976 Law)\n($ billions)\nEsch Substitute to H.R. 50\n:\nFiscal Years\nSection :\nProvision\n:\nTQ\n:\n1977\n:\n1978\n:\n1979\n:\n1980\n:\n1981\n203\nPersonal exemption changes\n2.4\n10.8\n11.5\n12.1\n12.7\n13.3\nStandard deduction changes\n.7\n4.5\n4.6\n4.8\n204\n5.0\n5.3\n205\nIndividual rate reductions\n1.6\n7.0\n7.4\n7.8\n8.2\n8.6\n1/\n---\n-----------\n---\n207\nPer capita credit\n1/\n-----\n---\n---\n---\n207\nOptional taxable income credit\n208\nEarned income credit\n1/\n---\n-----\n---\n---\n-----\n211\nPermanent 12 percent investment credit plus\nadditional 1 percent ESOP credit - Individuals\n*\n.4\n1.0\n1.1\n1.1\n1.2\n...\nCorporations\n.3\n2.6\n4.4\n4.7\n5.0\n5.4\n212\nCorporate tax rate reductions\n.9\n4.4\n5.9\n7.1\n7.7\n8.2\n213\nRapid amortization in high unemployment areas-\n---\n*\n*\nIndividuals\n.1\n.1\n.1\n---\n*\n.1\n.3\n.5\n.6\nCorporations\n214\nOne-year amortization for pollution control\nfacilities\n.5\n2.0\n1.6\n1.6\n1.5\n1.5\n10 percent personal savings credit\n.6\n6.4\n6.7\n7.4\n8.1\n8.9\n215\nBroadened stock ownership plans\n---\n.3\n.4\n.5\n.6\n.7\n216-20\n---\n---\n.7\n3.3\n6.8\n222\nCorporate tax integration - Individuals\n--\n1.1\n3.0\n4.6\n6.5\nCorporations\n223-29\nEstate and gift tax relief\n*\n.1\n1.1\n1.5\n2.0\n2.6\n230\nCapital recovery allowances - Individuals\n.1\n1.3\n2.7\n3.8\n5.0\n5.1\nCorporations\n1.2\n7.4\n12.1\n16.9\n20.1\n20.6\n312\nJob creation tax credit - Individuals\n.1\n.6\n.9\n1.0\n1.0\n1.0\nCorporations\n1.2\n6.6\n8.5\n8.7\n8.9\n9.2\nTotal individual\n5.4\n31.4\n36.4\n40.7\n47.2\n53.5\nTotal corporations\n4.1\n23.0\n33.8\n42.4\n48.3\n52.0\nGrand total\n9.5\n54.4\n70.2\n83.1\n95.4\n105.5\nOffice of the Secretary of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis\nJune 9, 1976\nLess than 50 million.\n1/ No change over present law.\n2/ Differs from estimate for President's proposals because of deferral on small gifts.\nTAB B\nOFFICE STATE IMPRESIDENT STATE a UNITED\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nJune 7, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR: DOUG METZ\nPP\nFROM:\nRUDY PENNER\nSUBJECT:\nEsch/Kemp Bill\nAttached are two memos. The memo from White to\nShipley makes cost estimates for those outlay\nprograms not in the President's Budget. The memo\nnoted \"Title I\" states why OMB has testified\nagainst such measures in the past.\nAttachments\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nDATE:\nJune 4, 1976\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nREPLY TO\nATTN OF:\nCVA/Labor\nSUBJECT:\nEsch/Kemp Bill, June 2 version\nJerry Shipley\n1. The following sections in prior drafts have, appropriately,\ndropped out: reauthorization of the regular CETA titles;\nreauthorization of CETA Title VI; the UI amendments.\nThe last two would have been harmful to present\nAdministration objectives.\n2. A new Youth Incentive Program title has been added. This\nis essentially the same as the Youth Title from Mr. Esch's\nproposal of October 9, 1975, H.R. 10160, except for the\nelimination of the requirement that the school year jobs\npay at least minimum wage, and some minor® technical\nchanges. Attachment A provides a set of assumptions and\nmethods used to calculate the cost of the new title. In\nsummary, the net estimates are:\nYouth Incentive Program\nNet Outlays in Millions\n(amounts over President's Budget)\n1977\n1978\n1979\n1980\n1981\n3,830\n4,293\n4,756\n5,179\n5,602\nWe note that the new Youth title makes no reference to\nthe existing CETA Title I youth activity. Under that\nauthority, prime sponsors are expected to spend about\n$750 million for youth in FY 1977. The bill's sponsors\nmay wish to make some reference to this resource in\ntheir explanatory material. Perhaps they could state\nthat their intent is that all youth needs be met by the\nnew title, thus freeing the Title I money, if prime\nsponsors so desire, for service to the