Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: JGR/Press Conferences
(2 of 6)
Box: 43
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 14, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR RUSSELL R. MACK, JR.
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Crig signed ly IFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Domestic Briefing Materials
We have reviewed the proposed domestic briefing materials for
the upcoming Presidential press conference and have the follow-
ing comments.
First, the proposed responses to a question on the Supreme
Court's recent school prayer decision, Wallace V. Jaffree,
should be changed. In the second bullet item, "moment of
silent meditation" should be changed to "moment of silence." "
The third bullet item suggests that the Court was wrong or
should reconsider its decision because a large majority of the
populace favors a different result. Since the basis of the
Court's decision -- however erroneous -- was the Constitution,
it is legally irrelevant how large a percentage of the public
is opposed to the decision. The President should not appear
to endorse Mr. Dooley's view that the Supreme Court should
follow the election returns. I would have the third bullet
item read as follows: "The Court's decision should cause us
to redouble our efforts to pass a constitutional amendment
permitting voluntary school prayer. Even three-quarters of
the liberals in this country favor voluntary school prayer, so
we should be able to achieve this goal. "
Second, the description of the E.F. Hutton situation should be
revised by deleting everything after the second bullet and
inserting in lieu thereof the following:
The E.F. Hutton situation involved a complex
corporate money management policy using overdrafts
on checking accounts to increase profits;
The complexity of this investigation and the need to
bring those fraudulent practices to a prompt halt
and obtain a full and complete recovery of the
victims' monies convinced the Justice Department to
act as it did;
FFF: SMC: 6/14/85
CC: FFFielding SMCooksey
JGRoberts
Subject
Chron.
- 2 -
The result was that a large brokerage house admitted
to 2,000 counts of fraud, paid a $2 million fine,
covered the costs of the government's investigation,
and will make restitution to the banks;
All things considered, RR agrees with the Department
of Justice that the settlement and disposition was
in the public interest.
Third, the discussion of controversial appointees should be
revised by deleting the last three bullets.
Fourth, in the discussion of whether the President's tax plan
favors Sun Belt states, we note that the description of the
effect of our proposals on the Detroit auto worker assumes
that the auto worker's wife will be a homemaker, rather than a
wage earner. To preclude suggestions that the President's
model American family has the wife at home, we recommend that
this example include alternative descriptions of the wife.
(For example: if his wife is a homemaker, she gets to put
more money, tax free, into an IRA; if she is also employed,
the reduction in rates will enable the family to keep more of
the money both hardworking parents earn.)
Finally, in the listing of possible questions for the press
conference, we suggest inclusion of a question relating to the
charge that our proposal to eliminate the deduction for state
and local taxes actually hurts those states that have been
cooperating with the President's New Federalism program.
CC: David L. Chew
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
O . OUTGOING
H . INTERNAL
I . INCOMING
file SMC + I news the on did
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
1
/
Name of Correspondent:
Dave Chew
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject:
Domestic Briefing Materials
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency (Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUHOLL
ORIGINATOR 85,06,14
/
/
Referral Note:
CUAT 17, CUAT 18
D
85/06/14
S 85106114
Referral Note:
2 PM
/
1
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A . Appropriate Action
I , Into Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C . Comment/Recommendation
R . Direct Reply w/Copy
B. . Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D - Draft Response
S For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
6/14/85
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 2:00 P.M. TODAY
SUBJECT: DOMESTIC BRIEFING MATERIALS
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
LACY
REGAN
McFARLANE
STOCKMAN
OGLESBY
BUCHANAN
ROLLINS
CHAVEZ
RYAN
CHEW
P
BS
SPEAKES
DANIELS
SPRINKEL
FIELDING
SVAHN
FRIEDERSDORF
TUTTLE
HENKEL
MACK
HICKEY
HICKS
KINGON
REMARKS:
Please provide any edits directly to Russ Mack, Room 158, Ext. 7170
by 2:00 p.m. today, with an information copy to my office.
Thank you.
RESPONSE:
David L. Chew
1985 JUN 14 III 8: 48
Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS FOR JUNE 18 PRESS CONFERENCE
Tax Reform
1. You have said the state and local tax deduction is unfair
because taxpayers in low tax states shouldn't have to
subsidize itemizers in a few high tax states. But why
should taxpayers in non oil-producing states have to
subsidize tax breaks for oil producers in a few states?
2. You have often praised the generosity of the average
American. Won't keeping the charitable deduction for
itemizers while ending it for non-itemizers discourage the
same small givers you have been praising?
3. While many Dems, like Tip and Rosty, have endorsed the
idea of tax reform, many conservatives, including Jack Kemp
and the editor of Human Events, have expressed some
disappointment in your plan. Aren't you concened about a
lack of core support for your plan?
4. While initial polls showed enthusiasm for tax reform,
isn't it true that with each passing week the momentum fades
as the plan is nibbled to death on the Hill?
5. You've been cool to Rosty's suggestion of a fourth top
rate. Yet with the biggest tax reductions going to those
making over $200,000, doesn't your refusal to raise the top
rate play into the hands of those who call you plan a bonus
for the rich?
6. Under your plan, the poorest and the richest taxpayers
get the best deal. Yet the poor pay little in taxes to
begin with, while the rich hardly need a tax break. Isn't
that unfair to the middle class?
7. Some have suggested your plan favors the Republican base
in Sun Belt states, since it benefits energy producers and
high tech industries, while penalizing high tax states and
smokestack industries. Won't the apparent regional bias
lessen the plan's national appeal?
8. You have said corporations don't pay taxes, people do.
By including a minimum corporate tax and raising the share
of taxes paid by corporations, aren't you changing your
previous views about corporate taxes?
9. Treasury I was a model of simplicity compared to Treasury
II. Why didn't you keep it simple and go for a purer form
of tax reform?
10. Don't you think it's ironic for you to be barnstorming.
for Republican Senate candidates on the same trips where you
call for bipartisan support for your tax plan?
11. Having already cut back on student aid, isn't it a
double blow for you to propose ending deductions for
donations to colleges?
Budget
12. If, as you've often said, Social Security is
self-supporting and not related to the deficit, why did you
go along with the Senate's COLA freeze as a deficit
reduction move?
13. Why is it a "cut" when the Pentagon's spending increase
is reduced, but not a "cut" when Social Security's COLA is
reduced or eliminated?
14. David Stockman is reportedly warning that according to
private economists the Fiscal Year 1988 deficit may end up
$70 billion higher than that projected in the Senate's
budget plan. Does this suggest we're losing ground in the
deficit fight no matter what Congress does on your deficit
reduction package?
15. Would you give up the Social Security COLA freeze in
order to win back a defense department increase?
16. Some of your favorite proposals, like enterprise zones
and tuition tax credits, were not included in either the
budget or tax bills. Why aren't you actively pushing these
proposals?
17. Both Chairman Gray and Senator Dole say some form of tax
hike may be necessary to reduce the deficit, no matter what
happens in the House/Senate budget conference. Is there any
circumstance under which you'd swallow any form of
anti-deficit tax increase?
18. GOP willingness to put Social Security on the budget
table was based on an understanding that the Democrats
wouldn't use it as a partisan issue. Now that they have and
House Republicans are running away from it at top speed, do
you feel betrayed?
Miscellaneous issues
19. The economy has had two straight quarters of very low
growth, inflation is moving upward and the unemployment
level has been stuck around the 7.3% level for a full year.
Doesn't that sound a little like the "stagflation" you
campaigned against in the last two elections, and what are
your plans to get the economy moving again?
20. Your nomination of William Bradford Reynolds to be
Associate Attorney General has provoked fierce attacks on
his -- and your Administration's -- civil rights record.
Aren't you asking for trouble by asking the Senate to
promote the person who's become a symbol of antagonism to
civil rights programs?
21. At the start of your second term, both you and your
spokesman promised that you'd be more accessible and have
one press conference a month. In the five and a half months
of this year, you've had just 3 press conferences, and if
anything, your administration has become even less
accessible than before. What happened to your promise to be
more open?
22. A new Children's Defense Fund study says black children
in America never had it SO bad. In every measurement --
teen pregnancy, jobs, education, health care -- they're
worse off than white children. Doesn't this suggest your
policies have made a bad situation worse?
23. Some people in your political camp have questioned the
integrity and the value of the Justice Department's Office
of Special Investigations (OSI), the so-called Nazi-hunters.
With the search for war criminal Dr. Joseph Mengele in the
news, can you tell us whether you favor continuing OSI's
work?
24. What do you say to average Americans who see white
collar criminals let off off easy by your Justice Department
in cases like the E.F. Hutton bank fraud racket? Isn't
there a double standard between well-to-do crooks and common
ones?
25. Does the recent Supreme Court decision barring an
Alabama law that set aside school time for silent prayer
confirm that even a more conservative high court won't mix
church and state as much as many conservatives wish?
26. Your tax reform plan eliminates the $1 checkoff for
public funding of presidential campaigns, something you've
opposed for years. Isn't that using the back door to make a
major change in elections policy?
27. Are you going to meet with homeless activist Mitch
Snyder, who claims your administration reneged on your '
personal promise to create a model shelter?
28. A group of investors headed by Morgan Stanley & Co. says
they'd give taxpayers a $600 million better deal for buying
Conrail than Norfolk Southern would, even though DOT has
endorsed the Norfolk Southern offer. Are you convinced
Norfolk Southern is the best deal, and that it won't hurt
competition?
29. Did you consider Richard Nixon to have been an important
source of advice during the '84 campaign?
30. Is it true that during the '84 campaign Nancy was
sometimes scheduled to travel separately from you because
she tended to make you too intense?
31. Do you believe the federal government is doing enough to
protect the public against the kind of savings and loan or
bank panics that recently struck Maryland and Ohio?
32. The American Association of State Colleges and
Universities has reported that the number of minority
students getting financial aid dropped more than 12% between
the '81-'82 and '83-'84 academic years. Meanwhile, the
Carnegie Foundation says your budget cuts would seriously
threaten educational opportunity. How do you react?
33. Early in the second term you've suffered a string of
defeats: on Contra aid, the MX missle, Bitburg. Does this
mean the almost inevitable second term downslide has begun?
34. Your political appointees have had a lot of trouble
lately. Don Devine bowed out, so did an Education official
after suggesting the handicapped are somehow responsible for
their fate. Another appointee resigned after admitting she
collaborated on a book containing racial slurs, and an SEC
official resigned amid personal problems. Does all this
turmoil over appointees concern you?
ADDITIONAL DOMESTIC QUESTIONS FOR JUNE 18 PRESS CONFERENCE
1. If the Hill conferees produce a budget bill that contains
no SS COLA freeze and no defense increase, will you veto it?
2. If there's a deadlock and the Hill sends you a continuing
resolution, will you take a hard line approach and veto it
to send a message to Congress?
3. Acting OPM Director Loretta Cornelius not only played a
key role in Don Devine's downfall, but she's been firing
conservative appointees. Why is she still heading OPM?
4. Some critics believe the "pro-family" theme of your tax
proposal really means using the tax code to guide more women
back to traditional roles in the home. Won't your proposal
have that effect?
BRIEFING MATERIALS ON DOMESTIC ISSUES
FOR THE PRESIDENT'S JUNE 18 PRESS CONFERENCE
TAX SIMPLIFICATION
General Points:
In all the debate over this or that provision of RR's
tax proposal, shouldn't lose sight of the big picture:
-- taxpayers in every income group will benefit:
--
From lowered rates (IRS will never take more than
1 of 3 dollars you earn, compared to 1 of 2 now);
--
From pro-family features that raise standard
deduction and personal exemption, make IRAs
available to spouses at home;
--
From pro-growth features that help entrepreneurs
and small businessmen and women create new jobs;
--
From pro-fairness provisions that make the code
simpler and cut back loopholes by which some have
escaped their fair share of taxes;
We'll pass America's Tax Plan because average American
is fed up with the old system. Remember: many of same
skeptics who in 1981 said Reaganomics wouldn't work now
find fault with tax proposal. We proved skeptics wrong
then, will do it again.
If state and local deduction is unfair to low tax states,
aren't oil and gas breaks unfair to non-producer states?
Under our plan, oil and gas industries will lose some
tax benefits and keep others. For example, oil
depletion allowance is phased out except for wells
producing fewer than 10 barrels a day (which otherwise
might be abandoned) ;
Key point is that exploration and production won't be
harmed. Remember damage to economy caused by '73 and
'79 oil disruptions;
Energy independence benefits all Americans, regardless
of state or tax bracket; it's a national security
matter;
In contrast, state/local deductions primarily benefit
upper income taxpayers in high tax states.
In fact, a wealthy taxpayer in Manhattan who itemizes
gets a "rebate" on state tax he pays -- passing as much
as half the tab to less affluent taxpayers -- who don't
itemize -- in places like the South Bronx;
State/local deduction tempts some states to impose
higher taxes than necessary. Under RR plan, with feds
taking a smaller share, states genuinely needing higher
revenues will be better able to raise them.
Won't ending charitable deduction for non-itemizers dampen
generosity?
