Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
16989447
label
Welfare (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
16989447
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Welfare (2)
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Legislation
Welfare
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
16989447
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-10-31
month
10
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-09-01
month
9
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
436a97faef58406e
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 40, folder "Welfare (2)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 40 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
INFORMATION
WASHINGTON
February 23, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Secretary Mathews' Memorandum of
February 20 (Tab A)
I agree with Secretary Mathews that we continue to
work with the National Governors' Conference on
welfare reform and not meet with the four Governors
who have requested a meeting with you independently
of this process.
Secretary Mathews has met with the Human Resources
Committee of the National Governors' Conference,
chaired by Cecil Andrus (D-Idaho), and they seem to
be making some progress on the issues and an agenda
for work.
Governor Andrus has been most cooperative. As you
know, he was present at the State of the States meeting
with the Cabinet in December, and he will be chairing
a special meeting on this subject as an extension of
the Human Resources Committee meeting today.
Governor Andrus has invited the four Governors who
requested a meeting with you (Governors Carey, Byrne,
Shapp, and Lucey), as well as Governors Grasso,
Dukakis, and Walker, to this afternoon's meeting.
Members of the Domestic Council staff, HEW officials,
and others will be present at that meeting, and we
will provide you with a report.
Attachment
"
DEPARTMENT
ONY
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH. EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
INFORMATION
WASHINGTON. D.C.20201
FEB 20 9/6
WASHINGTON WHITE HOUSE
RECEP. THE And UNIT
1976 FEB 20 PM 7 05
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
I have met with the Human Resources Committee of the
National Governors Conference, chaired by Cecil Andrus.
We are exploring a more permanent forum for the Depart-
ment and the Committee to discuss issues and have agreed
on an agenda of work.
Governor Andrus was most supportive, publicly of your
legislative program and of the Department's efforts.
A group of governors would like to meet with you outside
the Committee to ask for total federalization of welfare.
Governor Andrus prefers that this conversation proceed
through regular channels.
Secretary
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE
February 23, 1976
UNTIL 12:00 NOON (EST)
MONDAY, February 23, 976
Office of th: White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
Fill
FACT SHEET
FINANCIAL ASSIS TANCE FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES ACT
The President announc :d that he is today proposing the Financial
Assistance for Commur ity Services Act which will provide States
with greater flexibi 1ty in delivering social services to low-
income families and individuals and will eliminate undue Federal
regulation and restrictions on providers.
BACKGROUND
The present social services program, Title XX of the Social
Security Act, provides grants to the States on the basis of
population for the delivery of a wide range of social services
to individuals and families. These services include day care,
family planning, foster care and homemaker services. Funds
are provided on a Federal/State matching basis (75% Federal/
25% State). Since its passage and implementation, Title XX
has begun to increase latitude to States to use this program
in meeting their service needs. Yet Federal administrative
and reporting requirements continue to be extensive.
DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM
This legislation will consolidate social service programs
under Title XX and State and local training activities re-
lated to social services.
The main features of the Financial Assistance for Community
Services Act are:
I. FUNDS
A total of $2.5 billion will be distributed each year to the
States as a block grant; Federal monies will continue to be
allocated on the basis of population.
The requirement of State matching funds will be eliminated.
A hold harmless for State and local training monies is
provided, so that no State will receive less than it received
in FY 1976 for services and training, as a result of this
legislation.
II. RECIPIENTS
Emphasis will be placed on providing services to low-income
Americans; 75% of Federal funds will go to individuals with
incomes below the poverty line or who receive Aid to Family
with Dependent Children, Supplemental Security Income and
more
2
Medicaid. No Federal monies will go to families above 115%
of State median income, except for information, referral and
protective services.
III. SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
Most Federal requirements and prohibitions on the use of Federal
funds will be eliminated.
The Title XX restrictions against the use of monies for health
and institutional services will be eliminated. The restrictions
on expenditures for services in prisons and for construction
and purchase of land and buildings will be maintained.
Federal child day care standards will not be required but HEW
will complete the study of the appropriateness of day care
standards and recommend either a model law or standards for
adoption by the States. States, however, will be required to
have day care standards of their own, and an agency responsible
for monitoring them.
Fees will not be mandated, nor will there be any bar to fee
charging.
IV. SOCIAL SERVICES PLANNING
The social service planning process will be improved by strength-
ening the provisions for public review and comment on the annual
State plan.
Administrative plan requirements will be retained, although with
reduced Federal monitoring. These requirements include a fair
hearing process, protection of information, a merit system of
State design, and monitoring by States of their standards for
child day care and institutions.
States will be required to assess the implementation of their
services plan, to have an independent audit of expenditures,
to monitor compliance with procedures in the administrative
plan and to report publicly on the results of the assessment
and audit.
For non-compliance with administrative plan provisions, a State
would be subject to full fund cut-off, or to a penalty of up to
3% of funds, at the Secretary's option.
V.
FEDERAL ROLE
The Federal Government will retain the role of assessing the
overall operation of this program and of providing a clearing-
house for the dissemination and exchange of information among
the States on effective services.
more
3
A List of the Most Typical Title XX Services
Foster Care Services
Protective Services for Children
Protective Services for Adults
Special Services for the Aged
Adoption Services
Information and Referral Service
Health Related Services
Child Day Care Services
Homemaker and Home Health Aide Services
Home Delivered/Congregate Meals
Family Planning Services
Counseling and Case Management Services
Chore Services
Transportation Services
Employment and Training Service
Special Services for Alcoholics and Drug Addicts
Special Services for Developmentally Disabled
Recreational Services
State Allocation Under the Social Services Block Grant
The following figures are the States' maximum services allotment
for FY 1976 and will be substantially the allocation for FY 1977.
There is an additional $24,000,000 to be allocated among about
25 states above their allotment as a hold-harmless for social
services training.
State
Allocation
State
Allocation
($ Millions)
($ Millions)
Alabama
$ 42.25
Montana
$ 8.50
Alaska
4.00
Nebraska
18.25
Arizona
24.50
Nevada
6.50
Arkansas
24.25
New Hampshire
9.50
California
245.50
New Jersey
87.75
Colorado
29.00
New Mexico
13.25
Connecticut
36.75
New York
217.50
Delaware
6.75
North Carolina
62.75
District of Columbia
9.00
North Dakota
7.50
Florida
91.50
Ohio
127.75
Georgia
57.00
Oklahoma
31.75
Hawaii
10.00
Oregon
26.50
Idaho
9.25
Pennsylvania
141.75
Illinois
133.75
Rhode Island
11.50
Indiana
63.25
South Carolina
32.50
Iowa
34.50
South Dakota
8.25
Kansas
27.25
Tennessee
49.25
Kentucky
39.75
Texas
140.50
Louisiana
44.75
Utah
13.75
Maine
12.25
Vermont
5.50
Maryland
48.50
Virginia
57.25
Massachusetts
69.25
Washington
40.75
Michigan
107.75
West Virginia
21.50
Minnesota
46.50
Wisconsin
54.50
Mississippi
27.25
Wyoming
4.25
Missouri
56.75
#
#
#
#
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 23, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
PAUL O'NEILL
FROM:
ART QUERN
SUBJECT:
Britain's "Social" Benefit Programs
I thought you would be interested in the attached excerpt
from the ECONOMIST which lays out the current array of
cash benefit programs which are available.
If anyone doubts the need to consolidate and eliminate
categorical programs, he or she need only run down this
list of 32 programs.