long-term\nunemployed and other priority groups. This is not\nquite consistent with the inclusion of the \"school to\nwork\" language in Title I, but it would help explain\nat least one way the present resource could be accounted\nfor. As a practical matter, the new Title I authorities\nfor Youth would be hard to distinguish from the existing\nprograms at the operating level. Of course, the whole\n2\ntitle is another step away from the consolidation\nachieved with the enactment of CETA. However, the\nAdministration cannot object on principle, since we\nhave proposed separate summer youth programs.\n3. Part B of the Esch/Kemp Title III, Programs for the\nLong-Term Unemployed, does not have cost implications\nover existing resources. Some additional experimentation\nor labor market information activity might result, but\nthere are ample discretionary resources now available\nto accommodate this. The majority of the amendments\nprovide for heightened sensitivity on the part of the\nprime sponsors and the Secretary to the problems of\nthe long-term unemployed and problems caused by the\ntransition from school to work.\n4. The bill still contains the language giving added\nemphasis to the development of job banks/job matching.\nThe sponsors should be made aware that the Department\nhas been unable to date to come up with a plan to spend\neffectively the resources now available for the\nexpansion and further refinement of the system. GAO\nhas recently reported to an oversight committee on the\nEmployment Service that its analysis indicates that\nthe Department is not ready to expand the system;\nfurther testing and development is needed. We recognize\nthe attraction in theory of speeded job matching and\nenhanced labor market information made available through\njob banks. However, it is quite likely that more harm\nthan good will be done by putting added pressure on the\nDepartment.\n5. As a technical matter, since the reauthorization of\nTitle VI no longer is included, Section 307, which adds\npriorities for the long term unemployed within Title VI,\nshould be dropped. The Title VI authority expired\nDecember 31, 1975.\n6.\nThe Youth Conservation Employment Program was reviewed\nby the YCC examiner (Satterfield). The judgment on\nthis program is that, while there will always be work\nthat can be done, the present budgets for Agriculture\nand Interior are adequate to do what can be justified\non reasonable cost/benefit grounds. Attachment B\nprovides the assumptions and methods used in estimating\nthe cost of this program. All costs are additive to\nthe President's Budget. In summary, the estimates are:\n3\nYouth Conservation Employment\nOutlays in Millions\n1977\n1978\n1979\n1980\n1981\n10\n1,500\n1,687\n1,500\n1,500\n7. The EDA examiner (Howland) reviewed the directives to\nthe Secretary of Commerce (pp. 138-9) to focus on areas\nof high unemployment. There are no direct cost\nimplications to these portions. However, the sponsors\nshould be aware that the President's budget for 1977\nincludes reductions of $137 million in EDA from the\n1976 level, principally in the areas cited in Esch/\nKemp. The remaining EDA activity is to be targetted\nas the bill would direct.\nBarry White\nBudget Examiner\nAttachment A\nCosting of Esch/Kemp Title III Youth Incentive Program\nEnrollment level\nThere is no statement in the bill as to the expected size\nof the program. CETA Section 304, the Summer Youth\nEmployment Program is repealed, and the minimum appropriation\nfor the Youth Incentive Program is the 1976 appropriation for\nSection 304, or $528 million, which provided almost 900,000\njobs. Since the level has gone up each year, we assume\nstarting in 1977 at 1 million, and increasing 100,000 each\nyear thereafter. Since the summer program is to be closely\nrelated to the school year program, we assume the same\naverage level throughout the year.