The deduction for non-itemizers isn't really what
generates these contributions, so it shouldn't have
much effect, if any, on giving. Americans are generous
by nature;
By lowering rates, we're giving middle income taxpayers
more after-tax income. That means they 11 be better
able to donate to charity;
Tax deductions may be an important motivation behind
large charitable contributions, but RR doubts that most
small givers do so for tax advantage.
Many Dems endorse tax reform, while many conservatives,
including Jack Kemp and the editor of Human Events, have
been disappointed by your plan. Worried by lack of core
support?
RR shares goal of conservatives -- lower rates, more
incentives;
Conservatives with us on those, while many on Hill like
the fairness and simplicity features. Base for a
congressional majority is there;
Problem is special interests -- people and organizations
that put their own tax preferences ahead of goals of
economic growth, fairness, simplification;
RR intends to keep pointing out how our plan is best
for America, trusts that national interest will win out
over the special interests.
Will momentum fade as package is nibbled on Hill?
Polls show overwhelming public support for tax
simplification;
Newsweek poll shows 2 of every 3 Americans who've heard
of RR's plan favor it. RR's televised tax address got
second highest favorable response of any since 1981;
Three of 5 Americans agree present tax system is unfair;
There's clear bipartisan support on Hill;
If American public keeps the pressure on Congress, even
the strongest special interests won't be able to stifle
tax simplification this year.
Remember, skeptics back in 1981 said RR's program
couldn't work, but it's given us strong growth, low
inflation, 300,000 new jobs a month for 2 1/2 years --
at same time taxes were cut;
Skeptics were wrong then; they're wrong now.
By balking at 4th rate, aren't you helping the rich?
Our proposal does have a "fourth rate": it's zero;
To add a rate over 35% would undercut the purposes of
simplification and incentives for investment and
growth;
When marginal rates are high, the rich can afford to
find tax shelters. It's the average guy who gets a
break from lowered rates;
Obviously, in absolute dollars the highest income
taxpayers get more of a reduction than those who earn
and pay less, but that misses the point -- every single
income group benefits under our plan, and so does the
country;
The poorest get the greatest benefit: poverty level
families are virtually freed from federal income tax
entirely;
And for working Americans, no matter how hard they
worked to earn overtime pay or raises for the rest of
their lives, the IRS could never again take more than
35¢ out of any paycheck dollar.
Does plan favor Sun Belt states?
This is America's tax plan -- it's not a plan for any
region or group or class;
A simpler tax code is simpler for everybody; a rate
reduction is a reduction for everybody;
The plan will boost national economic growth, and that
benefits everybody;
For a Detroit auto worker, for example:
--
he gets to keep, spend and save more of his
paycheck and overtime earnings;
--
his wife gets to put more, tax-free, into an IRA;
--
his company gets lower rates, which could lead to
expansion, and will sell more cars because buyers
have more spendable income;
As for advantages to high tech industries, RR has seen
a great many such firms outside the Sun Belt; they 11
all benefit, and that means new jobs.
Why the switch on minimum corporate tax? Why hit business
with larger tax share?
Remember, business rates are cut -- and every time
that's been done (example: JFK) it's had beneficial
results;
Minimum tax simply aims at those who haven't been
paying their fair share;
RR believes businesses will find it worth giving up
certain deductions (often prone to abuse) in order to
gain lowered rates;
RR plan especially benefits new and small businesses,
where most new jobs are generated:
:
the lowered corporate rates are graduated for
small businesses in RR's plan;
--
with people investing more in IRAs and other
investments, small businesses will have access to
a larger supply of capital;
--
and since many small business owners file as
individuals, rather than corporations, their
businesses will benefit from lower personal rates.
Doesn't "pro family" really mean "pro traditional roles for
women?
Not at all. Pro family simply means giving the family a
fair shake, whether a woman works outside home or not;
RR plan corrects unfairness:
--
personal exemption eroded badly by inflation; we
double it and index it;
--
not fair for working spouse to get full IRA
allowance and homemaker to get less;
--
all families, whether two-earner or not, benefit
from lower rates and simplicity;
Women with careers benefit just as much:
--
as entrepreneurs, they get more incentive to take
risks, start own businesses;
--
as wage-earners, they' 11 have less of their
hard-earned paychecks taken by IRS as they move
upward in jobs, get raises and promotions;
--
women at poverty line who work hard to make ends
meet will be virtually exempted from paying
federal income tax;
A tax system that's simpler and fairer offers as much
to career women as to homemakers.
Inconsistent to blast Dems while asking their help?
RR doesn't feel he has been saying anything unfair.
The tax plan stands on its own merits, has nothing to
do with RR's campaigning for Senate candidates;
In any case it would be wrong for RR as President to
fail to speak out on vital issues like Central America
during trips, just because silence would be politically
advantageous to tax bill;
It's possible to disagree with Dems on certain other
issues yet agree on need for tax simplification. (After
all, Tip seems to disagree with RR on almost everything
but tax reform).
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
Worried about some bad economic signs?
Bottom line remains: we're in strongest sustained
economic expansion in more than 30 years -- first time
since JFK we've had growth with low inflation;
We've created 8 million jobs in 2 1/2 years;
Slowdown in past 9 months has simply put growth closer
to that of average recovery;
Recent numbers look good in several areas:
--
Personal and disposable income up;
--
Housing starts strong;
--
Non-farm employment up by 345,000;
Especially good sign: interest rates falling:
--
Prime rate has been cut to 10%, lowest since '79;
--
Mortgage rates are lowest in more than 5 years;
Renewed expansion is likely after pause, since we're
already seeing signs of renewed strength.
Note: both the personal spending and savings rates rose
smartly in April, thanks to IRS tax refunds -- which is
a sampling of what happens when government gives people
back more of the money they've earned.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Brad Reynolds nomination
All the fuss about Brad Reynolds boils down to one
simple fact:
--
Reynolds' (and RR's) critics on civil rights favor
quotas and busing, and we don't;
Brad Reynolds' "offense" in the eyes of his critics is
that he's faithfully carried out our policy of promoting
a "color-blind" society -- one that doesn't treat
Americans differently because of the color of their
skin;
During Brad Reynolds' service at Justice, our record in
every area of civil rights enforcement has been solid
-- including equal rights for women, for the handicapped,
at voting places, in housing and job sites;
In fact, you seldom see it reported, but we've often
set records for prosecuting criminal civil rights
violations. We've got a good record;
But we're not going along with the idea that civil
rights means discriminating against one person in order
to benefit another.
MEDIA
Why so few press conferences?
We said we'd try to have one press conference a month,
and we're sticking pretty close to that. RR has had
press conferences in January, February, March, May
(Lisbon) and now June;
So, only missed one month in the first six of 1985;
RR has also given 20 interviews so far this year, and
there've been plenty of other events open to coverage;
It's in the nature of things that media always want
more access to President, but RR thinks ours has been
an open administration. (Besides, we've done our best
to make your lives interesting).
SOCIAL SECURITY COLA
Why did you go along with the Senate's COLA freeze?
Many Senators felt that was necessary for a fair package of
budget reductions. Since the President can't dictate
the federal budget, Senate wishes had to be considered;
imperative to get a deficit reduction bill;
When budget finally passed, RR was sorry that they had
departed from specifics of what Administration had proposed;
But RR glad at Senate's bottom-line: $56 billion in savings;
No one should be fearful about their Social Security.
Remember -- Under RR, SS benefits have risen $120 for
the typical retiree, and $216 for the average retired
couple. Remember also we slashed inflation, at great
benefit to everyone who has a pension;
We saved SS and put it on a sound footing with
bipartisan help; trying to do same with budget. RR
regrets that some Dems back to their old tricks of
demagoguing SS;
Hopes they 11 join us in serious effort to reduce
deficit. That would be one good way to help elderly.
SOCIAL SECURITY VS. DEFENSE "CUTS"
Why is it a "cut" when Pentagon spending increase is reduced, but
not a "cut" when Social Security's COLA is reduced?
First off, not sure what will happen with SS COLA;
Secondly, defense program in different category from other
parts of the budget. Defense budget is insurance policy
to protect everything we Americans hold dear;
Finally, defense in constant dollars during the seventies
was reduced, as domestic spending, including Social
Security, kept even or got ahead of inflation;
Goal is to rebuild America's strength -- to promote peace
and reassure allies. That requires more than just "keeping
up with inflation."
CDF CRITICISMS
The Children's Defense Fund says black children have never had it
so bad. Have your policies have made a bad situation worse?
No. In fact, many things have been getting better;
Head Start funding up a third since 1980;
Collecting a lot more child-support from delinquent
fathers;
Overall infant mortality, including black infant
mortality, is down since 1980;
But more needs to be done. Problem for black children is
breakup of families, too much crime, lack of opportunity;
We're trying to help:
--
With our tax-fairness plan, which gives lots of
relief to the poor;
--
With enterprise zones, youth-opportunity wages for
summer jobs, and strong economic growth;
--
With continued action against serious crime,
down for the past three years;
If minority children are as bad off as some people say they
are, then we hope those critics will join with us to treat
serious problems with serious answers.
WHITE-COLLAR CRIME
People see white-collar criminals let off easy in cases like the
E.F. Hutton bank-fraud racket. Isn't there a double standard?
RR believes in personal accountabilty for all crimes.
Of course, that starts with violent crime against
innocent citizens on the streets and in neighborhoods.
Our anti-crime legislation gets tough in areas like
parole, sentencing;
On white collar crime, we've cracked down on organized
crime and on drug pushers;
As for the specifics of the E.F. Hutton situation:
20-30 people in financial departments were defrauding
banks by overdrawing checking accounts, to make their
departments look more profitable;
Career prosecutors at Justice saw that something had to
be done to raise the standards of corporate responsibility;
The result was that a large brokerage house admitted to
2,000 counts of fraud, paid a $2 million fine, covered the
costs of the government's investigation, and will make
restitution to the banks;
All things considered, RR thinks the settlement was in the
public interest.
BURGEONING DEFICITS
David Stockman thinks the 1988 deficit may end up $70 billion
higher than Senate's projections. Are we losing that fight?
Projections are not officially the Administration's --
we're sticking with ours;
If there is a disturbing deficit trend, it's because the
economy is not growing fast enough;
With falling interest rates, our deficit-reduction plan,
and the stimulus from our tax-fairness plan, America will
have the growth needed to keep deficits on downward path.
CONTROVERSIAL APPOINTEES
You like to zing the bureaucrats, but your political appointees
-- Reynolds, Gardner, Devine -- get you into the most trouble.
President makes 2,000 so-called political appointees and the
collective record is very good;
Don Devine tackled the special interests and saved tax-
payers $18 billion. That's what RR calls competence;
Brad Reynolds believes in the "color-blind" policy most of
us, including blacks, want. RR supports him all the way;
It may be that others, with less political experience,
were too outspoken;
But private citizens can't write everything as if it might
HU?
be thrown at them, out of context, years later by a Senator;
Anyway, RR wrote and said some blunt things as private
citizen; America is still a marketplace of ideas, which
is one of our strengths.
SCHOOL PRAYER
Isn't the recent Supreme Court decision barring silent prayer in
school a total disaster for your position?
There's not too much to cheer about in decision;
Except that it is the first time high court has spoken
favorably of the "moment of silent meditation" idea;
ce
When even three-quarters of the liberals in this country
l
favor voluntary school prayer, then we can only hope the
Court moves more decisively in the proper direction.
FORLORN INITIATIVES
Enterprise zones and tuition tax credits weren't in either the
budget or tax bills. Are you backing away from these ideas?
RR still thinks they are good ideas;
We actually got enterprise zones thru the Senate twice, but
the House refused to act;
This is the year of deficit-reduction as well as tax-
simplification. RR thought it best to not detract from
either focus with other, more narrow tax initiatives.
RUNNING OUT OF STEAM?
You've suffered a string of defeats -- on Contra aid, the MX
missile, Bitburg. Has the "second-term slide" begun?
Contra aid not a defeat -- turned out to be a responsible
compromise with Congress, better than we had a year ago;
MX missile not a defeat -- RR has won the key votes and
Geneva negotiators are stronger because of that;
Bitburg not a defeat -- West Germans appreciated it, and
RR's approval ratings back here rose during the visit;
Initiatives on budget cuts, tax-fairness doing well;
We're in the fifth inning, and while we may foul a few
pitches off, there are a lot more hits to come;
Besides, how could press think RR was anything but limber?
RR reneging on Mitch Snyder agreement to help D.C. homeless?
Last November at RR's direction, (when Snyder ended his
hunger fast), HHS reached agreement with him to upgrade
a large homeless shelter in D.C.;
GSA is ready to make the improvements (several million
dollars' worth), but Snyder now says he wants more;
RR sorry Snyder is dissatisfied, but HHS has acted in
good faith; we've kept our promise. Will keep working
with local officials to improve aid for Washington's
homeless;
Nationally, we've taken several steps to help homeless:
--
we've given them unused space in federal
buildings;
--
we're donating surplus food and surplus government
property (clothes, refrigerators, etc.);
--
we've linked over 200 military commissaries with
local food banks;
--
HHS has a homeless task force coordinating help by
private groups and government.
Fewer minority students getting college aid from feds?