Art
Attachment
CC: Allen Moore
Spencer Johnson
37
e
A-Z of cash
e
benefits
or
di
THE ECONOMIST
in
Next month, yet another new benefit
will be added to the social security
March 20-26, 1976
--
d
inventory: child interim benefit. Intended
h
for the only or eldest children- of one-
O
parent families (who, like all other first
al
children, are not eligible for family
1.
allowances). interim benefit is the embryo
d
of the government's new scheme for
n
family support, conceived in answer
-
to the Tories' tax-credit plans, whose
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
PAUL O'NEILL
FROM:
ART QUERN
SUBJECT:
"Assets Tests" For Welfare Programs
In the President's meeting on Food Stamps with Senator
Buckley and Congressman Michel, the subject came up of
the variety of "assets tests" which are utilized in
various means-tested income assistance programs.
The attached brief memo provides a general survey of
the range of asset limits applied to some of the major
programs.
Developed in part from OMB and HEW materials, it also
includes a short section on "policy implications."
I would like to discuss the subject with you in terms
of the level of detail which the President requires and
any use we may wish to make of this or related information
with regard to the Income Assistance Simplification Act.
Attachment
"ASSETS TESTS" IN FEDERAL PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief survey of
the various "assets tests" used in determining eligibility
for Federally funded benefit programs. The focus is on
the major public assistance programs and the range of
"assets tests" which are applied under each program.
BACKGROUND
In most means-tested public assistance programs, the value
of a person's assets are taken into account during the
eligibility determination process under the rationale
that persons with any significant degree of wealth should
not be eligible for income support programs.
At the same time, it is recognized that a requirement of
complete divestiture of assets would run counter to the
purposes of most social programs. Therefore, most public
assistance programs prescribe limits on the extent to
which persons may hold assets and still be eligible for
program benefits.
BASIS FOR VARIOUS TESTS
Asset limits are either set by statute or by another
authority to whom the statute delegates responsibility.
Asset limits are established as follows for various
assistance programs:
1.
By Statute --
SSI
Food Stamps
Veteran's Pensions
Sec. 235 Homeownership Assistance
Sec. 101 and Sec. 236 Rent Supplement Programs
2.
By Statutory Delegation of Authority --
AFDC (State authority)
Medicaid (State authority for AFDC, medically
needy, and some SSI recipients -- otherwise,
SSI limits for SSI recipients)
Low rent public housing (at option of local
housing authority)
2
TYPES OF ASSETS
Asset limits or "assets tests" usually consist of a variety
of specified categories within which dollar limits are
imposed. The most common categories are the following:
Home
Household goods/personal effects
Automobiles
Life insurance (cash value)
Income producing property or equipment
Allowable reserve
COMPARISON OF VARIOUS TESTS
There is very little consistency among programs in how
much value is permitted within each of these categories
before a person becomes ineligible. The range is as follows:
1.
Home. Most programs exclude all or a portion
of the value of a home when determining need.
The amount excluded, however, varies greatly,
e.g. no more than $1,000 equity in one state's
AFDC program, $25,000 market value in the SSI
program ($35,000 in Alaska and Hawaii), and no
limit whatsoever for Food Stamps, Veteran's
Pension, and some states' AFDC programs.
2.
Household goods/personal effects. Most programs
exclude the value of household goods and personal
effects, although the SSI program imposes a limit
of $1,500 market value, and some states set a
dollar limit in their AFDC programs.
3.
Automobiles. Most programs exclude the value
of an automobile, but with a variety of qualifi-
cations. SSI excludes only up to $1,200 of the
market value of a car unless the car is essential
to employment or medical treatment. For AFDC,
most states exclude all or part of the value of
a car, sometimes with additional conditions.
Veteran's Pension and Food Stamps rules impose
no limit on the value of one car, and the Food
Stamp program may permit more than one car
depending on the number of wage earners in the
family.
3
4. Life Insurance. The cash value of life insurance
is usually excluded up tp specified limits. SSI
excludes up to $1,500, states usually exclude for
AFDC purposes from 0 to $1,500, Veteran's programs
exclude all V.A. issued insurance, and Food
Stamps rules exclude life insurance entirely.
5. Income producing property/equipment. This
exclusion originated from a desire to protect
two types of enterprise -- farms and small
family-owned businesses operated from a home.
Both SSI and Food Stamps exclude asset value in
this category without limit so long as the
property produces reasonable work-related income
essential to self-support. In AFDC, eleven
states exclude all or part of asset value on
a similar basis.
6. Allowable Reserve. This category is a dollar
limit made up of two elements -- liquid assets
(e.g. cash, savings accounts, stocks, bonds, etc.)
and the amounts by which excluded assets exceed
allowable limits (e.g. the $800 by which a $2,000
car exceeds the $1,200 SSI limit). SSI imposes
a limit on the allowable reserve of $1,500 for
an individual and $2,250 for a couple. AFDC law
permits a maximum of $2,000 per recipient, but
state limits vary from $300 to $3,000 per family,
and may incorporate total automobile and insur-
ance cash values. Food Stamps rules limit the
reserve to $1,500 per household or $3,000 for
households with a person over 60. The Veteran's
Pension program leaves this matter to the dis-
cretion of an adjudicator who needs only to
determine that the veteran or his survivors
will deplete existing assets in their lifetime.
The Section 235 Homeownership program limits
reserves to one year's mortgage payments plus
$2,000 for persons up to age 62, $25,000 if age 62
to 64, $35,000 if 65 or over, and $50,000 if
over 62 and handicapped. Table I summarizes
these factors for a variety of programs:
4
NOTES:
(1) Veteran's Pensions are provided after an adjudicator
determines that exclusive of home and personal effects,
the person would deplete remaining assets in the
course of his or her lifetime.
(2) Section 235 incorporates all other assets in the
allowable reserve and permits one year's mortgage
payments plus $2,000 (for persons up to 62), $25,000
(for those 62-64), $35,000 (over 65), and $50,000
(over 62 and handicapped).
(3) Medicaid law requires that the same rules be used
as for AFDC and SSI for cash assistance recipients,
except for states (15) using January, 1972, eligibility
criteria for SSI. Medically needy rules must equal
the highest level in a money payment program, but
usually are higher in the 29 states with such programs.
(4) The means tested child nutrition programs impose
no assets test whatsoever.
(5) The Sec. 101 and Sec. 236 rent supplement programs
makes asset limitations optional to local housing
authorities in some situations. Section 8 lower
income housing assistance has no assets test.
5
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This inconsistent pattern of assets tests may lend itself
to a degree of modification, but there are two basic
problems: 1. Some differences may be desirable in light
of programmatic intent. 2. Any effort to tighten restric-
tions will likely foster preventive litigation.
On the first point, certain programs designed for the
elderly may justify specific elderly exclusions which
should not be granted in other programs. For example,
the high asset exclusion in the Sec. 235 homeownership
program would not be desirable in SSI, Food Stamps, etc.
With regard to court actions, HEW sought in July of 1975
to implement changes in the AFDC assets test by putting
ceilings on state flexibility. States viewed this as
an attack on their statutory rights and an effort to take
people off the roles who would end up on general assistance
(at 100% state expense) HEW has been enjoined from
enforcing these new limits while the matter is in litigation.
Nonetheless, there is enough similarity of purpose in some
of the programs that initial steps might be taken to design
changes which could be presented as an example of how the
Income Assistance Simplification Act authority might be
used. A first logical attempt would be to link SSI and
Food Stamps to the same test, in conjunction with considera-
tion of the AFDC problem.
Before an active undertaking of this kind is begun, however,
consideration should be given to whether another criterion
for eligibility (e.g. income) presents a better first
target for action under the proposed Income Assistance
Simplification Act.
ASSETS LIMITS
Medicaid (3)
PROGRAM
Child
Sec. 235
Sec. 101&236
Nutrition (4)
Veteran's
Homeowner
Rent
Low Rent Public
TYPE OF ASSET
SSI
AFDC
Food Stamps
Pension
Assistance
Supplement (5)
Housing (5)
Home
$25,000
No limit
No limit
No limit
N.A.
N.A.