\nUnit cost\nWe presently calculate average unit cost for a summer youth\njob as follows: 234 hours times the minimum wage ($2.30\nper hour); add 7% for benefits; add 6% for administrative\ncost; minus out 3% lapse. This gives an FY 76 cost of $595\nper summer job.\nFor Esch/Kemp we make the following assumptions:\n-- retain the minimum wage as the average. Even\nthough the bill allows going lower, we assume\nthat the number below and the number above the\nminimum are likely to cancel out. We assume no\nincrease in the statutory minimum.\n-- retain the 7% for benefits.\n-- increase the administrative cost to 10% even though\nthe bill allows up to 15%, and permits equipment\nand space rental. We would see the types of jobs\nas not requiring major equipment and space costs.\nAdministrative cost would increase, but using the\nPrime Sponsor mechanism ought to permit some\ncontinued absorption.\n-- retain the 3% lapse.\n-- hours per week and number of weeks breaks three ways:\n2\n(1) For the summer: 40 hours per week for all\nparticipants for 10 weeks. Some would\nclearly work fewer hours, but the bill\nemphasizes the full-time work authority.\nIt also provides for increased efforts\nfor training, which increase cost.\n(2) For school year: 1/2 the participants part-\ntime at 20 hours; 1/2 the participants full-\ntime for 40 hours. Each slot funded for 40\nweeks.\nPresident's Budget\nEsch/Kemp repeals Section 304 of CETA, which is the present\nSummer Youth Employment Program. The Budget provides\npreliminary estimates for this program each year. It is\nthe President's intent to reserve judgment on the size of\nthe summer program needed each year until March, when the\ndata become available projecting youth unemployment and\nother relevant factors. Allowances in the budget estimates\nare:\n1977\n1978\n1979\n1980\n1981\n400\n360\n320\n320\n320\nCosts by Fiscal Year ($ in millions)\nFY 1977:\n1,050\n1 million summer youth slots\n2,100\n500,000 full-time school year slots\n1,080\n500,000 part-time school year slots\n4,230\n-400\nPresident's budget estimate for summer\n3,830\nFY 1978:\n1,155\n1.1 million summer youth slots\n2,310\n550,000 full-time school year slots\n1,188\n550,000 part-time school year slots\n4,653\n-360\nPresident's budget estimate for summer\n4,293\n3\nFY 1979:\n1,260\n1.2 million summer youth slots\n2,520\n600,000 full-time school year slots\n1,296\n600,000 part-time school year slots\n5,076\n-320\nPresident's Budget estimate for summer\n4,756\nFY 1980:\n1,365\n1.3 million summer youth slots\n2,730\n650,000 full-time school year slots\n1,404\n650,000 part-time school year slots\n5,499\n--320\nPresident's Budget estimate for summer\n5,179\nFY 1981:\n1,470\n1.4 million summer youth slots\n2,940\n700,000 full-time school year slots\n1,512\n700,000 part-time school year slots\n5,922\n-320\nPresident's Budget estimate for summer\n5,602\nATTACHMENT B\nCost Estimate for Esch/Kemp Youth Conservation Employment\nEstimate of costs is based on a number of assumptions including the\nfollowing:\n100,000 employed for 9 months\n300,000 employed for 3 months.\nFull-year employment cost:\n100,000 @ $10,000 average annual cost = $750,000,000\n300,000 @ $10,000 average annual cost = $750,000,000\nFacilities cost: $750,000,000\nAverage annual cost based on:\nWages and benefits\n- 5,200\nAdministration (direct) -\n2,800\nOverhead\n- 2,000\n10,000\nFacilities cost based on:\nConstruction cost $10,000 per man if 50 man camp\nNew facilities will be necessary to facilitate 25%\nof program.\nProgram would not reach full operation until 1980. Also assumes that other\nconstraints in bill would allow this level of operation.