NOTE: American Association of State Colleges and
Universities says there was a 12% drop in number of minority
students getting college aid from '81-82 to '83-84.
Black participation in federal college aid programs
went down slightly over the whole period of 1978 to
1983 (part of which was before we took office);
During that time federal student aid grew by 130%;
Today, half of all college students get some form of
federal aid. So obviously aid is available;
In fact, we're trying to make it more available to
lower income students by reforming eligibility rules so
more aid goes to the neediest students;
It isn't fair for students from families earning over
$100,000 to get subsidized aid, and that's what we're
trying to correct -- which will benefit minority
students.
If Hill conferees produce budget with no SS COLA freeze and
no defense increase, will RR veto it?
Most important duty RR has is to safeguard national
security;
Will do our best to come out with a defense figure that
at least keeps up with inflation;
To RR, that issue is much more critical than whatever
Congress decides to do about SS;
As for a veto, RR doesn't like to talk about vetoing
hypothetical bills. Wait till they re on his desk.
If there's a deadlock and Congress sends a continuing
resolution, will RR veto, to send clear message to Hill?
A continuing resolution would be a terrible setback for
our hopes of continuing this economic expansion;
A continuing resolution would mean a "hands-off"
approach to domestic spending, which would mean letting
the 1986 deficit stay over $200 billion;
RR will do his job, which is to reserve judgement on
vetos while keeping the pressure on for Congress to do
the right thing;
And RR hopes that Congress does its job, by acting to
safeguard the economy by decisively restraining
spending.
THE WHITE HOUSE
subj
WASHINGTON
June 14, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
SHERRIE M. COOKSEY 8MC
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Domestic Briefing Materials
David Chew's office requested that you provide any comments or
edits on the domestic briefing materials for Tuesday's Presi-
dential press conference directly to Russ Mack by 2:00 p.m.
today.
We have reviewed these briefing materials and recommend
revisions in the following areas: school prayer, description
of the E.F. Hutton case, comments on controversial nominees,
and the responses to suggestions that the President's tax
proposals favor the Sun Belt. Attached for your review and
signature is a memorandum to Mack detailing each of those
revisions. That memorandum also suggests another question
that could arise with respect to the elimination of the
deduction for state and local taxes.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 14, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR RUSSELL R. MACK, JR.
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Domestic Briefing Materials
We have reviewed the proposed domestic briefing materials for
the upcoming Presidential press conference and have the follow-
ing comments.
First, the proposed responses to a question on the Supreme
Court's recent school prayer decision, Wallace V. Jaffree,
should be changed. In the second bullet item, "moment of
silent meditation" should be changed to "moment of silence."
The third bullet item suggests that the Court was wrong or
should reconsider its decision because a large majority of the
populace favors a different result. Since the basis of the
Court's decision -- however erroneous -- was the Constitution,
it is legally irrelevant how large a percentage of the public
is opposed to the decision. The President should not appear
to endorse Mr. Dooley's view that the Supreme Court should
follow the election returns. I would have the third bullet
item read as follows: "The Court's decision should cause us
to redouble our efforts to pass a constitutional amendment
permitting voluntary school prayer. Even three-quarters of
the liberals in this country favor voluntary school prayer, so
we should be able to achieve this goal."
Second, the description of the E.F. Hutton situation should be
revised by deleting everything after the second bullet and
inserting in lieu thereof the following:
The E.F. Hutton situation involved a complex
corporate money management policy using overdrafts
on checking accounts to increase profits;
The complexity of this investigation and the need to
bring those fraudulent practices to a prompt halt
and obtain a full and complete recovery of the
victims' monies convinced the Justice Department to
act as it did;
- 2 -
The result was that a large brokerage house admitted
to 2,000 counts of fraud, paid a $2 million fine,
covered the costs of the government's investigation,
and will make restitution to the banks;
All things considered, RR thinks the settlement was
in the public interest.
At the same time, RR is confident that where an
investigation reveals individuals with criminal
culpability, the Department of Justice will not
hesitate to prosecute those individuals.
Third, the discussion of controversial appointees should be
revised by deleting the last three bullets.
Fourth, in the discussion of whether the President's tax plan
favors Sun Belt states, we note that the description of the
effect of our proposals on the Detroit auto worker assumes
that the auto worker's wife will be a homemaker, rather than a
wage earner. To preclude suggestions that the President's
model American family has the wife at home, we recommend that
this example include alternative descriptions of the wife.
(For example: if his wife is a homemaker, she gets to put
more money, tax free, into an IRA; if she is also employed,
the reduction in rates will enable the family to keep more of
the money both hardworking parents earn.)
Finally, in the listing of possible questions for the press
conference, we suggest inclusion of a question relating to the
charge that our proposal to eliminate the deduction for state
and local taxes actually hurts those states that have been
cooperating with the President's New Federalism program.
CC: David L. Chew
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 13, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR TOM GIBSON
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Domestic Briefing Materials
for Press Conference
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced briefing
points. I suggest deleting the third and sixth bullet items
under the AIDS/Public Schools category. I do not think the
President should be in the position of reassuring people
that the AIDS virus cannot be transmitted through casual or
routine contact, when that may prove to be untrue with
catastrophic results. There is much merit to the view that
we should assume AIDS may be so transmitted, as many viruses
can, until it is definitely proven that it cannot be. The
last bullet item should be deleted as confusing. The
previous items convey the President's view, and I do not
think it helpful to say this is or is not a "civil rights"
issue.
With respect to the talking points under the title "Federal
Judge Selection/Too Political?", I have several concerns.
Point 1 is unclear and should be deleted. The description
of abuse charges as "moot" suggests that there possibly may
be substance to them. As an alternative, the following
Point 1 would be more appropriate: "This Administration
looks for nominees who are intelligent and very well-
qualified." Point 2, relating to the ABA ratings, supports
this.
I have no objection to Point 3 or Point 4. However, the
latter would be strengthened if it were followed by: "There
is no 'litmus test.' This Administration is attempting to
restore a balance on the Federal judiciary that does not
exist now with the judicial activism we see. Judges should
interpret the law, not make it or execute it."
Point 5 should also be deleted. It implies that politics
may be involved, a position we are trying to disclaim in the
earlier Points.
- 2 -
Finally, since questions about the Administration's appointment
of women and minorities to the bench are frequently raised
in the press, and might be the focus of an initial, or
follow-up, question, you should provide the President with
back-up materials describing the Administration's achievements
in this area.
With respect to comparable worth, it seems that some mention
should be made of the recent Ninth Circuit decision. I
-would add the following item as a new bullet between the
third and fourth bullet: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit recently rejected a comparable worth suit
brought by state and local government workers against the
State of Washington. That court decision reaffirms what we
have been saying.'
FFF: JGRTDKO:aea 9/13/85
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
DKOwen
Subj
Chron
D. chew
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 13, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
DR
DEBORAH K. OWEN
Do(astrindges)
SUBJECT:
Domestic Briefing Materials
for Press Conference
David Chew has asked that comments on the above-referenced
briefing materials be sent directly to Tom Gibson by
2:00 p.m. today. The materials discuss tax reform, the
budget, trade, agriculture, AIDS, judicial selection,
revisions to E.O. 11246 (affirmative action), comparable
worth, Hispanic poverty, the supposed lack of women appointees,
immigration reform, congressional relations, and bank
failures.
The AIDS briefing points consider the dispute over admitting
AIDS-afflicted children into the public schools. The third
bullet item contains the statement that "as far as our best
scientists have been able to determine, AIDS virus is not
transmitted through casual or routine contact." I do not
think we should have the President taking a position on a
disputed scientific issue of this sort. He has no way of
knowing the underlying validity of the scientific "conclusion,"
which has been attacked by numerous commentators. I would
not like to see the President reassuring the public on this
point, only to find out he was wrong later. There is much
to commend the view that we should assume AIDS can be
transmitted through casual or routine contact, as is true
with many viruses, until it is demonstrated that it cannot
be, and no scientist has said AIDS definitely cannot be so
transmitted. I would simply delete the third bullet item.
I would also drop the last bullet item, stating that the
President does not view this issue as "a strictly civil
rights issue." The previous points state how the President
sees the issue, and it should be left at that, without
introducing possibly confusing references to civil rights.
Certainly civil rights concerns are implicated, and this is
in that sense a "civil rights issue," but that does not mean
countervailing concerns do not outweigh any civil rights
claims.
- 2 -
Federal Judge Selection/Too Political?:
The briefing materials in this area make five points:
(1) charges of abuses are "moot"; (2) the President's
nominees have received "extremely high" ABA ratings;
(3) judicial appointment is a "Constitutional right and
responsibility of the Chief Executive"; (4) it has been the
practice of this President and his predecessors to appoint
judges "who share similar attitudes concerning the role of
the judiciary"; and (5) it "sounds like some folks are
finally getting around to harvesting sour grapes from last
November." (Emphasis in original.)
Point 1 is unclear and should be deleted, in my view. The
description of abuse charges as "moot" suggests that there
possibly may be substance to them. As an alternative, the
first point would more appropriately be the one you made in
the National Public Radio interview: "This Administration
looks for nominees who are intelligent and very well-
qualified." Point 2, relating to the ABA ratings, supports
this.
I have no objection to Point 3 or Point 4. However, the
latter would be strengthened if it were followed by a Point
similar to one you made in the NPR interview: "There is no
'litmus test.' This Administration is attempting to restore
a balance on the Federal judiciary that does not exist now
with the judicial activism we see. Judges should interpret
the law, not make it or execute it."
Point 5 should also be deleted, even though it is probably
true to a certain degree. It implies that politics may be
involved, a position we are trying to disclaim in the
earlier Points.
Finally, since questions about the Administration's
appointment of women and minorities to the bench are
frequently raised in the press, and might be the focus of an
initial, or follow-up, question, it might be advisable for
Mr. Gibson to provide the President with back-up materials
describing the Administration's achievements in this area.
The E.O. 11246 points are noncommital, simply noting that
the President hopes for a color-blind society and would
support changes to the extent they would further this goal.
The comparable worth points are incomplete in that they
contain no reference to the recent Ninth Circuit decision.
I would add the following between the current third and
fourth bullets: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit recently rejected a comparable worth suit brought by
- 3 -
state and local government workers against the State of
Washington. That court decision reaffirms what we have been
saying."
The attached draft response to Tom Gibson makes the
foregoing recommendations.
Attachment
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
O . OUTGOING
H - INTERNAL
I . INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
Name of Correspondent:
D. chew
MI Maji Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Damestic Bruping materials for press converence
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
curtau
ORIGINATOR 85,09,13
1
/
Referral Note:
cunt 18
D
85,09,13
s 85,09,13
Referral Note: su below
2pm
CUAT21
to
85109113
S 85,09,13
Referral Note:
2 2pm
/ 1
/ 1
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
I . Into Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R Direct Reply w/Copy
B . Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
s For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X - Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments: Deborah- Per look at section on
judges
1
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 9/13/85
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 2:00 p.m. today
SUBJECT: Domestic Briefing Materials for Press Conference
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
LACY
REGAN
McFARLANE
WRIGHT
OGLESBY
BUCHANAN
ROLLINS
CHAVEZ
RYAN
CHEW
P
SS SPEAKES
DANIELS
SPRINKEL
R
FIELDING
SVAHN
FRIEDERSDORF
THOMAS
HENKEL
TUTTLE
HICKEY
GIBSON
HICKS
KINGON
REMARKS: Please give your recommendations/comments directly to
Tom Gibson, with an info copy to my office by 2:00 p.m.
today. Thanks.
RESPONSE:
David L. Chew
Staff Secretary
Ext. 2702
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
:3
September 13, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID CHEW
FROM:
TOM GIBSONG.
SUBJECT:
Briefing Materials for the September 17 Press
Conference
Attached for staffing are draft Presidential briefing materials
for the September 17 press conference.
BRIEFING MATERIALS ON DOMESTIC ISSUES
FOR THE PRESIDENT'S SEPT. 17 PRESS-CONFERENCE
FAIR SHARE TAX REFORM
Central Points:
American people shouldn't lose sight of big picture:
-- Specific features of our tax proposal are important,
but may lead American people to miss the forest for the
trees.
:
Loopholes are being closed and special exemptions are
being ended -- while tax rates are being cut across the
board. The plan is revenue neutral.
:
RR wants to clear the tangle of rules that confuse
most people and provide cover for others to avoid
paying taxes -- Simplicity and Fairness.
--
Fairness -- this plan will help restore the confidence
of the American people that the costs of government are
being shared equitably.
Broad Support for Tax Reform:
Polls show that the American people want taxation that is
fair.
Everyone that's ever hassled with tax forms ought to have
some interest in tax-simplification.
Everyone that's ever wondered why the fellow next door
making about the same income, with the same responsibilities,
but pays less tax, has also wondered about fairness.
Other more important issues?
Recall the benefits that resulted from the last time we
lowered tax rates -- which we propose to do again.
It proved to be the best anti-poverty program launched in
over 16 years.
Since 1983, when the impact of those tax cuts began to take
effect, the growth in poverty, growing since 1979, was
halted. In 1984 poverty dropped by 1.8 million people.