(market
(35 states)
value)
2,500-25,000
(15 states)
Household goods/
$1,500
No limit
No limit
No limit
No limit
No limit
Personal effects
(most states)
Automobiles
$1,200
one car
one car
one car
(usually)
No limit
(1)
No limit
Included
varying
below
values
Life Insurance
$1,500
Up to 1500
No limit
(1)
(2)
Included
(cash value)
(30 states)
below
Income property/
No
1,000 - no
No limit
(1)
(2)
Included
equipment
limit
limit
below
(11 states)
Allowable
1,500
250-3,000
1,500
(1)
$2,000 -
2,000
Reserve
(Individual)
per
(household)
50,000 (2)
(non-elderly)
2,250
family
3,000 (Elderly
5,000
(Couple)
household)
(elderly)
Duby.
THE WHITE HOUSE
aging
WASHINGTON
April 2, 1976
SIGNING OF THE OLDER AMERICANS PROCLAMATION
Monday, April 5, 1976
3:00 p.m. (15 minutes)
The Oval Office
From: Jim Cannon Jan
I. PURPOSE
To sign the Older Americans Proclamation designating
May as Older Americans Month.
II. BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS & PRESS PLAN
A. Background: Each year a proclamation is issued
designating May as Older Americans Month. This
year the proclamation discusses the importance
of employment and volunteer service for older
citizens and for society and the Bicentennial
Charter for Older Americans prepared by the
Federal Council on Aging. The Charter is an
update of the Charter for Senior Citizens
developed by the 1961 White House Conference
on Aging.
B. Participants: List attached at Tab A
C. Press Plan: Open Press Opportunity: to be announced
III. TALKING POINTS
1. It is especially fitting this year that we set aside
a period of time to honor our older citizens. Their
insight and experience, their wisdom and courage, has
contributed beyond measure to the development of our
200-year-old nation.
2. We must make it possible for older Americans to
continue their involvement in our national life.
One of the best ways we can draw upon their strengths
and skills is in the job and volunteer market. Too
often older, and even middle-aged, Americans are the
victims of myths and prejudices regarding their
capabilities. Americans must repudiate these myths
and prejudices, as we have repudiated others, and
- 2 -
assure older Americans the chance to prove that
time has only enhanced their demonstrated abilities.
3. It is important that our Nation make every effort
to recognize the worth and dignity of our older
citizens. To this end, the Federal Council on
Aging has prepared a Bicentennial Charter for
Older Americans. This Charter sets forth principles
to guide us in evaluating our nation's response to
the problems facing older persons, and in appreciating
their response to the problems now confronting our
nation.
4. One of these principles is the right to an adequate
standard of living in retirement. Let me reaffirm
that older Americans have earned the right to live
securely, comfortably and independently. As I
have said before, the value of our Social Security
system is beyond question. I will do all I can to
ensure the integrity of the trust fund so that future
generations of retirees may continue to rely on it.
5. With these thoughts and commitments in mind, I am
happy today to sign this annual proclamation desig-
nating May as Older Americans Month. I urge all
organizations concerned with employment and volunteer
services to observe this month with ceremonies,
activities and programs designed to increase oppor-
tunities for older persons. And I urge that such
programs include public forums for discussion of the
Bicentennial Charter for Older Americans.
6. I ask all Americans to join me in reflecting upon
the achievements. and the needs of our older citizens.
PARTICIPANTS
Government
Secretary F. David Mathews
Stanley Thomas
Assistant Secretary for
Human Development
Department of Health, Education
and Welfare
Dr. Arthur Flemming
Commissioner of Aging
Department of Health, Education
and Welfare
Victor Hruska
Director, Older Americans
Volunteer Programs
ACTION
John Martin
Federal Council on Aging
Cleo Tavani
Executive Director
Federal Council on Aging
Associations
John F. McClelland
President
National Association of
Retired Federal Employees
Nelson Cruikshank
President
National Council of Senior Citizens
William Hutton
Executive Director
National Council of Senior Citizens
Joseph C. Davis
Grey Panthers
Austin Kerby
Director of Economics
American Legion
- 2 -
Jack Ossofsky
Executive Director
National Council on the Aging
Mrs. Alice Van Landingham
President-Elect
American Association of Retired
Persons
Cy Brickfield
Counsel
American Association of Retired
Persons
Miss Harriet Miller
Executive Director
American Association of Retired
Persons
Mrs. Crettie Lee
National Center on Black Aged
Mrs. Mae B. Phillips
National Center on Black Aged
Fred Brummitt
Treasurer
National Retired Teachers
Association
Colonel Donald C. Foster
Executive Director
Retired Officers Association
Colonel Minter L. Wilson, Jr.
Director of Communications
Retired Officers Association
Arthur C. Clinkscales, III
Director
National Alliance for Senior Citizens
Others
Mr. and Mrs. James E. Mills
President Ford Committee
Z. D. Blackistone
Florist
OLDER AMERICANS MONTH, 1976
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
Among our nation's most precious natural resources
are the collective wisdom, experience, and productive ability
of our senior citizens.
In recent years we have become more aware of the important
contributions older Americans have made in the past and in the
tremendous potential they hold for the future. We are in-
creasing our efforts to ensure that they have the opportunity
for security of income, maintenance of health and continued
usefulness.
America's senior citizens have earned the gratitude and
respect of our society, as well as our recognition of their
worth and dignity. Their rights and obligations have been
expressed in the Bicentennial Charter for Older Americans
prepared by the Federal Council on Aging.
The job market and volunteer services provide some of
the best opportunities to draw on the strengths and talents
of older Americans. Unfortunately, older, and even middle-
aged workers, are too often the victims of myth and prejudice
regarding their capabilities. Our society needs the know-how,
experience, judgment and eagerness these solid citizens bring
to the job.
- 2 -
NOW, THEREFORE, I GERALD R. FORD, President of the United
States of America, do hereby designate the month of May, 1976,
as Older Americans Month.
I urge all private and public organizations that are
related to the field of aging to observe this month by
arranging public forums where the Bicentennial Charter for
Older Americnas will be discussed and recommendations developed
for implementation.
I urge all organizations concerned with employment to
observe this month with ceremonies, activities and programs
designed to increase employment opportunities for older workers.
I urge all organizations engaged in the delivery of services
to persons in need to observe this month by increased emphasis
on efforts to recruit, train and place older volunteers.
And I urge all Americans to observe this month by focusing
on the achievements of older persons and supporting programs
to make the last days of life the best days for increasing
numbers of our older Americans.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
day of
,
in the year of our Lord
nineteen hundred seventy-six, and of the Independence of the
United States of America the two hundredth.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 14, 1976
aging
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE
PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON Sen
Attached for your signature is a letter to Z. D. Blackistone
the 105 year old florist and D.C. resident. Mr. Blackistone
was invited to the signing ceremony of the Older Americans
Proclamation, but unfortunately arrived late.
The text has been approved by Robert T. Hartmann (Smith).
I recommend that you sign the letter.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Dear Mr. Blackistone:
I was sorry that you were not present for the
signing of the Older Americans Month proclamation
on April 5. I had been looking forward to seeing
you again.
Please accept this pen which I am enclosing as a
token of my admiration for you and for all you
have done for the city of Washington.
Sincerely,
Mr. Z. D. Blackistone
1407 H Street, NW.
Washington, D.C.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 6, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ROBERT T. HARTMANN
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
DRAFT PRESIDENTIAL LETTER TO Z.D.
BLACKISTONE
Attached is a draft Presidential letter to Mr. Z. D.
Blackistone, the 105 year old Florist in Washington.
Since Mr. Blackistone was unable to be present at the
ceremony for the Older Americans Month Proclamation, we
thought it would be nice to send him a pen from the
President.
I would appreciate it if you could send your comments and
recommendations to Sarah Massengale, Room 220, Ext. 6776
by Thursday, April 8 at 3:00 p.m.
Thanks.