\nCosts by FY ($ in millions)\nFY 1977\nFY 1978\nFY 1979\nFY 1980\nFY 1981\nPlanning\n10\n--\n--\n:\n--\nConstruction\n--\n375\n375\n:\n--\nOperation\n--\n1,125\n1,312\n1,500\n1,500\nTotal\n10\n1,500\n1,687\n1,500\n1,500\nTITLE I\nThe Administration supports the basic intent of Title I\nof the Esch amendment to H.R. 50. The Administration has\ngone on record in support of periodic quality assessments\n(evaluations) of the various activities of the Federal Govern-\nment, along with the full use of such assessments in decision-\nmaking as to the future of such activities.\nHowever, this proposed amendment to H.R. 50 shares the\noverriding problem found in other similar legislative proposals.\nIt is far too mechanical and inflexible. The following\ncomments focus on provisions that directly affect the\nExecutive Branch agencies. The Legislative Branch agencies, such as\nthe General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget\nOffice, are in a better position to assess the effect of\nprovisions that directly affect them.\nRequired authorizing legislation coupled with program control\nreviews\nSections 102-113 would impose a series of requirements\ndesigned to ensure that existing and proposed new programs\nbe reviewed intensively before they are renewed. These\nsections would require, among other things:\n-- that legislation authorizing new budget authority\n(except when financed by a trust fund) be terminated\non October 1, 1980 (Sec. 102) ;\n-- that, generally, subsequent bills, resolutions, or\namendments authorizing budget authority for programs\nbe limited to not more than four fiscal years (Sec. 103) ;\n2\n--- that new program authorizations be further limited to\none fiscal year and programs previously authorized be\nlimited to two additional fiscal years (Sec. 104) ;\n-- that proposed changes to programs funded by trust\nfunds or permanent budget authority be preceded by a\nreport of \"program control review\" (Sec. 105) ;\n--- that whenever legislation authorizing new budget\nauthority is required, a prior congressional committee\nreport on a \"program control review\" be conducted\n(Sec. 110) ;\n-- that agency heads submit an analysis of their programs\nand activities and an evaluation of the effectiveness\nof the programs and activities whenever requested to\ndo so by authorizing committees conducting the\n\"program control review\" (Sec. 112 (1) and\n-- that, when requested by those committees, OMB submit\na similar report from the standpoint of the budget\nfunctions, as well as the impact of the program or\nactivity on the economy (Sec. 112(2)).\nThese requirements would impede rather than induce\nserious program evaluation. They would discourage selectivity\nand the assignment of priorities in program evaluation efforts\nand would substitute for it the grinding out of reports that\nstruggle to discuss all the items of information required for\nthe program control reviews for all the required reauthoriza-\ntions. These sections of the amendment would, in short,\n3\noverload the ability of agencies to produce thorough program\nevaluation studies and flood the Congress with reports of\nless than adequate quality.\nIntentionally or otherwise, the proposed amendment would\nadd to the paper flow required by the Congressional Budget\nAct. The President is required by the Congressional Budget\nAct of 1974 to request the enactment of legislation authorizing\na new program or activity for at least the first two fiscal\nyears. The substitute would limit the Congress to report\nnew program authorizations for only one fiscal year.\nThe President's budget\nSection 114 of the proposed amendment would require that,\nbeginning with the 1979 budget, the President's budget include,\nfor each Government program or activity, information on the\nbudget-year objectives as well as a comparison of past year\nachieved objectives with planned objectives.