Last month unemployment dropped to its lowest level
in 5½ years.
Job creation, reductions in poverty, raised standards of
living, more freedom for the American people -- rather
important issues.
Tax Reform Timing:
RR believes we'll avoid playing politics and get a Fair
Share Tax Reform proposal passed. Democrats and Republicans
alike, House and Senate; this is truly a bi-partisan effort.
Dan Rostenkowski, Tip O'Neill, Bob Packwood, Bob Dole and
many others have stated their commitments to tax reform and
will all share in the credit for giving the American people
tax fairness and simplicity.
Tax Reform/Some Non-negotiable items:
$2,000 personal exemption; President Truman stood for a
bigger personal exemption, and RR hopes the Democrats in
Congress will remember his example.
Top rate of 35%; IRS will never take more than 1 of 3
additional dollars you earn, compared to 1 of 2 now.
Focus of reductions kept to benefit those at lowest income
levels.
Tax Reform/Middle class and Families:
About two-thirds of middleclass families can expect a net
tax cut.
Those households earning between $20,000 and $50,000
will average a federal tax reduction of 7% -- hundreds
of dollars, saved each and every year.
Families at the lower end of the income scales would even
benefit more:
-- incomes of between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay
an average of 8.7% less in taxes.
-- incomes of between $15,000 and $20,000 will pay
an average of 13.5% less in taxes.
For families, RR has established the so-called "Homemaker
IRA, where we're allowing non-income earning spouses, both
husband and wife, to each put $2,000 in a tax-deferred
savings account for retirement.
A Congressional committee, with Democrats in the majority --
the House Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families
-- said our plan was the best of all those before Congress.
Tax Reform/Recent Proposal to Exclude Breaks for those with
Pension Plans
Look at the whole pension landscape. The 401 (k) tax
break was put in before RR's administration expanded IRA's
in 1981 -- and plans to expand them again.
The IRA is a fairer way to help people save for retirement;
anyone can start an IRA, but 401 (k) arrangements are
available to only a portion of the private sector workforce.
By repealing 401 (k) tax exemption, started under last
administration, RR's tax proposal will remain revenue
neutral -- while still bringing tax rates down.
BUDGET
$2 trillion Debt Ceiling will soon need to be passed:
"Congress makes the budget, the President doesn't."
- Jim Wright, Congressional Record 9/22/83
o' In January, RR sent up a budget with 17 program
terminations, worth what would have been $60 billion in
savings for FY '86.
Unfortunately for all Americans, the Congressional budget
process has not delivered on any of those program cuts, and
spending just keeps rolling along.
1981 Tax Cuts -- lower revenue -- responsible debt runup?
Overall, revenues have grown almost 23% under RR.
OMB estimates by end fiscal year 1985:
1985 Revenues will have increased $69.5 billion over 1984.
1985 Spending will have increased $95.5 billion over 1984.
RR has best record of trying to cut federal spending -- root
of the deficit problem.
Vetoes on Appropriations Bills:
We are working with Congressional leadership and are
communicating acceptable limits on individual appropriation
bills -- if bills exceed these limits there will be vetoes.
The fiscal year ends at the end of this month. Congress has
had plenty of time to pass funding bills to keep the federal
government running.
RR hopes that we don't have a repeat of last year, where
Congress' failure to pass acceptable spending legislation
forced the closing of many government offices.
TRADE
Proposed Administration Legislation:
Being developed together with Congressional leaders to
provide RR with greater ability to address unfair trade
practices.
Cannot have Free Trade without Fair Trade.
Fair Trade Enforcement/initiation of 301 cases:
Japan -- restrictions on selling U.S. leather goods
-- restrictions on selling U.S. tobacco products
South Korea -- restriction on U.S. insurance sales
E.C. -- unfair subsidies of canned fruits in foreign markets
Brazil -- restrictions on selling U.S. computer equipment
Protectionist Pressures:
RR shares the concern that certain jobs are being lost to
overseas workers. However, there has been a net increase of
almost 8 million jobs since the recovery began -- 330,000
jobs were created last month.
Unemployment has dropped to the lowest level in 5½ years.
You can't use declining numbers of jobs to justify
protectionism -- Fact is, we are creating jobs at a record
pace.
Protectionism is a boomerang. It always hurts the country
which imposes it.
Shoes:
$1 billion worth of protection would have cost American
consumers $3 billion.
Displaced workers to be retrained under targeted JTPA
programs.
Textiles:
Administration has strengthened Customs enforcement of trade
laws -- 800 textile seizures in last two years.
Proposed legislation conflicts with Multifiber Arrangement
(which governs international textile trade) -- might mean
abrogation of bilateral agreements with 34 other countries.
AGRICULTURE
Farm Credit Crisis:
Problems are severe. $74 billion in loans; $11 billion
of which are problem loans.
However, there are sufficient resources within Farm Credit
Administraion for the problems to be addressed without a
federal bailout.
Farm Legislation:
We need to get the government out of the business of
farming. There appears to be agreement on that issue.
The unaltered spending of billions of dollars over the last
two decades has brought no lasting improvements to America's
farmers.
Movement toward a market-oriented farm policy, open access
to foreign markets, increased exports, and a growing economy
with a lid on inflation offer farmers the best solutions to
their problems.
The Farm Bill currently in favor in the House appears to
exceed its budget limits. RR has sent a letter to
Congress outlining the acceptable features of a farm bill.
As I have said before, I will veto budget-busting
legislation whatever the sort. If its the farm bill, so be it.
"Farm Aid" Train/Concert:
RR welcomes the efforts of Merle Haggard and other Country
Music stars in highlighting the plight of America's farmer.
Indeed, officials in the Administration have helped make the
trip possible -- AMTRACK train at cost and cut red tape.
YES
There is no denying there are acute financial problems for
FRA
farmers in many parts of the country -- in many cases
a product of the inflation expections of the late 70's.
AIDS
Federal Efforts to Find a Cure:
AIDS education and research has been a top priority of the
Department of Health and Human Services for over four
years.
Over $100 million is being spent on AIDS research and
education in 1985.
RR recently approved revisions to my 1986 budget,
increasing initial requests for AIDS research and
education by $41 million, for a total of $126 million.
Leading scientists have stated that never before in history
has so much progress toward understanding and combating a
disease been made in so short a time.
AIDS/Afflicted Children Being Allowed to Attend Public Schools:
?
I have deep sympathy for the child and the parents of a
child who is afflicted with this horrible disease.
I can understand the concerns of parents who are fearful of
their child contracting the disease in public places.
However, as far as our best scientist have been able to
determine, AIDS virus is not transmitted through casual or
routine contact.
There is the need for greater research and answers.
And there is the need for rational consideration of the
problems posed by AIDS -- considerations that balance public
health concerns with those of afflicted children in critical
stages of social development. We must not make them into
modern day lepers.
I do not see this issue as some have framed it -- a strictly
civil rights issue.
FEDERAL JUDGE SELECTION/TOO POLITICAL?
Charges of abuses in the selection process are moot.
RR's selections for judgeships have received extremely high
ratings from the American Bar Association.
It is the Constitutional right and responsibility of the
Chief Executive to appoint judges to the federal bench.
It has been RR's practice, as it has been the practice
of ALL prior occupants of the Oval Office, to appoint judges
who share similar attitudes concerning the role of the
judiciary.
Sounds like some folks are finally getting around to
harvesting sour grapes from last November.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/PROPOSED REVISIONS TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246
It is my hope that America will someday be color-blind, and
that discrimination of any sort will be a thing of the past.
To the extent that revisions in Administration policies,
regarding numerical goals and timetables would further this
goal, I would support them.
COMPARABLE WORTH
It is not equal pay for equal work.
Equal pay for equal work is the current law and we have
aggressively enforced the provisions of Title VII that
protect against wage discrimination based on sex.
o' Comparable worth is a system where bureaucrats or judges
would arbitrarily decide what people ought to earn.
It would deny the rights of collective bargaining, and it
would ultimately mean the loss of an untold number of jobs.
Any time you punch the marketplace, it punches back.
Today, women and men are freed of former sterotypes and may
enter any field of work they choose.
POVERTY RATES AND HISPANICS
True, poverty rates for hispanics did not see the same
dramatic declines as other segments of the population in
1984.
That was the only disappointment in an otherwise terrific
batch of news -- the sharpest overall decline in poverty in
16 years.
However, there were dramatic increases reported for hispanic
family income -- up 6.8% in one year -- the highest of any
population group.
We are studying that apparent contradiction.
LACK OF WOMEN APPOINTEES?
RR's new Director of Public Liaison, Linda Chavez, probably
doesn't share that view.
Connie Horner the first woman to ever head OPM or it's
predecessor, the Civil Service Commission probably doesn't
share that view either.
There are others in the Cabinet and on the Supreme Court you
could check with as well.
Meanwhile, 5 of 7 Associate Directors in the Office of
Presidential Personnel are women. They're filling a lot of
senior slots in our Administration, and they're looking to
fill them with qualified men and women.
IMMIGRATION
Do you back the current attempt at Immigration reform sponsored
by Senator Simpson and Representatives Mazzoli and Rodino?
Since 1981, when we first submitted comprehensive reform
legislation, we've been firmly in support of fair, workable
and non-discriminatory immigration reform.
We have recently gone on record in support of Senator
Simpson's bill, S.1200, urging only a few minor
modifications having to do with farm workers.
CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS
Very positive GOP Congressional Leadership meeting last
week.
Identified issues for joint action -- Trade for instance.
Made clear my strong desires to see Tax Reform passed this
Fall.
RECORD NUMBER OF BANK FAILURES -- 80 so FAR IN 1985
The problems are being handled quietly efficently by federal
banking agencies -- FDIC for federally insured banks; FSLIC
for federally issured Savings and Loans.
Reforms in interstate banking laws have allowed many failed
or troubled financial institutions to be aqquired by other
stronger banks -- this has brought a greater degree of
stability to the entire banking system.