CC: Jim Cavanaugh
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Dear Mr. Blackistone:
I was sorry that you were not present for the signing
of the Older Americans Month proclamation on April 5. I had
been looking forward to seeing you again.
Please accept this pen which I am enclosing as a token
of my admiration for you and for all you have done for the
city of Washington.
Sincerely,
GRF
Mr. Z. D. Blackistone
1407 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 14, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
SARAH MASSENGALE
Sarah
SUBJECT:
Presidential Letter to
Z.D. Blackistone
Attached for your signature is a memo to the President
and a letter to Z.D. Blackistone the 105 year old florist
and D.C. resident. Mr. Blackistone was invited to the
signing ceremony of the Older Americans Proclamation, but
unfortunately arrived late.
The text has been approved by Robert T. Hartmann (Smith) .
I recommend that you sign the memo.
Welfare
THE WHITE HOUSE
-
WASHINGTON
Ms hard
April 13, 1976
for me
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
ALLEN MOORE M
SUBJECT:
Income Assistance Simplification Act
The package is close to completion. The bill, summary,
transmittal letter, and fact sheet have been fully cleared.
The message has been reviewed by all parties and now needs
your reactions as well as final clearance from Hartmann's
office. The tone of the message is the important factor.
Response to it in general has been favorable.
With regard to timing, we lost several days last week
waiting for O'Neill to line up Michel as a sponsor. We are
still waiting for a response. In the meantime, O'Neill
said to go ahead and look for other sponsors, but by Monday
it was too late to line up anyone before Wednesday's recess.
Therefore, Cavanaugh prefers to wait until after the recess
to send up the entire package.
Attachments
FORD & LIBRARY 07V838
April 5, 1976
welfare Reform ACT
FACT SHEET
INCOME ASSISTANCE SIMPLIFICATION ACT
The President is today proposing the Income Assistance
Simplification Act which will provide a mechanism for
simplifying, rationalizing, and making more understandable
the major income assistance programs of the Federal
Government.
BACKGROUND
The Federal Government currently operates or supports
various programs intended to provide the necessities of
life to individuals and families unable to provide for
themselves. These programs, however, are difficult to
coordinate for various reasons, including diverse statutory
requirements, fragmented congressional committee juris-
dictions, and multiple administering agencies, as well
as the variety of ends they are supposed to serve.
The individual Federal income assistance programs were
enacted and amended at different times over the course
of the years to meet specific concerns and needs, often
without sufficient regard to other programs with the
same or similar general objectives. As a result, require-
ments and benefits of individual programs are often unrelated,
or only superficially related, to those of the others.
This has given rise to inequities in the treatment of people
in similar circumstances, inconsistencies in eligibility
requirements, and operating complexities. Moreover, Federal
income assistance programs serve an overlapping population,
often provide duplicative benefits, and sometimes have
the effect of actually deterring people who are willing
to work from seeking work.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
This legislation sets forth a means by which modifications
in Federal income assistance programs could be developed
from a single, broad perspective that would accommodate
-2-
the objectives and requirements of individual programs
while improving the relationship of each program to the
income assistance system as a whole. The proposal is
intended to permit management and structural reform; the
authority in the bill is not intended to be used as a
means of reducing budget outlays for income assistance
benefits.
I. OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT
Under the proposed legislation, the President would
examine specified national means-tested income
assistance programs and could make modifications
in their operation, in their statutory provisions,
and in the organization of the agencies administering
those programs, to promote the following fundamental
objectives:
-- Achievement of more equal treatment of recipients
with identical needs.
-- Focusing of resources on those in need.
-- Assurance that the programs do not deter those
able to work from engaging in productive employ-
ment.
Simplification of administration and organization,
and reduction in excessive reporting and procedural
requirements, thereby reducing administrative costs.
Achievement of a system that is understandable to
the public.
II. PROGRAMS COVERED
The programs covered under the act are those major
national means-tested income assistance programs of
broad application:
-- the program of Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC),
-- the Work Incentive Program (WIN),
-- the Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI),
-3-
-- the food stamp program, and
-- public housing, section 8 rental assistance,
section 236 housing assistance, and the urban
and rural rent supplement programs.
Programs such as social security, unemployment insurance,
and other benefits earned by the recipient and not subject
to means tests would not be covered by the act.
III. EXAMPLES OF SHORTCOMINGS IN THE PRESENT INCOME
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
-- Less needy families on AFDC may receive greater
total income than families of the working poor
not on AFDC, since some of the AFDC recipients'
earned income may be disregarded in determining
eligibility because of child care and work-
related expenses.
-- One poor working family may be eligible for AFDC-
Unemployed Fathers benefits while another may not,
even though both have the same earned income,
because of the requirement that an AFDC-UF father
may not work more than 100 hours a month.
--- The definition of "aged" varies from 65 in SSI
to 62 in public housing programs to 60 in the
food stamp program.
-- The way SSI benefits are calculated varies depend-
ing on whether the SSI beneficiaries live alone,
live with AFDC beneficiaries, live with persons
of independent support, or with persons who are
partially dependent for support.
-- Individuals receiving benefits from several income
assistance programs may be deterred from earning
extra income because nearly all their earnings
might be offset by reductions in their benefits.
IV. PROGRAM MODIFICATION AUTHORITY
Whenever the President finds that changes are needed
to carry out any of the policies of the act, he would
prepare an Income Assistance Program Modification
-4-
which could make changes in the eligibility require-
ments and benefits under any of the enumerated
programs, in the administration of those programs,
and in the organization of agencies operating those
programs. Only existing agencies would be affected;
no new agency could be created pursuant to a
Modification.
Any modification to be made by the President would
first be published in the Federal Register, and
interested parties would be given thirty days to
submit comments. The Modification would then be
transmitted by the President to the Congress, and
would take effect sixty days after transmittal,
unless legislation to the contrary were enacted
into law.
V.
EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS AND PENDING LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Affected statutes and regulations would continue
in effect except to the extent changed by a Modifi-
cation. Any provision of a Modification which
becomes effective would supersede any inconsistent
provision of law, and any regulation or other action
affected by a Modification would be deemed to be
modified to eliminate any inconsistency. No pending
legal proceeding would abate by reason of a transfer
of functions from one agency to another pursuant to
a Modification.
VI.
TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY
The President could transmit Modifications to the
Congress prior to October 1, 1981. It is intended
that during this period, the authority provided
would be carefully assessed and possible changes in
it studied.
DRAFT MESSAGE ON INCOME ASSISTANCE
I am today submitting to the Congress my proposed Income
Assistance Simplification Act.
The purpose of this Act is to improve the effectiveness
of our major income assistance programs. It would
authorize Presidential action to modify these diverse programs
so that they can be shaped into a more coherent effort by the
Federal Government to assist persons in need. The Act addresses
problems of overlapping responsibility, inconsistent objectives,
and inefficient administration which plague these programs as
they operate today.
It should be understood that I do not view this proposal
as the complete answer to the many failings of our welfare
"system," but I believe it is an important and necessary interim
step toward correcting some of those failings.
The current array of welfare programs is the product of a
long and proud tradition of helping the least fortunate among
us. It is a tradition encompassing many sources of aid -- that
from familv, friends, churches, voluntary organizations, and
increasingly from Federal, State and local governments. It in-
cludes assistance in many forms -- cash, food stamps, health
care, day care for voung children, hot meals for the elderly,
and special equipment for the disabled.
As our nation's wealth has increased, the Federal
Government has taken an ever increasing role in extending aid to
-2-
the needy. During the 1960's, a virtual flood of social
legislation created new programs to provide assistance to the
poor. Many of these programs were directed at solving a spe-
cific problem for a designated group of needy individuals.
Unfortunately, as new programs came into being, very little
consideration was given to how any one program blended with
other programs already in operation.
Not surprisingly, the welfare "system" which resulted is
a complex, disjointed mix of Federal, State and local programs
and responsibilities.