\nAs Director Lynn has testified, this effort would be\nstaggering. There are more than 1,000 Federal domestic\nassistance programs alone. The information required to be\nincluded in the President's budget would be so great that\ndetailed analysis by the OMB and agency staff would--necessarily--\ngive way to \"pro forma\" examination. The quality of the\ninformation would be suspect because, over and above the\nextremely difficult conceptual and technical problems associated\n4\nwith developing performance measurements, the development of\nmeasurements that would be acceptable to the several interested\nparties would require a managerial effort of a magnitude that\nneither the Executive Branch nor the Legislative Branch now\nhas, or for that matter, would likely be willing to divert on\nsuch a scale for this purpose.\nPrinting of fiscal note on legislation\nThe Esch amendment would also require (Sec. 118) that\nevery bill or joint resolution of \"a public or private\ncharacter which has been introduced in either House of\nCongress shall be printed only when there appears at the\nbottom of the first page thereof a fiscal note.\" The fiscal\nnote is required to cover five fiscal years or the authorized\nduration of any program authorized by the legislation and\nmust be furnished by Executive Branch agencies within 72 hours.\nThe note shall state estimates of the \"direct and indirect\ncosts and savings\" that would result from the bill.\nIt is unrealistic to expect Federal agencies to review\nproposed bills and to provide useful estimates of direct and\nindirect costs and/or savings within such a short time.\nMoreover, to require the Federal agencies to provide this\ninformation for each of the more than 10,000 bills and joint\nresolutions expected to be introduced each year would impose\na considerable and unnecessary workload burden. The\n5\nCongressional Budget Act now requires that reports accompanying\nlegislation providing new budget authority or tax expenditures\ncontain similar information. In fact, in recognition that\nfive-year projections may not always be practical, that Act\nallows the exemption of such projections provided that the\nreport accompanying the legislation contain a statement of\nthe reason for such impracticability.\nStatement of purpose\nSection 2 (6) of the proposed amendment cannot be supported\nby the Administration. The section states that \"National\npolicy over the past decade has been to discourage, rather\nthan encourage, job creation and growth in the private\nsector.\" Surely, this is not this Administration's view of\nits national policy over the past eight years.\nDEPARTMENT Co COMMICK\nTHE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE\nWashington, D.C. 20230\nMNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nMEMORANDUM FOR L. William Seidman\nExecutive Director, Economic Policy Board\nSUBJECT: Commerce Trade Figure Releases\nIn response to the EPB Executive Committee's decision March 22.\n1976, we have worked out with the Bureau of the Census as revised\n\"Summary of U.S. Export and Import Merchandise Trade release\n(attached) which we believe gives parity to the c.i.f. import\nnumbers. The Bureau of the Census has discussed this matter with\nOMB, and it appears no formal clearance or review will be\nnecessary.\nTherefore, if the Executive Committee of the EPB concurs with the\nnew format, we would propose to make the revision commencing with\nthe release on June 25.\nTo meet this deadline, perhaps the EPB Executive Committee could\ndeal with this matter the week of June 1.\nJohn Thomas IT\nActing Secretary of Commerce\nAttachment\nSUMMARY OF U.S. EXPORT AND\nIMPORT MERCHANDISE TRADE\n\"February 1976\nFT 900-75-2\nFor Release\nMarch 26. 1926\nSeasonally Adjusted and Unadjusted Data\n10:00 AM.