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- f56b59e788cd7803
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 135839142
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "135839142",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839142",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "JGR/Press Conferences (2 of 6)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839142",
"identifierLocal": "485",
"collections": [
"Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
"John Roberts' Subject Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-043-018-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-043-018-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-043-018-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "135839142",
"label": "JGR/Press Conferences (2 of 6)",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839142"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "135839142",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839142",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "JGR/Press Conferences (2 of 6)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839142",
"identifierLocal": "485",
"collections": [
"Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
"John Roberts' Subject Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-043-018-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-043-018-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-043-018-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839142",
"naId": 135839142,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1986-12-31",
"year": 1986
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1982-01-01",
"year": 1982
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-043-018-2017.pdf",
"mediaId": "f56b59e788cd7803",
"ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Roberts, John G.: Files\nFolder Title: JGR/Press Conferences\n(2 of 6)\nBox: 43\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 14, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR RUSSELL R. MACK, JR.\nSPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND\nDIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING Crig signed ly IFF\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nDomestic Briefing Materials\nWe have reviewed the proposed domestic briefing materials for\nthe upcoming Presidential press conference and have the follow-\ning comments.\nFirst, the proposed responses to a question on the Supreme\nCourt's recent school prayer decision, Wallace V. Jaffree,\nshould be changed. In the second bullet item, \"moment of\nsilent meditation\" should be changed to \"moment of silence.\" \"\nThe third bullet item suggests that the Court was wrong or\nshould reconsider its decision because a large majority of the\npopulace favors a different result. Since the basis of the\nCourt's decision -- however erroneous -- was the Constitution,\nit is legally irrelevant how large a percentage of the public\nis opposed to the decision. The President should not appear\nto endorse Mr. Dooley's view that the Supreme Court should\nfollow the election returns. I would have the third bullet\nitem read as follows: \"The Court's decision should cause us\nto redouble our efforts to pass a constitutional amendment\npermitting voluntary school prayer. Even three-quarters of\nthe liberals in this country favor voluntary school prayer, so\nwe should be able to achieve this goal. \"\nSecond, the description of the E.F. Hutton situation should be\nrevised by deleting everything after the second bullet and\ninserting in lieu thereof the following:\nThe E.F. Hutton situation involved a complex\ncorporate money management policy using overdrafts\non checking accounts to increase profits;\nThe complexity of this investigation and the need to\nbring those fraudulent practices to a prompt halt\nand obtain a full and complete recovery of the\nvictims' monies convinced the Justice Department to\nact as it did;\nFFF: SMC: 6/14/85\nCC: FFFielding SMCooksey\nJGRoberts\nSubject\nChron.\n- 2 -\nThe result was that a large brokerage house admitted\nto 2,000 counts of fraud, paid a $2 million fine,\ncovered the costs of the government's investigation,\nand will make restitution to the banks;\nAll things considered, RR agrees with the Department\nof Justice that the settlement and disposition was\nin the public interest.\nThird, the discussion of controversial appointees should be\nrevised by deleting the last three bullets.\nFourth, in the discussion of whether the President's tax plan\nfavors Sun Belt states, we note that the description of the\neffect of our proposals on the Detroit auto worker assumes\nthat the auto worker's wife will be a homemaker, rather than a\nwage earner. To preclude suggestions that the President's\nmodel American family has the wife at home, we recommend that\nthis example include alternative descriptions of the wife.\n(For example: if his wife is a homemaker, she gets to put\nmore money, tax free, into an IRA; if she is also employed,\nthe reduction in rates will enable the family to keep more of\nthe money both hardworking parents earn.)\nFinally, in the listing of possible questions for the press\nconference, we suggest inclusion of a question relating to the\ncharge that our proposal to eliminate the deduction for state\nand local taxes actually hurts those states that have been\ncooperating with the President's New Federalism program.\nCC: David L. Chew\nID #\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\nO . OUTGOING\nH . INTERNAL\nI . INCOMING\nfile SMC + I news the on did\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n1\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nDave Chew\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject:\nDomestic Briefing Materials\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency (Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCUHOLL\nORIGINATOR 85,06,14\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nCUAT 17, CUAT 18\nD\n85/06/14\nS 85106114\nReferral Note:\n2 PM\n/\n1\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA . Appropriate Action\nI , Into Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC . Comment/Recommendation\nR . Direct Reply w/Copy\nB. . Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD - Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF - Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nDocument No.\nWHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM\nDATE:\n6/14/85\nACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 2:00 P.M. TODAY\nSUBJECT: DOMESTIC BRIEFING MATERIALS\nACTION FYI\nACTION FYI\nVICE PRESIDENT\nLACY\nREGAN\nMcFARLANE\nSTOCKMAN\nOGLESBY\nBUCHANAN\nROLLINS\nCHAVEZ\nRYAN\nCHEW\nP\nBS\nSPEAKES\nDANIELS\nSPRINKEL\nFIELDING\nSVAHN\nFRIEDERSDORF\nTUTTLE\nHENKEL\nMACK\nHICKEY\nHICKS\nKINGON\nREMARKS:\nPlease provide any edits directly to Russ Mack, Room 158, Ext. 7170\nby 2:00 p.m. today, with an information copy to my office.\nThank you.\nRESPONSE:\nDavid L. Chew\n1985 JUN 14 III 8: 48\nStaff Secretary\nExt. 2702\nPOSSIBLE QUESTIONS FOR JUNE 18 PRESS CONFERENCE\nTax Reform\n1. You have said the state and local tax deduction is unfair\nbecause taxpayers in low tax states shouldn't have to\nsubsidize itemizers in a few high tax states. But why\nshould taxpayers in non oil-producing states have to\nsubsidize tax breaks for oil producers in a few states?\n2. You have often praised the generosity of the average\nAmerican. Won't keeping the charitable deduction for\nitemizers while ending it for non-itemizers discourage the\nsame small givers you have been praising?\n3. While many Dems, like Tip and Rosty, have endorsed the\nidea of tax reform, many conservatives, including Jack Kemp\nand the editor of Human Events, have expressed some\ndisappointment in your plan. Aren't you concened about a\nlack of core support for your plan?\n4. While initial polls showed enthusiasm for tax reform,\nisn't it true that with each passing week the momentum fades\nas the plan is nibbled to death on the Hill?\n5. You've been cool to Rosty's suggestion of a fourth top\nrate. Yet with the biggest tax reductions going to those\nmaking over $200,000, doesn't your refusal to raise the top\nrate play into the hands of those who call you plan a bonus\nfor the rich?\n6. Under your plan, the poorest and the richest taxpayers\nget the best deal. Yet the poor pay little in taxes to\nbegin with, while the rich hardly need a tax break. Isn't\nthat unfair to the middle class?\n7. Some have suggested your plan favors the Republican base\nin Sun Belt states, since it benefits energy producers and\nhigh tech industries, while penalizing high tax states and\nsmokestack industries. Won't the apparent regional bias\nlessen the plan's national appeal?\n8. You have said corporations don't pay taxes, people do.\nBy including a minimum corporate tax and raising the share\nof taxes paid by corporations, aren't you changing your\nprevious views about corporate taxes?\n9. Treasury I was a model of simplicity compared to Treasury\nII. Why didn't you keep it simple and go for a purer form\nof tax reform?\n10. Don't you think it's ironic for you to be barnstorming.\nfor Republican Senate candidates on the same trips where you\ncall for bipartisan support for your tax plan?\n11. Having already cut back on student aid, isn't it a\ndouble blow for you to propose ending deductions for\ndonations to colleges?\nBudget\n12. If, as you've often said, Social Security is\nself-supporting and not related to the deficit, why did you\ngo along with the Senate's COLA freeze as a deficit\nreduction move?\n13. Why is it a \"cut\" when the Pentagon's spending increase\nis reduced, but not a \"cut\" when Social Security's COLA is\nreduced or eliminated?\n14. David Stockman is reportedly warning that according to\nprivate economists the Fiscal Year 1988 deficit may end up\n$70 billion higher than that projected in the Senate's\nbudget plan. Does this suggest we're losing ground in the\ndeficit fight no matter what Congress does on your deficit\nreduction package?\n15. Would you give up the Social Security COLA freeze in\norder to win back a defense department increase?\n16. Some of your favorite proposals, like enterprise zones\nand tuition tax credits, were not included in either the\nbudget or tax bills. Why aren't you actively pushing these\nproposals?\n17. Both Chairman Gray and Senator Dole say some form of tax\nhike may be necessary to reduce the deficit, no matter what\nhappens in the House/Senate budget conference. Is there any\ncircumstance under which you'd swallow any form of\nanti-deficit tax increase?\n18. GOP willingness to put Social Security on the budget\ntable was based on an understanding that the Democrats\nwouldn't use it as a partisan issue. Now that they have and\nHouse Republicans are running away from it at top speed, do\nyou feel betrayed?\nMiscellaneous issues\n19. The economy has had two straight quarters of very low\ngrowth, inflation is moving upward and the unemployment\nlevel has been stuck around the 7.3% level for a full year.\nDoesn't that sound a little like the \"stagflation\" you\ncampaigned against in the last two elections, and what are\nyour plans to get the economy moving again?\n20. Your nomination of William Bradford Reynolds to be\nAssociate Attorney General has provoked fierce attacks on\nhis -- and your Administration's -- civil rights record.\nAren't you asking for trouble by asking the Senate to\npromote the person who's become a symbol of antagonism to\ncivil rights programs?\n21. At the start of your second term, both you and your\nspokesman promised that you'd be more accessible and have\none press conference a month. In the five and a half months\nof this year, you've had just 3 press conferences, and if\nanything, your administration has become even less\naccessible than before. What happened to your promise to be\nmore open?\n22. A new Children's Defense Fund study says black children\nin America never had it SO bad. In every measurement --\nteen pregnancy, jobs, education, health care -- they're\nworse off than white children. Doesn't this suggest your\npolicies have made a bad situation worse?\n23. Some people in your political camp have questioned the\nintegrity and the value of the Justice Department's Office\nof Special Investigations (OSI), the so-called Nazi-hunters.\nWith the search for war criminal Dr. Joseph Mengele in the\nnews, can you tell us whether you favor continuing OSI's\nwork?\n24. What do you say to average Americans who see white\ncollar criminals let off off easy by your Justice Department\nin cases like the E.F. Hutton bank fraud racket? Isn't\nthere a double standard between well-to-do crooks and common\nones?\n25. Does the recent Supreme Court decision barring an\nAlabama law that set aside school time for silent prayer\nconfirm that even a more conservative high court won't mix\nchurch and state as much as many conservatives wish?\n26. Your tax reform plan eliminates the $1 checkoff for\npublic funding of presidential campaigns, something you've\nopposed for years. Isn't that using the back door to make a\nmajor change in elections policy?\n27. Are you going to meet with homeless activist Mitch\nSnyder, who claims your administration reneged on your '\npersonal promise to create a model shelter?\n28. A group of investors headed by Morgan Stanley & Co. says\nthey'd give taxpayers a $600 million better deal for buying\nConrail than Norfolk Southern would, even though DOT has\nendorsed the Norfolk Southern offer. Are you convinced\nNorfolk Southern is the best deal, and that it won't hurt\ncompetition?\n29. Did you consider Richard Nixon to have been an important\nsource of advice during the '84 campaign?\n30. Is it true that during the '84 campaign Nancy was\nsometimes scheduled to travel separately from you because\nshe tended to make you too intense?\n31. Do you believe the federal government is doing enough to\nprotect the public against the kind of savings and loan or\nbank panics that recently struck Maryland and Ohio?\n32. The American Association of State Colleges and\nUniversities has reported that the number of minority\nstudents getting financial aid dropped more than 12% between\nthe '81-'82 and '83-'84 academic years. Meanwhile, the\nCarnegie Foundation says your budget cuts would seriously\nthreaten educational opportunity. How do you react?\n33. Early in the second term you've suffered a string of\ndefeats: on Contra aid, the MX missle, Bitburg. Does this\nmean the almost inevitable second term downslide has begun?\n34. Your political appointees have had a lot of trouble\nlately. Don Devine bowed out, so did an Education official\nafter suggesting the handicapped are somehow responsible for\ntheir fate. Another appointee resigned after admitting she\ncollaborated on a book containing racial slurs, and an SEC\nofficial resigned amid personal problems. Does all this\nturmoil over appointees concern you?\nADDITIONAL DOMESTIC QUESTIONS FOR JUNE 18 PRESS CONFERENCE\n1. If the Hill conferees produce a budget bill that contains\nno SS COLA freeze and no defense increase, will you veto it?\n2. If there's a deadlock and the Hill sends you a continuing\nresolution, will you take a hard line approach and veto it\nto send a message to Congress?\n3. Acting OPM Director Loretta Cornelius not only played a\nkey role in Don Devine's downfall, but she's been firing\nconservative appointees. Why is she still heading OPM?\n4. Some critics believe the \"pro-family\" theme of your tax\nproposal really means using the tax code to guide more women\nback to traditional roles in the home. Won't your proposal\nhave that effect?