These programs currently receive more than $26 billion
annually in Federal funds. They are inefficient and costly to
administer. They collectively confuse the recipient, the
caseworker, the program administrator, and the taxpayer. Worse
yet, the inequities and inconsistencies sometimes have the un-
desirable effects of discouraging work and promoting a break-
down of the family unit.
The nature and extent of the problems with the welfare
"system" are
fairly well understood. The real diffi-
culty lies in developing workable and acceptable solutions.
The entire welfare system has come increasingly under
suspicion and attack by many Americans, particularly those who
have worked so hard on their own to attain a degree of eco-
nomic security. They may not begrudge the use of their tax
dollars to help the truly unfortunate, but they have come to
-3-
view most recipients suspiciously, as likely chiselers or
abusers of the system. This is a very disturbing trend. But,
in plain fact, the programs are failing to achieve their pur-
poses; they do not focus on those with greatest needs; and
they can encourage abuse. Worst of all, they
constitute an inadvertent assault on our traditional values of
family, work, and individual responsibility.
It is now possible to show that in some situations
welfare families can receive benefits from a combination of programs
which total more than $10,000, while persons elsewhere with identical
need receive far less. In other situations, persons receiving
welfare are discouraged from seeking work because they would
lose in benefits nearly as much as they would take home in their
paycheck. The fact that the system sometimes encourages fami-
lies to separate, divorce, or dishonestly say that they have
done so both demeans the individuals and works against the best
long-range interests of us all.
It is no wonder that the welfare svstem is under attack.
But our response must not be to punish the great majority of
persons on welfare who are truly needy, who cannot work, or who
are unable to earn enough to meet minimum needs. What we must
do is to change the svstem. The question is how.
Some would argue that comprehensive and fundamental
reform is the answer. Others view legislative changes to
-4-
existing programs as a more viable route. I see problems with
both of these alternatives.
Several major welfare reform initiatives have been
introduced without success in recent years by persons of vary-
ing political persuasions. Most proposed changes are attacked
by one group arguing that benefits would be reduced or denied
to current recipients, while simultaneously another group
argues that the change would provide excessive benefits, or that
its net cost is too high.
Another obstacle to programmatic reform is that fact that
no single committee in either House of Congress has legislative
jurisdiction broad enough to cover all the current income as-
sistance programs.
Because of the shortcomings of both the comprehensive
reform approach and the legislative amendment approach to im-
proving the welfare system, I am proposing the Income Assistance
Simplification Act. As I stated earlier, I do not view this
proposal as the final word on welfare reform, but only as a
beginning.
This Act would authorize the President to modify our
major income assistance programs:
The program of Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC)
The Work Incentive Program (WIN)
The Supplemental Security Income Program
(SSI)
-5-
The Food Stamp Program
The public housing, Section 8 rental
assistance, and urban and rural rent
supplement programs
The following objectives would be pursued under the Act:
To focus resources on those with greatest
need;
To treat in an equitable fashion those
individuals and families in similar
circumstances;
To assure that individuals able to work
are not deterred from obtaining appro-
priate skills and engaging: in productive
employment;
To make the programs less complex and
more understandable to beneficiaries and
to the public; and
To improve efficiency and effectiveness
by simplifying the operation and
administration of the programs.
Under the proposed Act, the President would examine the
operations, statutory provisions, and organizational structures
of the programs included under the Act. Modifications consis-
tent with the stated purposes could be made bv the President in
eligibility requirements, benefits, program administration, and
the organization of administering agencies.
-6-
A proposed Modification would be published in the
Federal Register for at least thirty davs of public review and
comment. Subsequently, appropriate changes based on comments
received would be made and the Modification transmitted to the
Congress. The Modification would become effective after sixty
days unless legislation to the contrary were enacted into law.
It should be made clear that the authority in the
proposed legislation could not be used to change the basic
purposes of any of the covered programs. Nor is it the intent
of this legislation to provide a vehicle for cutting back the
budget for income assistance. Instead, as I have already
stated, the fundamental purpose is to improve the equity, the
effectiveness, and the results of an overly complex and too
often ineffective system.
As we continue to seek the best means for improving the
welfare system over the long term, I urge the Congress to give
prompt, careful, and favorable consideration to the Income
Assistance Simplification Act.
Honorable Nelson A. Rockefeller
President of the Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Mr. President:
Enclosed for the consideration of the Congress is a draft
bill "To provide greater efficiency and equity in the opera-
tion and administration of Federal and federally aided
income assistance programs." This bill--the Income Assist-
ance Simplification Act-would enable the President to
make improvements in these programs, as explained in his
message to the Congress of this date.
The basic objective of the enclosed bill is to provide
a mechanism for simplifying, rationalizing, and making
more understandable our major income assistance programs
(for example, aid to families with dependent children,
the work incentive program, supplemental security income,
the food stamp program, and various housing progams).
Accordingly, the bill sets forth a means by which modifica-
tions could be developed from a single, broad perspective
that would accommodate the objectives and requirements
of individual programs while improving the relationship
of each program to the income assistance system as a whole.
The proposal is intended to permit management and structural
reform; the authority in the bill is not intended to be
used as a means of reducing budget outlays for income assist-
ance benefits.
The Federal Government currently operates or supports various
programs intended to provide the necessities of life to
individuals and families unable to provide for themselves.
These programs, however, are difficult to coordinate for
various reasons, including diverse statutory requirements,
fragmented congressional committee jurisdictions, and multiple
administering agencies, as well as the variety of ends
they are supposed to serve.
The individual Federal income assistance programs were
enacted and amended at different times over the course
of the years to meet specific concerns and needs, often
without sufficient regard to other programs with the same
or similar general objectives. As a result, requirements
STATES FORD
2
and benefits of individual programs are often unrelated,
or only superficially related, to those of the others.
This has given rise to inequities in the treatment of people
in similar circumstances, inconsistencies in eligibility
requirements, and operating complexities. Moreover, Federal
income assistance programs serve an overlapping population,
often provide duplicative benefits, and sometimes have
the effect of actually deterring people who are willing
to work from seeking work.
Under the proposed legislation, the President would examine
specified national means-tested income assistance programs
and could make modifications in their operation, in their
statutory provisions, and in the organization of the agencies
administering those programs, to promote the following
fundamental objectives:
-- Achievement of more equal treatment of recipients
with identical needs.
-- Focusing of resources on those most in need.
-- Assurance that the programs do not deter those
able to work from engaging in productive employment.
----- Simplification of administration and organization,
and reduction in excessive reporting and procedural
requirements, thereby reducing administrative costs.
----- Achievement of a system that is understandable
to the public.
Any modification to be made by the President would first
be published in the Federal Register, and interested parties
would be given 30 days to submit comments. The modification
would then be transmitted by the President to the Congress,
and would take effect 60 days after transmittal, unless
legislation to the contrary were enacted into law.
The enclosed "Income Assistance Simplification Act" embodies
a new approach to reform of income assistance programs
without fundamentally restructuring programs all at once
or eliminating efforts to make specific improvements in
individual programs. This approach provides a basis for
new solutions to problems in this area by moving the current
separate and conflicting income assistance programs toward
a consistent system.
Each modification presented by the President would be con-
sidered within the context of overall income assistance
policy and yet analyzed and dealt with on its individual
3
policy and yet analyzed and dealt with on its individual
merits. The result will be a sounder, more rational and
effective structure of income assistance for needy Americans.
The draft bill is described in greater detail in the enclosed
summary. We urge its prompt and favorable consideration
by the Congress.
Sincerely,
James T. Lynn
Director
FORD is LIBBARI 07VN3D
SUMMARY OF THE
INCOME ASSISTANCE SIMPLIFICATION ACT
The Act would authorize the President to modify statutory
provisions, revise program operations, and adjust agencies'
organizational arrangements in order to provide greater
efficiency and equity in major Federal income assistance
programs. The authority proposed in the Act is intended
to permit management and structural reform; it is not intended
to be used as a means of reducing budget outlays for income
assistance benefits.