\n(Including Unadjusted Data on imports of Petroleum and\nPetroleum Products)\nF.A.S. EXPORTS AND F.A.S. IMPORTS\nF.A.S. EXPORTS AND C.I.F. IMPORTS\nSeasonally Adjusted\nSeasonally Adjusted\nThe Bureau stated that during February 1976, exports\nThe Bureau stated that during February 1976, exports\non a f.a.s. (free alongside ship) U.S. port of\n2. f.a.s. (free alongside ship) U.S. port of exportati\nexportation basis, excluding Department of Defense\nbasis, excluding Department of Defense (DOD) Military\n(DOD) Military Assistance Program Grant-Aid ship-\nAssistance Program Grant-Aid shipments, were valued :\nments, were valued at $8,800.1 million and that\n$8,800.1 rillion and that general imports on a c.i.f.\ngeneral imports on 2. (.a.s. foreign port of\n(cost, insurance, and freight) U.S. port of entry has\nexportation value busis, amounted to $8,910.9\namounted to $9,592.7 million. 23\nmillion. 1 = 3\nBased on the above f.a.s. export and c.i.f. import\nBased on the above export and inport figures, the\nfigures, the February merchandise trade balance was 5\nFebruary merchandise trade balance was in deficit\ndeficit by $792.6 million, as compared to the January\nby $140.8 million, as compared to the January 1976\n1976 deficit of $770.3 million.\ndeficit of $72.6 million.\nDuring the 4-nonth period, November 1975 - February\nDuring the 1-month period, November 1975 February\n1976, exports averaged $9,140.7 million per month, a\n1976, exports averaged $9,140.7 million per month,\nlevel slightly above (about 1 percent) the $9,060.8\n2 level slightly above (about 1 percent) the\nmillion average reported for the preceding 4-month\n$9,000.8 million average reported for the preceding\nperiod, July-October 1975. Imports on a c.i.f. valu.\n4-month period, July-October 1975. Imports on a\nbasis averaged $9,366.9 million per month for the cu\n1.a.s. value basis, averaged $8,711.6 million per\n4-month period, about 9 percent higher than the $s,6\nmonth for the current 4-month period, about 9\nmillion average reported for the preceding 4-month P\npercent higher than the $8,021.2 million average\nreported for the proceding Amounth paried\nUnviinated\nTable 1. U.S. Exports (f.a.s. Value Basis), General Imports (f.a.s. and c.i.f. Value Basis), and Merchandise Ti.\nBalance, Adjusted for Seasonal and Working-Day Variation, by Month: January 1973 to February 1576\n(in millions of dollars. See Explanation of Statistics for information 00 coverage, definitions of export and i:\nvalues and trade balances, and sources of error in the data. All data shown for 1975 and 1976 reflect seasonal\nadjustment factors introduced in January 1976)\nF.a.s. Exports and f.a.s. Imports\nF.a.s. Exports and c.i.f. Impor\nPeriod\nExports 1\nTrade\nImports\nbalance\nExports 1\nI;\nImports\nbai\n1975\nJanuary-February\n18,128.0\n17,553.1\n+ 504.9\n18,128.0\n18,87S.9\nJanuary\n9,373.4\n9,635.5\n- 262.1\n9,373.4\nFebruary\n10,377.7\n8,754.6\n7,927.6\n+ 827.0\nMarch\n8,751.6\n8,501.2\n+\n8,685.2\n7,466.5\n+1,218.7\n8,685.2\nApril\n8,039.2\n%\n8,647.6\n7,958.5\n+ 689.1\n8,647.6\nMay\n8,546.5\n+\nS,221.5\n7,266.2\n+ 955.3\n8,221.5\nJune\n7,816.7\n+\n8,716.1\n7,103.5\n+1,612.6\n8,716.1\n7,652.2\nJuly\n8,893.8\n7,832.2\n+1,051.6\n8,893.8\nAugust\n8,413.0\n8,979.2\n+\n7,877.2\n+1,102.0\n8,979.2\nSeptember\n8,478.8\n+\n9,145.7\n8,205.1\n+ 910.6\nOctober\n9,145.7\n8,829.9\n+\n9,221.6\n8,170.4\n+1,051.2\n9,224.6\nNovember\n8,795.2\n+\n9,109.3\n8,203.5\n+1,205.7\n9,409.3\nDecember\n8,820.5\n+\n9,249.9\n8,525.7\n+ 721.2\n9,219.9\n9,165.5\n+\n1976\nJanuary-February\n17,903.5\n18,116.9\n- 213.4\n17,903.5\n19,472.4\nJanuary\n9,103.4\n9,176.0\n- 72.6\nFebruary\n9,103.4\n9,879.7\n8,800.1\n8,940.9\n- 140.8\nMarch\n8,800.1\n9,592.7\nApril\nKey\nJune\nJuly\nAugust\nSeptember\nOctober\nNovember\nDecember\n\"Represents exports of Comestic and foreign merchandise excluding Department of Defense Military Assistance Prog\nGrant-Aid shipments.\nEYES ONLY\nMINUTES OF THE\nECONOMIC POLICY BOARD\nEXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING\nJune 10, 1976\nAttendees: Messrs. Simon, Seidman, Lynn, Ussery, Richardson,\nZarb, Walker, Porter, Penner\n1. Senate Finance Committee Tax Reform Bill\nThe Executive Committee reviewed a memorandum, prepared\nby the Treasury, on the Senate Finance Committee tax\nreform bill. The discussion focused on the legislative\nprospects for the bill and the Administration's position\non specific provisions in the bill.