\nBRIEFING MATERIALS ON DOMESTIC ISSUES\nFOR THE PRESIDENT'S JUNE 18 PRESS CONFERENCE\nTAX SIMPLIFICATION\nGeneral Points:\nIn all the debate over this or that provision of RR's\ntax proposal, shouldn't lose sight of the big picture:\n-- taxpayers in every income group will benefit:\n--\nFrom lowered rates (IRS will never take more than\n1 of 3 dollars you earn, compared to 1 of 2 now);\n--\nFrom pro-family features that raise standard\ndeduction and personal exemption, make IRAs\navailable to spouses at home;\n--\nFrom pro-growth features that help entrepreneurs\nand small businessmen and women create new jobs;\n--\nFrom pro-fairness provisions that make the code\nsimpler and cut back loopholes by which some have\nescaped their fair share of taxes;\nWe'll pass America's Tax Plan because average American\nis fed up with the old system. Remember: many of same\nskeptics who in 1981 said Reaganomics wouldn't work now\nfind fault with tax proposal. We proved skeptics wrong\nthen, will do it again.\nIf state and local deduction is unfair to low tax states,\naren't oil and gas breaks unfair to non-producer states?\nUnder our plan, oil and gas industries will lose some\ntax benefits and keep others. For example, oil\ndepletion allowance is phased out except for wells\nproducing fewer than 10 barrels a day (which otherwise\nmight be abandoned) ;\nKey point is that exploration and production won't be\nharmed. Remember damage to economy caused by '73 and\n'79 oil disruptions;\nEnergy independence benefits all Americans, regardless\nof state or tax bracket; it's a national security\nmatter;\nIn contrast, state/local deductions primarily benefit\nupper income taxpayers in high tax states.\nIn fact, a wealthy taxpayer in Manhattan who itemizes\ngets a \"rebate\" on state tax he pays -- passing as much\nas half the tab to less affluent taxpayers -- who don't\nitemize -- in places like the South Bronx;\nState/local deduction tempts some states to impose\nhigher taxes than necessary. Under RR plan, with feds\ntaking a smaller share, states genuinely needing higher\nrevenues will be better able to raise them.\nWon't ending charitable deduction for non-itemizers dampen\ngenerosity?\nThe deduction for non-itemizers isn't really what\ngenerates these contributions, so it shouldn't have\nmuch effect, if any, on giving. Americans are generous\nby nature;\nBy lowering rates, we're giving middle income taxpayers\nmore after-tax income. That means they 11 be better\nable to donate to charity;\nTax deductions may be an important motivation behind\nlarge charitable contributions, but RR doubts that most\nsmall givers do so for tax advantage.\nMany Dems endorse tax reform, while many conservatives,\nincluding Jack Kemp and the editor of Human Events, have\nbeen disappointed by your plan. Worried by lack of core\nsupport?\nRR shares goal of conservatives -- lower rates, more\nincentives;\nConservatives with us on those, while many on Hill like\nthe fairness and simplicity features. Base for a\ncongressional majority is there;\nProblem is special interests -- people and organizations\nthat put their own tax preferences ahead of goals of\neconomic growth, fairness, simplification;\nRR intends to keep pointing out how our plan is best\nfor America, trusts that national interest will win out\nover the special interests.\nWill momentum fade as package is nibbled on Hill?\nPolls show overwhelming public support for tax\nsimplification;\nNewsweek poll shows 2 of every 3 Americans who've heard\nof RR's plan favor it. RR's televised tax address got\nsecond highest favorable response of any since 1981;\nThree of 5 Americans agree present tax system is unfair;\nThere's clear bipartisan support on Hill;\nIf American public keeps the pressure on Congress, even\nthe strongest special interests won't be able to stifle\ntax simplification this year.\nRemember, skeptics back in 1981 said RR's program\ncouldn't work, but it's given us strong growth, low\ninflation, 300,000 new jobs a month for 2 1/2 years --\nat same time taxes were cut;\nSkeptics were wrong then; they're wrong now.\nBy balking at 4th rate, aren't you helping the rich?\nOur proposal does have a \"fourth rate\": it's zero;\nTo add a rate over 35% would undercut the purposes of\nsimplification and incentives for investment and\ngrowth;\nWhen marginal rates are high, the rich can afford to\nfind tax shelters. It's the average guy who gets a\nbreak from lowered rates;\nObviously, in absolute dollars the highest income\ntaxpayers get more of a reduction than those who earn\nand pay less, but that misses the point -- every single\nincome group benefits under our plan, and so does the\ncountry;\nThe poorest get the greatest benefit: poverty level\nfamilies are virtually freed from federal income tax\nentirely;\nAnd for working Americans, no matter how hard they\nworked to earn overtime pay or raises for the rest of\ntheir lives, the IRS could never again take more than\n35¢ out of any paycheck dollar.\nDoes plan favor Sun Belt states?\nThis is America's tax plan -- it's not a plan for any\nregion or group or class;\nA simpler tax code is simpler for everybody; a rate\nreduction is a reduction for everybody;\nThe plan will boost national economic growth, and that\nbenefits everybody;\nFor a Detroit auto worker, for example:\n--\nhe gets to keep, spend and save more of his\npaycheck and overtime earnings;\n--\nhis wife gets to put more, tax-free, into an IRA;\n--\nhis company gets lower rates, which could lead to\nexpansion, and will sell more cars because buyers\nhave more spendable income;\nAs for advantages to high tech industries, RR has seen\na great many such firms outside the Sun Belt; they 11\nall benefit, and that means new jobs.\nWhy the switch on minimum corporate tax? Why hit business\nwith larger tax share?\nRemember, business rates are cut -- and every time\nthat's been done (example: JFK) it's had beneficial\nresults;\nMinimum tax simply aims at those who haven't been\npaying their fair share;\nRR believes businesses will find it worth giving up\ncertain deductions (often prone to abuse) in order to\ngain lowered rates;\nRR plan especially benefits new and small businesses,\nwhere most new jobs are generated:\n:\nthe lowered corporate rates are graduated for\nsmall businesses in RR's plan;\n--\nwith people investing more in IRAs and other\ninvestments, small businesses will have access to\na larger supply of capital;\n--\nand since many small business owners file as\nindividuals, rather than corporations, their\nbusinesses will benefit from lower personal rates.\nDoesn't \"pro family\" really mean \"pro traditional roles for\nwomen?\nNot at all. Pro family simply means giving the family a\nfair shake, whether a woman works outside home or not;\nRR plan corrects unfairness:\n--\npersonal exemption eroded badly by inflation; we\ndouble it and index it;\n--\nnot fair for working spouse to get full IRA\nallowance and homemaker to get less;\n--\nall families, whether two-earner or not, benefit\nfrom lower rates and simplicity;\nWomen with careers benefit just as much:\n--\nas entrepreneurs, they get more incentive to take\nrisks, start own businesses;\n--\nas wage-earners, they' 11 have less of their\nhard-earned paychecks taken by IRS as they move\nupward in jobs, get raises and promotions;\n--\nwomen at poverty line who work hard to make ends\nmeet will be virtually exempted from paying\nfederal income tax;\nA tax system that's simpler and fairer offers as much\nto career women as to homemakers.\nInconsistent to blast Dems while asking their help?\nRR doesn't feel he has been saying anything unfair.\nThe tax plan stands on its own merits, has nothing to\ndo with RR's campaigning for Senate candidates;\nIn any case it would be wrong for RR as President to\nfail to speak out on vital issues like Central America\nduring trips, just because silence would be politically\nadvantageous to tax bill;\nIt's possible to disagree with Dems on certain other\nissues yet agree on need for tax simplification. (After\nall, Tip seems to disagree with RR on almost everything\nbut tax reform).\nMISCELLANEOUS ISSUES\nWorried about some bad economic signs?\nBottom line remains: we're in strongest sustained\neconomic expansion in more than 30 years -- first time\nsince JFK we've had growth with low inflation;\nWe've created 8 million jobs in 2 1/2 years;\nSlowdown in past 9 months has simply put growth closer\nto that of average recovery;\nRecent numbers look good in several areas:\n--\nPersonal and disposable income up;\n--\nHousing starts strong;\n--\nNon-farm employment up by 345,000;\nEspecially good sign: interest rates falling:\n--\nPrime rate has been cut to 10%, lowest since '79;\n--\nMortgage rates are lowest in more than 5 years;\nRenewed expansion is likely after pause, since we're\nalready seeing signs of renewed strength.\nNote: both the personal spending and savings rates rose\nsmartly in April, thanks to IRS tax refunds -- which is\na sampling of what happens when government gives people\nback more of the money they've earned.\nCIVIL RIGHTS\nBrad Reynolds nomination\nAll the fuss about Brad Reynolds boils down to one\nsimple fact:\n--\nReynolds' (and RR's) critics on civil rights favor\nquotas and busing, and we don't;\nBrad Reynolds' \"offense\" in the eyes of his critics is\nthat he's faithfully carried out our policy of promoting\na \"color-blind\" society -- one that doesn't treat\nAmericans differently because of the color of their\nskin;\nDuring Brad Reynolds' service at Justice, our record in\nevery area of civil rights enforcement has been solid\n-- including equal rights for women, for the handicapped,\nat voting places, in housing and job sites;\nIn fact, you seldom see it reported, but we've often\nset records for prosecuting criminal civil rights\nviolations. We've got a good record;\nBut we're not going along with the idea that civil\nrights means discriminating against one person in order\nto benefit another.\nMEDIA\nWhy so few press conferences?\nWe said we'd try to have one press conference a month,\nand we're sticking pretty close to that. RR has had\npress conferences in January, February, March, May\n(Lisbon) and now June;\nSo, only missed one month in the first six of 1985;\nRR has also given 20 interviews so far this year, and\nthere've been plenty of other events open to coverage;\nIt's in the nature of things that media always want\nmore access to President, but RR thinks ours has been\nan open administration. (Besides, we've done our best\nto make your lives interesting).\nSOCIAL SECURITY COLA\nWhy did you go along with the Senate's COLA freeze?\nMany Senators felt that was necessary for a fair package of\nbudget reductions. Since the President can't dictate\nthe federal budget, Senate wishes had to be considered;\nimperative to get a deficit reduction bill;\nWhen budget finally passed, RR was sorry that they had\ndeparted from specifics of what Administration had proposed;\nBut RR glad at Senate's bottom-line: $56 billion in savings;\nNo one should be fearful about their Social Security.\nRemember -- Under RR, SS benefits have risen $120 for\nthe typical retiree, and $216 for the average retired\ncouple. Remember also we slashed inflation, at great\nbenefit to everyone who has a pension;\nWe saved SS and put it on a sound footing with\nbipartisan help; trying to do same with budget. RR\nregrets that some Dems back to their old tricks of\ndemagoguing SS;\nHopes they 11 join us in serious effort to reduce\ndeficit. That would be one good way to help elderly.\nSOCIAL SECURITY VS. DEFENSE \"CUTS\"\nWhy is it a \"cut\" when Pentagon spending increase is reduced, but\nnot a \"cut\" when Social Security's COLA is reduced?\nFirst off, not sure what will happen with SS COLA;\nSecondly, defense program in different category from other\nparts of the budget. Defense budget is insurance policy\nto protect everything we Americans hold dear;\nFinally, defense in constant dollars during the seventies\nwas reduced, as domestic spending, including Social\nSecurity, kept even or got ahead of inflation;\nGoal is to rebuild America's strength -- to promote peace\nand reassure allies. That requires more than just \"keeping\nup with inflation.\"\nCDF CRITICISMS\nThe Children's Defense Fund says black children have never had it\nso bad. Have your policies have made a bad situation worse?\nNo. In fact, many things have been getting better;\nHead Start funding up a third since 1980;\nCollecting a lot more child-support from delinquent\nfathers;\nOverall infant mortality, including black infant\nmortality, is down since 1980;\nBut more needs to be done. Problem for black children is\nbreakup of families, too much crime, lack of opportunity;\nWe're trying to help:\n--\nWith our tax-fairness plan, which gives lots of\nrelief to the poor;\n--\nWith enterprise zones, youth-opportunity wages for\nsummer jobs, and strong economic growth;\n--\nWith continued action against serious crime,\ndown for the past three years;\nIf minority children are as bad off as some people say they\nare, then we hope those critics will join with us to treat\nserious problems with serious answers.\nWHITE-COLLAR CRIME\nPeople see white-collar criminals let off easy in cases like the\nE.F. Hutton bank-fraud racket. Isn't there a double standard?\nRR believes in personal accountabilty for all crimes.\nOf course, that starts with violent crime against\ninnocent citizens on the streets and in neighborhoods.\nOur anti-crime legislation gets tough in areas like\nparole, sentencing;\nOn white collar crime, we've cracked down on organized\ncrime and on drug pushers;\nAs for the specifics of the E.F. Hutton situation:\n20-30 people in financial departments were defrauding\nbanks by overdrawing checking accounts, to make their\ndepartments look more profitable;\nCareer prosecutors at Justice saw that something had to\nbe done to raise the standards of corporate responsibility;\nThe result was that a large brokerage house admitted to\n2,000 counts of fraud, paid a $2 million fine, covered the\ncosts of the government's investigation, and will make\nrestitution to the banks;\nAll things considered, RR thinks the settlement was in the\npublic interest.\nBURGEONING DEFICITS\nDavid Stockman thinks the 1988 deficit may end up $70 billion\nhigher than Senate's projections. Are we losing that fight?\nProjections are not officially the Administration's --\nwe're sticking with ours;\nIf there is a disturbing deficit trend, it's because the\neconomy is not growing fast enough;\nWith falling interest rates, our deficit-reduction plan,\nand the stimulus from our tax-fairness plan, America will\nhave the growth needed to keep deficits on downward path.\nCONTROVERSIAL APPOINTEES\nYou like to zing the bureaucrats, but your political appointees\n-- Reynolds, Gardner, Devine -- get you into the most trouble.\nPresident makes 2,000 so-called political appointees and the\ncollective record is very good;\nDon Devine tackled the special interests and saved tax-\npayers $18 billion. That's what RR calls competence;\nBrad Reynolds believes in the \"color-blind\" policy most of\nus, including blacks, want. RR supports him all the way;\nIt may be that others, with less political experience,\nwere too outspoken;\nBut private citizens can't write everything as if it might\nHU?\nbe thrown at them, out of context, years later by a Senator;\nAnyway, RR wrote and said some blunt things as private\ncitizen; America is still a marketplace of ideas, which\nis one of our strengths.\nSCHOOL PRAYER\nIsn't the recent Supreme Court decision barring silent prayer in\nschool a total disaster for your position?