Programs covered by the Act
The programs covered under the Act are those major national
means-tested income assistance programs of broad application:
-- the program of Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC),
-- the Work Incentive Program (WIN),
---- the Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI),
- the food stamp program, and
- public housing, section 8 rental assistance,
section 236 housing assistance, and the urban and
rural rent supplement programs.
Programs such as social security, unemployment insurance,
and other benefits earned by the recipient and not subject
to means tests would not be covered by the Act.
Purpose
Section 2 of the Act sets forth the policies to be carried
out with respect to Federal income assistance programs,
including ensuring that the operation of those programs
is effective and equitable, that the relationships among
those programs are rational and equitable, that resources
are focused on the most needy, that those programs do not
deter individuals who are able to work from engaging in
productive employment, and that those programs are readily
understandable and are administered and organized efficiently
and effectively.
FORD
GERALD
2
The section states that it is the purpose of the Act to
provide for carrying out these policies consistent with
the fundamental purposes of the affected income assistance
programs, and declares that this purpose can be achieved
effectively by proceeding under the Act.
It is not intended to use the authority under the Act to
transform the essential character of any of the programs
covered under the Act; that is, the resources of the AFDC
program would continue to provide cash assistance only
to low-income needy families with dependent children; the
WIN program would continue to finance programs to help
AFDC applicants and recipients obtain employment; the SSI
program would provide cash assistance only to low-income
needy elderly, disabled, or blind persons; the food stamp
program would provide assistance to enable low-income needy
individuals and families to have an opportunity to purchase
nutritionally adequate food, and the specified housing
programs would provide assistance to low-income needy indi-
viduals and families only to obtain adequate housing.
Income Assistance Program Modifications
Section 3 (a) requires the President, from time to time,
to examine the operations and statutory provisions for
the programs covered under the Act, as well as the organiza-
tions of the agencies responsible for administering them,
and to determine what changes in such operations, statutory
provisions, and agency organizations are necessary to carry
out any of the policies set forth in the Act.
Under section 3 (b), whenever the President finds that changes
are needed to carry out any of the policies of the Act,
he would prepare an Income Assistance Program Modification
which could make changes in the eligibility requirements
and benefits under any of the enumerated programs, in the
administration of those programs, and in the organization
of agencies operating those programs. Only existing agencies
would be affected; no new agency could be created pursuant
to a Modification.
The Modification could be designed to correct such problems
as: the use of inconsistent asset tests in determining
eligibility of individuals and families for SSI, food stamps,
and public housing; complexities in the treatment of resources
of persons in a household who are not all eligible for
benefits; a lessening of work incentives for a recipient
of aid under two or more programs by an excessive reduction
of benefits because of additional earned income; and differences
among programs in definitions of "aged" and "households".
LIBRARY GERALD FORD
3
Section 3 (c) provides that a Modification could not terminate
any of the specified programs before their statutory termina-
tion dates, or extend such programs beyond their termination
dates.
Section 3 (d) provides that a Modification may, as the President
considers necessary, provide for the transfer of records,
property, personnel, unexpended balances of appropriations,
and other funds that are affected by a Modification.
Effective Date and Publication of Modifications
Section 4 of the Act provides that any Modification prepared
pursuant to the authority under the Act must be published
in the Federal Register and public comment on it accepted
for a period of at least 30 days after publication. It
is intended that during this period there would be consulta-
tions with appropriate congressional committees and with
officials of State and local governments on the changes
being proposed.
After the close of the comment period, the Modification
would be transmitted to the Congress by the President,
while both Houses are in session, with appropriate changes
based on the comments received. The Modification would
have to be accompanied by a declaration that each change
included in the Modification has been found by the President
to be necessary to achieve a policy set forth in the Act.
A Modification prepared under the Act would become effective
at the end of the first period of 60 calendar days of contin-
uous session of the Congress after the date on which the
Modification is transmitted to it, unless legislation to
the contrary were enacted into law.
Effect on Other Laws and Pending Legal Proceedings
Section 5 provides that:
--- affected statutes and regulations will continue
in effect except to the extent changed by a Modification.
-- any provision of a Modification which becomes effective
will supersede any inconsistent provision of law, and any
regulation or other action affected by a Modification will
be deemed to be modified to eliminate any inconsistency.
-- no pending legal proceeding would abate by reason
of a transfer of functions from one agency to another pursuant
to a Modification.
LIBRARY BERALD A-FORD
4
Termination of Authority
Section 6 provides that the President may transmit Modifi-
cations to the Congress prior to October 1, 1981. It is
intended that during this period, the authority provided
would be carefully assessed and possible changes in it
studied.
GERALE FORD
A BILL
To provide greater efficiency and equity in the operation
and administration of Federal and federally aided
income assistance programs.
-
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That this Act may be cited as the "Income Assistance
Simplification Act".
PURPOSE
SEC. 2. (a) The Congress declares that it is the
policy of the United States with respect to income assistance
programs of the Federal Government -
(1) to ensure that the operation of those programs
is effective and equitable,
(2) to make the relationships among those programs
rational and equitable,
(3) to eliminate inconsistencies in those programs
so that individuals and families in like circum-
stances may be treated similarly and equitably,
(4) to focus resources available for those
programs on those persons who are most in need,
(5) to assure that those programs do not deter
individuals who are able to work from obtaining
appropriate skills and engaging in productive employment,
(6) to reduce the complexity of those programs
so that they will be readily understandable to bene-
ficiaries and the public, and
FORD LIBRAS
2
(7) to improve the administration of those
programs and the organization of agencies responsible
for their implementation so that they are carried
7
out efficiently and effectively.
(b) It is the purpose of this Act to provide for
the carrying out of the policies set forth in subsection
(a), consistent with the fundamental purposes of the
income assistance programs of the Federal Government.
The Congress declares that this purpose can be achieved
effectively by proceeding under this Act.
INCOME ASSISTANCE SIMPLIFICATION
SEC. 3 (a) The President shall from time to time
examine the operation of, the provisions of law governing,
and the organization of the agencies responsible for
administering --
(1) the program of aid to families with dependent
children authorized by Title IV-A of the Social
Security Act,
(2) the work incentive program authorized by
Title IV-C of the Social Security Act,
(3) the program of supplemental security income
for the aged, blind, and disabled authorized by
Title XVI of the Social Security Act,
(4) the food stamp program authorized by the
Food Stamp Act of 1964,
FORD
3
(5) the housing programs authorized by the
United States Housing Act of 1937,
(6) the program of rental and cooperative housing
for lower income flamilies authorized by section
236 of the National Housing Act,
(7) the program of financial assistance to
enable certain private housing to be available for
lower income families who are elderly, handicapped,
displaced, victims of a natural disaster, or occupants
of substandard housing, authorized by section 101
of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965,
and
(8) the program of rural rental assistance
authorized by section 521 (a) (2) of the Housing Act
of 1949,
and shall determine what changes are necessary in the
operation of such programs, the provisions of law governing
such programs, or the organization of the agencies responsible
for administering such programs, to carry out any of
the policies set forth in section 2 (a).
(b) Whenever the President, after examination,
finds that such changes are necessary to carry out any
of the policies set forth in section 2 (a), he shall prepare
an Income Assistance Program Modification specifying
FORD
4
the changes he finds are necessary. Except as provided
in subsection (c), a Modification may -
(1) modify the eligibility requirements for
a program enumerated in subsection (a),
(2) modify the benefits provided under a program
enumerated in subsection (a), including the level
of benefits or the determination of benefit amounts,
(3) modify the administration of a program
enumerated in subsection (a), including the terms
and conditions of participation by States and localities
in that program, or
(4) modify the organization of agencies adminis-
tering the programs enumerated in subsection (a),
including transfer and consolidation of organizations
and functions within and between such existing agencies.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection
(b), no Modification may -
(1) terminate a program enumerated in subsection
(a) before the date it would have terminated if
the Modification had not been made, or
(2) extend a program enumerated in subsection
(a) beyond the date it would have terminated if
the Modification had not been made.