\nDecisions\nThe Executive Committee approved the recommended positions\noutlined in the memorandum with the following modifications:\nThe Administration will seek to exclude charities from\nthe impact of the minimum tax provision.\nThe Administration will oppose the 2 percent investment\ncredit for an ESOP unless the Administration's BSOP\nproposal is adopted.\nThe Administration will support the 5-year amortiza-\ntion of pollution control equipment for the electric\nutility industry provided that there is a normalization\nprovision.\nThe Administration will oppose the provision for the\nnontaxability of contributions to group legal service\nplans.\nThe Administration will support the provision permit-\nting members of the Armed Forces Reserves or National\nGuard to make tax deductible IRA contributions to an\nIndividual Retirement Account (IRA) for a year in\nwhich the service in the Reserves or National Guard is\nless than 90 days (excluding active duty for training).\nTreasury will coordinate the recommended positions on the\nenergy portions of the bill with HUD. Commerce will pro-\nvide Treasury with their comments.\nEYES ONLY\nRBP\nEYES ONLY\nMINUTES OF THE\nEPB/ERC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING\nJune 9, 1976\nAttendees: Messrs. Seidman, Lynn, Zarb, Train, Cannon, Dixon,\nSeamans, Darman, Zausner, MacAvoy, Moskow, Porter,\nKatz, Perritt, McGurk, Penner, Arena, VanHorne,\nHardy, Fri, McCormick, Kearney, Duval, Leach,\nLissy, Gage, Fisher, Zahradnik\n1. Scrubber Technology\nThe Executive Committee reviewed three alternative scrubber\ntechnologies currently in use or under development: (1) coal\ncleaning; (2) combustion modification; (3) flue-gas desul-\nfurization. EPA reported on a series of flue-gas desulfuri-\nzation processes and demonstration projects currently under\nway and on various physical and chemical coal cleaning\ndevelopment processes.\nERDA reported on the status of development of coal-oil\nslurries, solvent refining of coal, and fluidization bed\ncombustion. The discussion focused on the incremental\ncosts of different processes, the construction lead time\ndifferential between oil-fired plants and coal/nuclear\npower facilities, and the present incentives for industry\nto select either oil or coal as a future source of power.\nDecision\nFEA, ERDA and EPA will prepare a paper examining the trade-\noffs involved in the need for more coal-generated power\nand compliance with existing and prospective air quality\nstandards in the context of the development of new emission\ncontrol technologies.\n2. Synthetic Fuels Legislation\nERDA briefly reported on the legislative status of the\nsynthetic fuels commercialization program.\nDecision\nERDA will coordinate Executive Branch agency efforts to\nsupport the pending synthetic fuels legislation.\nEYES ONLY\nEYES ONLY\n2\n3.\nAdministration Position on Minimum Wage Legislation\nThe Executive Committee briefly reviewed a draft memoran-\ndum prepared by the Department of Labor on the Administra-\ntion position on minimum wage legislation and a letter\nfrom Secretary Simon outlining the views of the Department\nof the Treasury on the minimum wage issue.\nDecision\nA revised memorandum will be prepared to reflect the dis-\ncussion and will be circulated to Executive Committee\nmembers for their comments and recommendations prior to\nsubmission to the President.\n4.\nSpecial Session on International Summit Conference\nThe Executive Committee will hold a special session at\n6:00 p.m. this evening in the Roosevelt Room to review\nthe first drafts of the papers prepared for the inter-\nnational summit conference in Puerto Rico.\nEYES ONLY\nRBP"
}