\nThere's not too much to cheer about in decision;\nExcept that it is the first time high court has spoken\nfavorably of the \"moment of silent meditation\" idea;\nce\nWhen even three-quarters of the liberals in this country\nl\nfavor voluntary school prayer, then we can only hope the\nCourt moves more decisively in the proper direction.\nFORLORN INITIATIVES\nEnterprise zones and tuition tax credits weren't in either the\nbudget or tax bills. Are you backing away from these ideas?\nRR still thinks they are good ideas;\nWe actually got enterprise zones thru the Senate twice, but\nthe House refused to act;\nThis is the year of deficit-reduction as well as tax-\nsimplification. RR thought it best to not detract from\neither focus with other, more narrow tax initiatives.\nRUNNING OUT OF STEAM?\nYou've suffered a string of defeats -- on Contra aid, the MX\nmissile, Bitburg. Has the \"second-term slide\" begun?\nContra aid not a defeat -- turned out to be a responsible\ncompromise with Congress, better than we had a year ago;\nMX missile not a defeat -- RR has won the key votes and\nGeneva negotiators are stronger because of that;\nBitburg not a defeat -- West Germans appreciated it, and\nRR's approval ratings back here rose during the visit;\nInitiatives on budget cuts, tax-fairness doing well;\nWe're in the fifth inning, and while we may foul a few\npitches off, there are a lot more hits to come;\nBesides, how could press think RR was anything but limber?\nRR reneging on Mitch Snyder agreement to help D.C. homeless?\nLast November at RR's direction, (when Snyder ended his\nhunger fast), HHS reached agreement with him to upgrade\na large homeless shelter in D.C.;\nGSA is ready to make the improvements (several million\ndollars' worth), but Snyder now says he wants more;\nRR sorry Snyder is dissatisfied, but HHS has acted in\ngood faith; we've kept our promise. Will keep working\nwith local officials to improve aid for Washington's\nhomeless;\nNationally, we've taken several steps to help homeless:\n--\nwe've given them unused space in federal\nbuildings;\n--\nwe're donating surplus food and surplus government\nproperty (clothes, refrigerators, etc.);\n--\nwe've linked over 200 military commissaries with\nlocal food banks;\n--\nHHS has a homeless task force coordinating help by\nprivate groups and government.\nFewer minority students getting college aid from feds?\nNOTE: American Association of State Colleges and\nUniversities says there was a 12% drop in number of minority\nstudents getting college aid from '81-82 to '83-84.\nBlack participation in federal college aid programs\nwent down slightly over the whole period of 1978 to\n1983 (part of which was before we took office);\nDuring that time federal student aid grew by 130%;\nToday, half of all college students get some form of\nfederal aid. So obviously aid is available;\nIn fact, we're trying to make it more available to\nlower income students by reforming eligibility rules so\nmore aid goes to the neediest students;\nIt isn't fair for students from families earning over\n$100,000 to get subsidized aid, and that's what we're\ntrying to correct -- which will benefit minority\nstudents.\nIf Hill conferees produce budget with no SS COLA freeze and\nno defense increase, will RR veto it?\nMost important duty RR has is to safeguard national\nsecurity;\nWill do our best to come out with a defense figure that\nat least keeps up with inflation;\nTo RR, that issue is much more critical than whatever\nCongress decides to do about SS;\nAs for a veto, RR doesn't like to talk about vetoing\nhypothetical bills. Wait till they re on his desk.\nIf there's a deadlock and Congress sends a continuing\nresolution, will RR veto, to send clear message to Hill?\nA continuing resolution would be a terrible setback for\nour hopes of continuing this economic expansion;\nA continuing resolution would mean a \"hands-off\"\napproach to domestic spending, which would mean letting\nthe 1986 deficit stay over $200 billion;\nRR will do his job, which is to reserve judgement on\nvetos while keeping the pressure on for Congress to do\nthe right thing;\nAnd RR hopes that Congress does its job, by acting to\nsafeguard the economy by decisively restraining\nspending.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nsubj\nWASHINGTON\nJune 14, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nSHERRIE M. COOKSEY 8MC\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nDomestic Briefing Materials\nDavid Chew's office requested that you provide any comments or\nedits on the domestic briefing materials for Tuesday's Presi-\ndential press conference directly to Russ Mack by 2:00 p.m.\ntoday.\nWe have reviewed these briefing materials and recommend\nrevisions in the following areas: school prayer, description\nof the E.F. Hutton case, comments on controversial nominees,\nand the responses to suggestions that the President's tax\nproposals favor the Sun Belt. Attached for your review and\nsignature is a memorandum to Mack detailing each of those\nrevisions. That memorandum also suggests another question\nthat could arise with respect to the elimination of the\ndeduction for state and local taxes.\nAttachment\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 14, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR RUSSELL R. MACK, JR.\nSPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND\nDIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nDomestic Briefing Materials\nWe have reviewed the proposed domestic briefing materials for\nthe upcoming Presidential press conference and have the follow-\ning comments.\nFirst, the proposed responses to a question on the Supreme\nCourt's recent school prayer decision, Wallace V. Jaffree,\nshould be changed. In the second bullet item, \"moment of\nsilent meditation\" should be changed to \"moment of silence.\"\nThe third bullet item suggests that the Court was wrong or\nshould reconsider its decision because a large majority of the\npopulace favors a different result. Since the basis of the\nCourt's decision -- however erroneous -- was the Constitution,\nit is legally irrelevant how large a percentage of the public\nis opposed to the decision. The President should not appear\nto endorse Mr. Dooley's view that the Supreme Court should\nfollow the election returns. I would have the third bullet\nitem read as follows: \"The Court's decision should cause us\nto redouble our efforts to pass a constitutional amendment\npermitting voluntary school prayer. Even three-quarters of\nthe liberals in this country favor voluntary school prayer, so\nwe should be able to achieve this goal.\"\nSecond, the description of the E.F. Hutton situation should be\nrevised by deleting everything after the second bullet and\ninserting in lieu thereof the following:\nThe E.F. Hutton situation involved a complex\ncorporate money management policy using overdrafts\non checking accounts to increase profits;\nThe complexity of this investigation and the need to\nbring those fraudulent practices to a prompt halt\nand obtain a full and complete recovery of the\nvictims' monies convinced the Justice Department to\nact as it did;\n- 2 -\nThe result was that a large brokerage house admitted\nto 2,000 counts of fraud, paid a $2 million fine,\ncovered the costs of the government's investigation,\nand will make restitution to the banks;\nAll things considered, RR thinks the settlement was\nin the public interest.\nAt the same time, RR is confident that where an\ninvestigation reveals individuals with criminal\nculpability, the Department of Justice will not\nhesitate to prosecute those individuals.\nThird, the discussion of controversial appointees should be\nrevised by deleting the last three bullets.\nFourth, in the discussion of whether the President's tax plan\nfavors Sun Belt states, we note that the description of the\neffect of our proposals on the Detroit auto worker assumes\nthat the auto worker's wife will be a homemaker, rather than a\nwage earner. To preclude suggestions that the President's\nmodel American family has the wife at home, we recommend that\nthis example include alternative descriptions of the wife.\n(For example: if his wife is a homemaker, she gets to put\nmore money, tax free, into an IRA; if she is also employed,\nthe reduction in rates will enable the family to keep more of\nthe money both hardworking parents earn.)\nFinally, in the listing of possible questions for the press\nconference, we suggest inclusion of a question relating to the\ncharge that our proposal to eliminate the deduction for state\nand local taxes actually hurts those states that have been\ncooperating with the President's New Federalism program.\nCC: David L. Chew\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 13, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR TOM GIBSON\nDIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nDomestic Briefing Materials\nfor Press Conference\nCounsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced briefing\npoints. I suggest deleting the third and sixth bullet items\nunder the AIDS/Public Schools category. I do not think the\nPresident should be in the position of reassuring people\nthat the AIDS virus cannot be transmitted through casual or\nroutine contact, when that may prove to be untrue with\ncatastrophic results. There is much merit to the view that\nwe should assume AIDS may be so transmitted, as many viruses\ncan, until it is definitely proven that it cannot be. The\nlast bullet item should be deleted as confusing. The\nprevious items convey the President's view, and I do not\nthink it helpful to say this is or is not a \"civil rights\"\nissue.\nWith respect to the talking points under the title \"Federal\nJudge Selection/Too Political?\", I have several concerns.\nPoint 1 is unclear and should be deleted. The description\nof abuse charges as \"moot\" suggests that there possibly may\nbe substance to them. As an alternative, the following\nPoint 1 would be more appropriate: \"This Administration\nlooks for nominees who are intelligent and very well-\nqualified.\" Point 2, relating to the ABA ratings, supports\nthis.\nI have no objection to Point 3 or Point 4. However, the\nlatter would be strengthened if it were followed by: \"There\nis no 'litmus test.' This Administration is attempting to\nrestore a balance on the Federal judiciary that does not\nexist now with the judicial activism we see. Judges should\ninterpret the law, not make it or execute it.\"\nPoint 5 should also be deleted. It implies that politics\nmay be involved, a position we are trying to disclaim in the\nearlier Points.\n- 2 -\nFinally, since questions about the Administration's appointment\nof women and minorities to the bench are frequently raised\nin the press, and might be the focus of an initial, or\nfollow-up, question, you should provide the President with\nback-up materials describing the Administration's achievements\nin this area.\nWith respect to comparable worth, it seems that some mention\nshould be made of the recent Ninth Circuit decision. I\n-would add the following item as a new bullet between the\nthird and fourth bullet: \"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the\nNinth Circuit recently rejected a comparable worth suit\nbrought by state and local government workers against the\nState of Washington. That court decision reaffirms what we\nhave been saying.'\nFFF: JGRTDKO:aea 9/13/85\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nDKOwen\nSubj\nChron\nD. chew\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 13, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nDR\nDEBORAH K. OWEN\nDo(astrindges)\nSUBJECT:\nDomestic Briefing Materials\nfor Press Conference\nDavid Chew has asked that comments on the above-referenced\nbriefing materials be sent directly to Tom Gibson by\n2:00 p.m. today. The materials discuss tax reform, the\nbudget, trade, agriculture, AIDS, judicial selection,\nrevisions to E.O. 11246 (affirmative action), comparable\nworth, Hispanic poverty, the supposed lack of women appointees,\nimmigration reform, congressional relations, and bank\nfailures.\nThe AIDS briefing points consider the dispute over admitting\nAIDS-afflicted children into the public schools. The third\nbullet item contains the statement that \"as far as our best\nscientists have been able to determine, AIDS virus is not\ntransmitted through casual or routine contact.\" I do not\nthink we should have the President taking a position on a\ndisputed scientific issue of this sort. He has no way of\nknowing the underlying validity of the scientific \"conclusion,\"\nwhich has been attacked by numerous commentators. I would\nnot like to see the President reassuring the public on this\npoint, only to find out he was wrong later. There is much\nto commend the view that we should assume AIDS can be\ntransmitted through casual or routine contact, as is true\nwith many viruses, until it is demonstrated that it cannot\nbe, and no scientist has said AIDS definitely cannot be so\ntransmitted. I would simply delete the third bullet item.\nI would also drop the last bullet item, stating that the\nPresident does not view this issue as \"a strictly civil\nrights issue.\" The previous points state how the President\nsees the issue, and it should be left at that, without\nintroducing possibly confusing references to civil rights.\nCertainly civil rights concerns are implicated, and this is\nin that sense a \"civil rights issue,\" but that does not mean\ncountervailing concerns do not outweigh any civil rights\nclaims.\n- 2 -\nFederal Judge Selection/Too Political?:\nThe briefing materials in this area make five points:\n(1) charges of abuses are \"moot\"; (2) the President's\nnominees have received \"extremely high\" ABA ratings;\n(3) judicial appointment is a \"Constitutional right and\nresponsibility of the Chief Executive\"; (4) it has been the\npractice of this President and his predecessors to appoint\njudges \"who share similar attitudes concerning the role of\nthe judiciary\"; and (5) it \"sounds like some folks are\nfinally getting around to harvesting sour grapes from last\nNovember.\" (Emphasis in original.)\nPoint 1 is unclear and should be deleted, in my view. The\ndescription of abuse charges as \"moot\" suggests that there\npossibly may be substance to them. As an alternative, the\nfirst point would more appropriately be the one you made in\nthe National Public Radio interview: \"This Administration\nlooks for nominees who are intelligent and very well-\nqualified.\" Point 2, relating to the ABA ratings, supports\nthis.\nI have no objection to Point 3 or Point 4. However, the\nlatter would be strengthened if it were followed by a Point\nsimilar to one you made in the NPR interview: \"There is no\n'litmus test.' This Administration is attempting to restore\na balance on the Federal judiciary that does not exist now\nwith the judicial activism we see. Judges should interpret\nthe law, not make it or execute it.\"\nPoint 5 should also be deleted, even though it is probably\ntrue to a certain degree. It implies that politics may be\ninvolved, a position we are trying to disclaim in the\nearlier Points.\nFinally, since questions about the Administration's\nappointment of women and minorities to the bench are\nfrequently raised in the press, and might be the focus of an\ninitial, or follow-up, question, it might be advisable for\nMr. Gibson to provide the President with back-up materials\ndescribing the Administration's achievements in this area.\nThe E.O. 11246 points are noncommital, simply noting that\nthe President hopes for a color-blind society and would\nsupport changes to the extent they would further this goal.