(b) A Modification prepared by the President may,
as he considers necessary --
GERMLO FORD
(1) provide for the transfer or other disposition
of records, property, and personnel affected by
such Modification, and
7
(2) provide for the transfer of such unexpended
balances of appropriations and of other funds available
for use in connection with a program, organization,
or function affected by such Modification.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION
OF MODIFICATIONS
SEC. 4. (a) Any Modification prepared pursuant
to section 3 shall be published in the Federal Register
and public comment on it accepted for a period of at
least 30 days after publication. After the close of
the comment period, the President shall transmit the
Modification, with such changes as he determines appro-
priate on the basis of the comments received, to both
Houses of Congress on the same day and to each House
while it is in session. The Modification shall be accom--
panied by a declaration that, with respect to each change
included in the Modification, he has found that the change
is necessary to achieve a policy set forth in section
2 (a).
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a Modifica-
tion shall be effective at the end of the first period
of 60 calendar days of continuous session of Congress
6
after the date on which the Modification is transmitted
to it. For purposes of this subsection --
(1) continuity of session is broken only by
T
an adjournment of Congress sine die, and
(2) the days on which either House is not in
session because of an adjournment of more than 3
days to a day certain are excluded in the computation
of the 60 day period.
(c) A provision of a Modification may, under pro-
visions contained in the Modification, be effective at
a time later than the date on which the Modification
otherwise is effective.
(d) A Modification which is effective shall be
printed in (1) the Statutes at Large in the same volume
as the public laws, and (2) the Federal Register.
EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS AND
PENDING LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
SEC. 5. (a) A statute enacted, a regulation issued,
or other official action taken in respect to an agency
or function affected by a Modification under this Act
before the effective date of the Modification has, except
to the extent rescinded or modified by the Modification,
the same effect as if the Modification had not been made.
(b) If any provision of a Modification which becomes
effective under this Act is inconsistent with any pro--
vision of any statute enacted prior to the effective
GERALD FORD LEORAD
7
date of the Modification, the provision of the Modification
shall control to the extent that such Modification specifies
the provision of the statute to be superseded.
(c) Any regulation issued or other action taken
with respect to any matter affected by a Modification
which becomes effective under this Act shall be deemed
to be modified to the extent of any inconsistency thereof
with the Modification but shall otherwise continue in
effect.
(a) No legal proceeding involving any officer in
his official capacity as an officer of any agency, functions
of which are transferred by this Act, shall abate by
reason of the enactment of this Act. Legal proceedings
may be asserted by or against the United States or such
official of the agency as may be appropriate and, in
any litigation pending when this Act takes effect, the
court may at any time, on its own motion or that of any
party, enter any order which will give effect to the
provisions of this section.
(e) If, before the date on which this Act takes
effect, any agency, or officer thereof in his official
capacity, is a party to a suit, and under this Act any
function of such agency or officer is transferred to
any other agency or official, then such suit shall be
continued, with the successor agency or official, as
FORD
the case may be, substituted as if this Act had not been
enacted.
TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY
SEC. 6. A Modification may take effect only if
the Modification is transmitted to the Congress, pursuant
to section 4, prior to October 1, 1981.
BERNED FORD
Eligibility
what Dewpiter
Procedurent
O Or + 35TH
The Bethr/da
to a
Rat
Rosprible Pike
GERALD 11. FORD LISTARY
Gui the Render
skin actuanty to - -
1
Name
were welpful to them who
need it
Elimurate then who don't
ww it.
objectmen
somth money
Energy all who can with &
do 8
How if will work
Suplify The
provider m white
public welfure is
given -
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 29, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON Jun
SUBJECT:
Response Seven Economists
Urging Welfare Reform
The attached letter (TAB A) was sent to you by Al Rees
(Provost of Princeton University) and six distinguished
economists urging you to consider fundamental welfare
reform. They do not have a detailed plan, but instead
identify several principles which they believe should
be incorporated into any reform initiatives.
Since the Domestic Council is already examining a number
of alternatives for fundamental reform, I recommend that
you sign the attached letter (TAB B) inviting this group
(which also includes Herb Stein, James Tobin, Joseph
Pechman, Robert Lampman, William Baumol, and Harold
Watts) to come in and share their ideas and views with
me and my staff.
Princeton I niversity
OFFICE OF THE PROVOST
3 NASSAU HALL
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540
April 8, 1976
President Gerald R. Ford
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I am enclosing a letter to you from several prominent
economists on the subject of welfare reform. I hope that you
will find it helpful.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
ae
Albert Rees
AR/vs
Enclosure
Princeton University
OFFICE OF THE PROVOST
3 NASSAU HALL
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540
April 8, 1976
President Gerald R. Ford
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We noted with great interest your remarks concerning reform of the
nation's welfare system in your State of the Union message. We write to
tell you of our deep concern about this question and to urge your support
for certain fundamental principles of welfare reform.
Several of us have disagreed with one another on major public issues
in the past and are sure that we will do so again in the future. However,
we all agree that it is time for a comprehensive change in our system of
income maintenance. A recent telegram to you from several Governors
put it well. They stated that the present "patchwork of federal, state and
local welfare programs. tolerates unacceptable variations among different
parts of the country. [and] encourages family instability and disintegration.
It does too little to help the working poor. It permits excessive levels of
ineligibility and fraud. It is unworkable for the family in need and is fast
becoming too costly for the taxpayer. 11
The Governors went on to say that "The welfare structure is also
grossly inefficient. Its very complexity requires an army of bureaucrats
to organize and run it
The nation, and particularly state and local
governments, cannot indefinitely bear excessive rates of growth in this
sector. A program which meets the tests of equity, efficiency and prudence
may well require an initial additional investment by the federal government
but it offers the prospect of achieving stabilization of welfare costs over
"
the long term.
Welfare reform directs federal outlays to those in need and puts
a reliable floor under the incomes of the poor. Many other programs,
current and proposed, are advocated as antipoverty measures but mainly
benefit people who are not poor.
President Gerald R. Ford
-2-
April 8, 1976
We do not have a detailed plan of reform to lay before you. How-
ever, we think that any specific reforms in the welfare system should
embody certain basic principles. First, we urge the consolidation of such
existing transfer programs as Aid to Families with Dependent Children,
Supplemental Security Income, and Food Stamps into a single federally
financed cash system. Such a system should provide a "floor" income for
every American. Second, we recommend the equal treatment of intact and
divided families in order to end the current system's tendency to divide
family units. Third, it is important to incorporate a simple schedule of
benefit reduction as income rises, with a "zero-point" of no benefits and
no income taxation. Such a schedule should preserve incentives to work
and give equitable levels of assistance to the working poor. Fourth,
consideration should be given to vesting the responsibility for income
maintenance in some agency other than HEW. For example, the IRS
might be an appropriate agency.
Fundamental welfare reform has become imperative. This is an
issue on which most Americans now seem to be in general agreement.
We hope you and our nation's other leaders from both parties will turn
this agreement into actual accomplishment.
We stand ready to assist in the design of specific measures to
realize the changes we seek.
Sincerely yours,
William J. Baumol
Herbert Stein
Princeton University
University of Virginia
Robert J. Lampman
James Tobin
University of Wisconsin
Yale University
Joseph Pechman
Harold W. Watts
The Brookings Institution
University of Wisconsin
Albert Rees
Princeton University
Organizations are listed for identification only. Signatures are on file
at Princeton University.
Signed
95/2
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Dear Al:
First of all I want to express my appreciation
to you and your colleagues for your offer of
assistance in designing a welfare reform
proposal. I feel certain that we share many of
the same concerns about the current inequities
and inconsistencies in our income assistance
programs.