\nThe comparable worth points are incomplete in that they\ncontain no reference to the recent Ninth Circuit decision.\nI would add the following between the current third and\nfourth bullets: \"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth\nCircuit recently rejected a comparable worth suit brought by\n- 3 -\nstate and local government workers against the State of\nWashington. That court decision reaffirms what we have been\nsaying.\"\nThe attached draft response to Tom Gibson makes the\nforegoing recommendations.\nAttachment\nID #\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\nO . OUTGOING\nH - INTERNAL\nI . INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nD. chew\nMI Maji Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: Damestic Bruping materials for press converence\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\ncurtau\nORIGINATOR 85,09,13\n1\n/\nReferral Note:\ncunt 18\nD\n85,09,13\ns 85,09,13\nReferral Note: su below\n2pm\nCUAT21\nto\n85109113\nS 85,09,13\nReferral Note:\n2 2pm\n/ 1\n/ 1\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA Appropriate Action\nI . Into Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC Comment/Recommendation\nR Direct Reply w/Copy\nB . Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\ns For Signature\nF Furnish Fact Sheet\nX - Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments: Deborah- Per look at section on\njudges\n1\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nDocument No.\nWHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM\nDATE: 9/13/85\nACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 2:00 p.m. today\nSUBJECT: Domestic Briefing Materials for Press Conference\nACTION FYI\nACTION FYI\nVICE PRESIDENT\nLACY\nREGAN\nMcFARLANE\nWRIGHT\nOGLESBY\nBUCHANAN\nROLLINS\nCHAVEZ\nRYAN\nCHEW\nP\nSS SPEAKES\nDANIELS\nSPRINKEL\nR\nFIELDING\nSVAHN\nFRIEDERSDORF\nTHOMAS\nHENKEL\nTUTTLE\nHICKEY\nGIBSON\nHICKS\nKINGON\nREMARKS: Please give your recommendations/comments directly to\nTom Gibson, with an info copy to my office by 2:00 p.m.\ntoday. Thanks.\nRESPONSE:\nDavid L. Chew\nStaff Secretary\nExt. 2702\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\n:3\nSeptember 13, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR DAVID CHEW\nFROM:\nTOM GIBSONG.\nSUBJECT:\nBriefing Materials for the September 17 Press\nConference\nAttached for staffing are draft Presidential briefing materials\nfor the September 17 press conference.\nBRIEFING MATERIALS ON DOMESTIC ISSUES\nFOR THE PRESIDENT'S SEPT. 17 PRESS-CONFERENCE\nFAIR SHARE TAX REFORM\nCentral Points:\nAmerican people shouldn't lose sight of big picture:\n-- Specific features of our tax proposal are important,\nbut may lead American people to miss the forest for the\ntrees.\n:\nLoopholes are being closed and special exemptions are\nbeing ended -- while tax rates are being cut across the\nboard. The plan is revenue neutral.\n:\nRR wants to clear the tangle of rules that confuse\nmost people and provide cover for others to avoid\npaying taxes -- Simplicity and Fairness.\n--\nFairness -- this plan will help restore the confidence\nof the American people that the costs of government are\nbeing shared equitably.\nBroad Support for Tax Reform:\nPolls show that the American people want taxation that is\nfair.\nEveryone that's ever hassled with tax forms ought to have\nsome interest in tax-simplification.\nEveryone that's ever wondered why the fellow next door\nmaking about the same income, with the same responsibilities,\nbut pays less tax, has also wondered about fairness.\nOther more important issues?\nRecall the benefits that resulted from the last time we\nlowered tax rates -- which we propose to do again.\nIt proved to be the best anti-poverty program launched in\nover 16 years.\nSince 1983, when the impact of those tax cuts began to take\neffect, the growth in poverty, growing since 1979, was\nhalted. In 1984 poverty dropped by 1.8 million people.\nLast month unemployment dropped to its lowest level\nin 5½ years.\nJob creation, reductions in poverty, raised standards of\nliving, more freedom for the American people -- rather\nimportant issues.\nTax Reform Timing:\nRR believes we'll avoid playing politics and get a Fair\nShare Tax Reform proposal passed. Democrats and Republicans\nalike, House and Senate; this is truly a bi-partisan effort.\nDan Rostenkowski, Tip O'Neill, Bob Packwood, Bob Dole and\nmany others have stated their commitments to tax reform and\nwill all share in the credit for giving the American people\ntax fairness and simplicity.\nTax Reform/Some Non-negotiable items:\n$2,000 personal exemption; President Truman stood for a\nbigger personal exemption, and RR hopes the Democrats in\nCongress will remember his example.\nTop rate of 35%; IRS will never take more than 1 of 3\nadditional dollars you earn, compared to 1 of 2 now.\nFocus of reductions kept to benefit those at lowest income\nlevels.\nTax Reform/Middle class and Families:\nAbout two-thirds of middleclass families can expect a net\ntax cut.\nThose households earning between $20,000 and $50,000\nwill average a federal tax reduction of 7% -- hundreds\nof dollars, saved each and every year.\nFamilies at the lower end of the income scales would even\nbenefit more:\n-- incomes of between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay\nan average of 8.7% less in taxes.\n-- incomes of between $15,000 and $20,000 will pay\nan average of 13.5% less in taxes.\nFor families, RR has established the so-called \"Homemaker\nIRA, where we're allowing non-income earning spouses, both\nhusband and wife, to each put $2,000 in a tax-deferred\nsavings account for retirement.\nA Congressional committee, with Democrats in the majority --\nthe House Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families\n-- said our plan was the best of all those before Congress.\nTax Reform/Recent Proposal to Exclude Breaks for those with\nPension Plans\nLook at the whole pension landscape. The 401 (k) tax\nbreak was put in before RR's administration expanded IRA's\nin 1981 -- and plans to expand them again.\nThe IRA is a fairer way to help people save for retirement;\nanyone can start an IRA, but 401 (k) arrangements are\navailable to only a portion of the private sector workforce.\nBy repealing 401 (k) tax exemption, started under last\nadministration, RR's tax proposal will remain revenue\nneutral -- while still bringing tax rates down.\nBUDGET\n$2 trillion Debt Ceiling will soon need to be passed:\n\"Congress makes the budget, the President doesn't.\"\n- Jim Wright, Congressional Record 9/22/83\no' In January, RR sent up a budget with 17 program\nterminations, worth what would have been $60 billion in\nsavings for FY '86.\nUnfortunately for all Americans, the Congressional budget\nprocess has not delivered on any of those program cuts, and\nspending just keeps rolling along.\n1981 Tax Cuts -- lower revenue -- responsible debt runup?\nOverall, revenues have grown almost 23% under RR.\nOMB estimates by end fiscal year 1985:\n1985 Revenues will have increased $69.5 billion over 1984.\n1985 Spending will have increased $95.5 billion over 1984.\nRR has best record of trying to cut federal spending -- root\nof the deficit problem.\nVetoes on Appropriations Bills:\nWe are working with Congressional leadership and are\ncommunicating acceptable limits on individual appropriation\nbills -- if bills exceed these limits there will be vetoes.\nThe fiscal year ends at the end of this month. Congress has\nhad plenty of time to pass funding bills to keep the federal\ngovernment running.\nRR hopes that we don't have a repeat of last year, where\nCongress' failure to pass acceptable spending legislation\nforced the closing of many government offices.\nTRADE\nProposed Administration Legislation:\nBeing developed together with Congressional leaders to\nprovide RR with greater ability to address unfair trade\npractices.\nCannot have Free Trade without Fair Trade.\nFair Trade Enforcement/initiation of 301 cases:\nJapan -- restrictions on selling U.S. leather goods\n-- restrictions on selling U.S. tobacco products\nSouth Korea -- restriction on U.S. insurance sales\nE.C. -- unfair subsidies of canned fruits in foreign markets\nBrazil -- restrictions on selling U.S. computer equipment\nProtectionist Pressures:\nRR shares the concern that certain jobs are being lost to\noverseas workers. However, there has been a net increase of\nalmost 8 million jobs since the recovery began -- 330,000\njobs were created last month.\nUnemployment has dropped to the lowest level in 5½ years.\nYou can't use declining numbers of jobs to justify\nprotectionism -- Fact is, we are creating jobs at a record\npace.\nProtectionism is a boomerang. It always hurts the country\nwhich imposes it.\nShoes:\n$1 billion worth of protection would have cost American\nconsumers $3 billion.\nDisplaced workers to be retrained under targeted JTPA\nprograms.\nTextiles:\nAdministration has strengthened Customs enforcement of trade\nlaws -- 800 textile seizures in last two years.\nProposed legislation conflicts with Multifiber Arrangement\n(which governs international textile trade) -- might mean\nabrogation of bilateral agreements with 34 other countries.\nAGRICULTURE\nFarm Credit Crisis:\nProblems are severe. $74 billion in loans; $11 billion\nof which are problem loans.\nHowever, there are sufficient resources within Farm Credit\nAdministraion for the problems to be addressed without a\nfederal bailout.\nFarm Legislation:\nWe need to get the government out of the business of\nfarming. There appears to be agreement on that issue.\nThe unaltered spending of billions of dollars over the last\ntwo decades has brought no lasting improvements to America's\nfarmers.\nMovement toward a market-oriented farm policy, open access\nto foreign markets, increased exports, and a growing economy\nwith a lid on inflation offer farmers the best solutions to\ntheir problems.\nThe Farm Bill currently in favor in the House appears to\nexceed its budget limits. RR has sent a letter to\nCongress outlining the acceptable features of a farm bill.\nAs I have said before, I will veto budget-busting\nlegislation whatever the sort. If its the farm bill, so be it.\n\"Farm Aid\" Train/Concert:\nRR welcomes the efforts of Merle Haggard and other Country\nMusic stars in highlighting the plight of America's farmer.\nIndeed, officials in the Administration have helped make the\ntrip possible -- AMTRACK train at cost and cut red tape.\nYES\nThere is no denying there are acute financial problems for\nFRA\nfarmers in many parts of the country -- in many cases\na product of the inflation expections of the late 70's.\nAIDS\nFederal Efforts to Find a Cure:\nAIDS education and research has been a top priority of the\nDepartment of Health and Human Services for over four\nyears.\nOver $100 million is being spent on AIDS research and\neducation in 1985.\nRR recently approved revisions to my 1986 budget,\nincreasing initial requests for AIDS research and\neducation by $41 million, for a total of $126 million.\nLeading scientists have stated that never before in history\nhas so much progress toward understanding and combating a\ndisease been made in so short a time.\nAIDS/Afflicted Children Being Allowed to Attend Public Schools:\n?\nI have deep sympathy for the child and the parents of a\nchild who is afflicted with this horrible disease.\nI can understand the concerns of parents who are fearful of\ntheir child contracting the disease in public places.\nHowever, as far as our best scientist have been able to\ndetermine, AIDS virus is not transmitted through casual or\nroutine contact.\nThere is the need for greater research and answers.\nAnd there is the need for rational consideration of the\nproblems posed by AIDS -- considerations that balance public\nhealth concerns with those of afflicted children in critical\nstages of social development. We must not make them into\nmodern day lepers.\nI do not see this issue as some have framed it -- a strictly\ncivil rights issue.\nFEDERAL JUDGE SELECTION/TOO POLITICAL?\nCharges of abuses in the selection process are moot.\nRR's selections for judgeships have received extremely high\nratings from the American Bar Association.\nIt is the Constitutional right and responsibility of the\nChief Executive to appoint judges to the federal bench.\nIt has been RR's practice, as it has been the practice\nof ALL prior occupants of the Oval Office, to appoint judges\nwho share similar attitudes concerning the role of the\njudiciary.\nSounds like some folks are finally getting around to\nharvesting sour grapes from last November.\nAFFIRMATIVE ACTION/PROPOSED REVISIONS TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246\nIt is my hope that America will someday be color-blind, and\nthat discrimination of any sort will be a thing of the past.\nTo the extent that revisions in Administration policies,\nregarding numerical goals and timetables would further this\ngoal, I would support them.\nCOMPARABLE WORTH\nIt is not equal pay for equal work.\nEqual pay for equal work is the current law and we have\naggressively enforced the provisions of Title VII that\nprotect against wage discrimination based on sex.\no' Comparable worth is a system where bureaucrats or judges\nwould arbitrarily decide what people ought to earn.\nIt would deny the rights of collective bargaining, and it\nwould ultimately mean the loss of an untold number of jobs.\nAny time you punch the marketplace, it punches back.\nToday, women and men are freed of former sterotypes and may\nenter any field of work they choose.\nPOVERTY RATES AND HISPANICS\nTrue, poverty rates for hispanics did not see the same\ndramatic declines as other segments of the population in\n1984.\nThat was the only disappointment in an otherwise terrific\nbatch of news -- the sharpest overall decline in poverty in\n16 years.\nHowever, there were dramatic increases reported for hispanic\nfamily income -- up 6.8% in one year -- the highest of any\npopulation group.\nWe are studying that apparent contradiction.\nLACK OF WOMEN APPOINTEES?\nRR's new Director of Public Liaison, Linda Chavez, probably\ndoesn't share that view.\nConnie Horner the first woman to ever head OPM or it's\npredecessor, the Civil Service Commission probably doesn't\nshare that view either.\nThere are others in the Cabinet and on the Supreme Court you\ncould check with as well.\nMeanwhile, 5 of 7 Associate Directors in the Office of\nPresidential Personnel are women. They're filling a lot of\nsenior slots in our Administration, and they're looking to\nfill them with qualified men and women.\nIMMIGRATION\nDo you back the current attempt at Immigration reform sponsored\nby Senator Simpson and Representatives Mazzoli and Rodino?\nSince 1981, when we first submitted comprehensive reform\nlegislation, we've been firmly in support of fair, workable\nand non-discriminatory immigration reform.\nWe have recently gone on record in support of Senator\nSimpson's bill, S.1200, urging only a few minor\nmodifications having to do with farm workers.\nCONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS\nVery positive GOP Congressional Leadership meeting last\nweek.\nIdentified issues for joint action -- Trade for instance.\nMade clear my strong desires to see Tax Reform passed this\nFall.\nRECORD NUMBER OF BANK FAILURES -- 80 so FAR IN 1985\nThe problems are being handled quietly efficently by federal\nbanking agencies -- FDIC for federally insured banks; FSLIC\nfor federally issured Savings and Loans.\nReforms in interstate banking laws have allowed many failed\nor troubled financial institutions to be aqquired by other\nstronger banks -- this has brought a greater degree of\nstability to the entire banking system."
}