The Domestic Council is currently examining a
broad range of possible initiatives for
improving the existing system. They would be
very interested in sitting down with your group
in the near future to discuss your ideas and
views.
I have asked Jim Cannon, Assistant to the
President for Domestic Affairs, to call you
directly to schedule a meeting with you and any
of your colleagues who could attend.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Albert Rees, Provost
Princeton University
3 Nassau Hall
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Ohio Department of Public Welfare
NEWS RELEASE: For Immediate Release
May 11, 1976
A predicted crisis struck the State Welfare Department today,
with the rejection of a voucher for a Medicaid payment.
"We have run out of money in the Medicaid fund," explained
Raymond F. McKenna, assistant state welfare director. "It is just
what we said would happen. We are at this moment unable to pay
Medicaid bills.
"The Democrat members of the Ohio Legislature are directly
responsible for this crisis," McKenna said. "We and the Office of
Budget and Management warned them last year that they were increasing
welfare department expenses without providing the money to pay the
bills.
"The Democrat legislators have been misleading the needy people
of Ohio. They have raised false hopes for the poor and the elderly
by mandating higher benefits without providing the funds to support them.
"Now we are running a record $120 million short in the Medicaid
budget for the biennium and we are clear out of Medicaid funds for
this fiscal year. The Democrat legislators have created a financial
mess that must be corrected now or it will get even worse.
"They have two choices: (1) Make cuts in programs such as the
reductions we have proposed in Medicaid; or (2) Raise taxes to provide
the extra funds needed."
McKenna said the Welfare Department faces four critical problems
in which the "Democrat legislators have failed to give us the help we
need." He listed these problems as:
* AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN (ADC)
"The Democrats raised grants for Aid to Dependent Children (ADC)
by 25 percent. This created an increase in number of recipients.
Under the new grants, a family of five on ADC gets $296 a month
plus food stamps and full Medicaid benefits. The total such a
family gets is worth an average of $586 a month or $7,032 a year.
This is equivalent to $3.38 an hour in tax-free take home pay.
We are facing the possibility of shortages in the ADC funds in the
future, especially if federal sanctions are imposed, resulting in
losses of federal funds to Ohio."
*
MEDICAID
"The Democrats in the Legislature failed to provide medical funds
to cover the increased number of ADC recipients resulting from the
raise in ADC grants. !!! began warning the legislators about a shortage
in Medicaid funds almost a year ago. We warned them repeatedly. Finally
with no additional funds forthcoming from the Legislature, I had no choice
but to propose cuts in the Medicaid program.'
*
NURSING HOMES
"The Democrat legislators raised the rate of payment to nursing
homes without providing money to pay for the increases. They gave the
nursing homes full cost reimbursement but didn't stop there. They
provided an additional allowance of up to $1.50 per patient per day
as a profit allowance. Nor did they stop there. They provided additional
allowances of either $2.50 or $3.50 or $4.50 per patient per day to cover
cost of equipment, property and interest on loans. After giving all these
raises to nursing homes they added nothing to the budgeted funds for
paying the nursing homes."
*
ERROR RATES
"We have been fighting to correct other errors in welfare that the
previous Democrat administration left us. ADC payment errors were running
as high as 48 percent during the April-September, 1973, period. These
included 13.5 percent ineligibles, 27 percent overpayments, and 8.2
percent underpayments. The error rate was still at 30 percent when
administrations changed in January, 1975. In less than a year we managed
to cut this error rate down to approximately 20 percent. The most recent
official adjusted rates from the U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare show these rates as 8.6 percent ineligibles, 10.5 percent
overpayments, and 1.5 percent underpayments. It is an improvement but
we are handicapped even in this effort because of the failure of the
Democratically-controlled Legislature to provide us with adequate operating
funds for necessary administrative staff. If the Democrats would work with
us we could do better on error control and perhaps avoid the threat of
federal sanctions which could take as much as $18 million a year out of
our ADC program.
Like the Weather: Continual Talk, but What to L
number of ass
Welfare, Still No Cure-All
with fraud, the
young men or
true extent of
Mitchell I. Gir
the Census study, half of welfare monies in 1972
By ROBERT REINHOLD
went to families above the official poverty level
of Social Wor
while a third of families below it got no cash aid.
ministrator of
from 5 to 10 P
WASHINGTON-Perhaps no social problem has
Aid to Families with Dependent Children is the
of those through
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 17, 1976
MEETING WITH VOLUNTEER AWARD WINNERS
Tuesday, May 18, 1976
2:30 p.m. (10 minutes)
The Rose Garden
From: Jim Cannon
I.
PURPOSE
To greet the eleven winners of the National Volunteer
Awards for 1975.
II. BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS & PRESS PLAN
A. Background: The National Awards is a nationwide
program of volunteer recognition sponsored by the
National Center for Voluntary Action (NCVA) and
Germaine Monteil Cosmetiques Corporation. The
program seeks to identify and focus national attention
on outstanding and innovative volunteer efforts. The
Awards highlight the annual celebration of National
Volunteer Week, May 16-22.
The 1975 winners are in Washington to receive their
awards. You will be meeting the eleven winners of
the National Volunteer Awards. They will be accompanied
by thirteen people being cited by the Germaine Monteil
Cosmetiques Corporation for their volunteer activities.
In 1974 you presented the 1973 awards to the winners.
B. Participants: List attached at Tab A
C. Press Plan: Open photo opportunity. Can be announced.
III. TALKING POINTS
1. I am very happy to welcome you here today. May I
offer my congratulations on being chosen to receive
the 1975 awards for your volunteer activities.
2. The services of volunteers have provided new hope and
comfort for the physical and spiritual needs of count-
less Americans: The poor, the handicapped, the aged,
the young, the imprisoned, the homeless, and the
helpless.
- 2 --
3.
Today, more than ever, the work of volunteers is needed
to reinforce the social welfare efforts of government at
all levels. With demands for assistance rising daily,
it is increasingly obvious that all such requests cannot
be met by Federal, state or local governments alone. This
makes your activities an especially critical part of the
effort to meet the needs of the American people.
4.
Cooperation between the public and private sectors is
vital to the building of a more vigorous and humane
society as we enter our third century. I hope that such
cooperation will continue and flourish for the benefit
of all our citizens.
PARTICIPANTS
Volunteer Award Winners
Mrs. Audrey Dernbach, Eau Claire, Wisconsin
Mr. Harry J. Gaynor, West Orange, New Jersey
Miss Debbie Klein, East Lansing, Michigan
Miss Heide Hatcher, East Lansing, Michigan
Miss Mary Carr, East Lansing, Michigan
Mr. Ruben Kaehler, Novato, California
Mr. John Novak, Novato, California
Mr. Thomas Murphy, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Mr. Harry Ewalt, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Dr. Jack Birge, Atlanta, Georgia
Miss Sandra Owen, Atlanta, Georgia
Governor and Mrs. George Romney
Mr. Jack Street, President, Germaine Monteil Corporation
Miss Ann Walsh, Vice President, Germaine Monteil Corporation
Citation Winners
Delores M. Crump, Nashville, Tennessee
Betty Froelich, New York, New York
Susan Godchaux, New Orleans, Louisiana
Evelyn LeVine, Shawnee Mission, Kansas
J'Ann Moon, Clearwater, Florida
Mary Alice O'Connor, Burbank, California
- 2 -
Barbara Oldenburg, Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Lillian Pasternak, Houston, Texas
Veda Ponikvar, Chisholm, Minnesota
Marcia Seawell, Englewood, Colorado
Mary Sue Schmidt, Biloxi, Mississippi
Merna Strohmaier, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Pat Williamson, Montgomery, Alabama
Staff of the National Center for Voluntary Action
Elinor D. Talmadge
Anne King