Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
135838590
label
Chron File, 04/13/1983-05/05/1983
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135838590
contentType
document
title
Chron File, 04/13/1983-05/05/1983
citationUrl
identifierLocal
35
collections
Records of the White House Office of Policy Development (Reagan Administration)
William P. Barr's Office Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
135838590
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1983-12-31
year
1983
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
6922dd76892d787a
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Barr, William: Files
Folder Title: Chron File, 04/13/1983-05/05/1983
Box: 16
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/
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 13, 1983
FOR:
EDWIN L. HARPER
FROM:
MICHAEL M. UHLMANN
SUBJECT: Handicapped Infants Regulation and
Medicare/Medicaid as Federal Financial Assistance
The Problem
Justice and HHS are at an impasse over the issue of whether
Medicare and Medicaid constitute federal financial assistance.
This issue is now presented squarely in litigation against our
handicapped infant regulation in the Southern District of New
York. (In the similar D.C. case pending before Judge Gesell,
plaintiff medical groups did not raise this issue.) The district
judge in New York has set a preliminary injunction hearing for
Monday, and our brief is due Friday. Richard Willard of Justice
believes we can avoid taking a position on this issue in the
brief, but we must be ready with an answer at the hearing on
Monday.
Thus far, we have kept the HHS-DOJ debate over the issue
low-key, to avoid any adverse public flare-ups over the civil
rights implications.
The non-discrimination requirement of Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 applies to any program or activity
that receives federal financial assistance.
The issue therefore implicates not only the anti-infanticide
regulation, but every federal civil rights scheme that is
triggered by receipt of federal financial assistance: race
discrimination, sex discrimination, handicap discrimination. Any
change in the scope of coverage of this panoply of regulations is
obviously fraught with controversy.
Arguments that Medicare and Medicaid should NOT be considered
federal financial assistance to hospitals (as articulated by
Civil Rights Division of Justice):
Federal Medicaid payments are made to the states, not to
the health care providers; hospitals participating in
Medicaid receive financial assistance not from the
federal government but from the states.
Federal Medicare payments are financial assistance to
elderly patients, not to hospitals.
-2-
-- As with student loans, a federal payment for the
benefit of an individual, which can be used at any
institution the individual chooses, should not bring
the institution under federal control.
-- Medicare is analogous to food stamps, which are not
and should not be considered federal financial
assistance to grocery store chains.
-- Moreover, Medicare is a federal funding program for
the elderly, and a hospital's receipt of Medicare
should not subject the hospital to federal regulation
of its program of health services to infants.
Arguments that Medicare and Medicaid SHOULD be considered
federal financial assistance:
This has been the consistent interpretation of HHS since
the inception of the Medicare/Medicaid program, and has
generally been accepted by hospitals and federal courts.
It is also the position DOJ has taken in litigation as
recently as June 1982, when Baylor Medical Center
objected to HHS investigatory jurisdiction and Justice
filed a brief in federal court saying the institution was
federally assisted because it received Medicare and
Medicaid.
Even though federal Medicaid payments are channeled
through the states, we have generally accepted the
principle that state distribution of federal moneys does
not insulate the recipient institution from federal civil
rights jurisdiction: all our block grants have carried
federal civil rights strings with them.
Politically, we could just as easily be attacked for
trying to deregulate hospitals from civil rights laws as
for trying to deregulate tax-exempt schools in the Bob
Jones case.
Arguments that a hospital should not be covered by the
handicapped infants regulation unless federal funding goes to its
pediatrics ward:
Following the Supreme Court's North Haven decision, we
have taken the position in litigation that only the
specific program or activity receiving federal financial
assistance is covered by civil rights laws.
For example, we have said that federal payments to one
program of a university do not subject all programs of
the university to civil rights coverage.
-3-
Arguments that the entire hospital should be covered if
federal funds go to part of the hospital:
It is not clear that a hospital can be divided into a
"pediatrics program" distinct from other parts of the
hospital, since many types of care are often given within
a single hospital building, administered as a single
program of care for patients.
HHS has considered the entire hospital to be the relevant
program or activity since the 1960s.
The Justice Department brief in the Baylor case follows
the view of the entire hospital as the relevant program
or activity.
The argument against holding Medicare and Medicaid to be
federal assistance has legal and logical merit. The analogy to
food stamps and student loans has merit. However, we have
departed from a thoroughgoing logical approach in this area by
admitting that Pell grants are federal assistance in the Grove
City case.
Analysis
A major complicating factor in this decision is the brief
filed by Justice in the Baylor case. A copy of the Table of
Contents from this brief is attached. However strong our legal
arguments for saying that Medicare and Medicaid payments do not
bring an entire hospital under federal civil rights coverage, we
must be ready to meet the accusation that we are changing our
position.
Politically, we could expect opposition from handicapped
groups, women's groups, civil rights groups, and right to life
groups. Without Medicare/Medicaid as a civil rights handle, a
number of hospitals would drop out of civil rights coverage,
especially with regard to handicap discrimination, since the
Hill-Burton program expired around the time the Rehabilitation
Act was enacted. As for potential political support, we should
consider whether hospitals and medical associations would want to
give public support to an effort that would take many of them out
from federal civil rights coverage.
Recommendation
All deliberations over this issue should involve White
House Counsel's office, since the matter concerns pending
litigation.
-4-
O
Convene meeting as soon as possible. Recommended
participants:
-- Fred Fielding
-- Ed Meese, Jim Baker
-- HHS (Heckler, del Real)
-- DOJ (Schmults, Reynolds, Willard)
-- OMB (Horowitz, Clarkson)
-- OPD (Uhlmann, Carleson, Bradley)
U.S.A. V. Baylor University Medical Center
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement
1
Summary of Argument
4
Argument
5
I. This Court Has Jurisdiction over the Complaint in this
Action
5
II. The United States Has Stated a Claim Upon Which Relief
Can Be Granted
8
A. Funds Received by Baylor Pursuant to Medicaid
and Medicare Constitute "Federal financial
assistance"
9
1. The consistent administrative construction
of the term "Federal financial assistance"
by HHS, as ratified by the case law, provides
for coverage of recipients of Medicaid and
Medicare funds
9
2. The HHS administrative construction of "Federal
financial assistance" is valid, since funds
provided pursuant to the Medicaid and Medicare
programs do not fall within the regulatory
exclusion for "contracts of insurance"
12
a. Medicaid
12
b. Medicare
14
3. The interpretation of "contracts of insurance"
suggested by Baylor is contrary to the intent
of Congress
18
a. The legislative history to Title VI
18
b. The legislative history to the Medicare
Program
21
B. Baylor Is a Recipient of Other Federal Funds
22
Conclusion
23
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 27, 1983
FOR:
EDWIN L. HARPER
FROM:
MICHAEL M. UHLMANN
SUBJECT: Political Indoctrination in the Public Schools
Two weeks ago, the Washington Post ran an editorial
denouncing public school curriculum materials designed by the NEA
to indoctrinate students on the nuclear freeze issue. Albert
Shanker has joined in with a strong denunciation of propaganda in
the public schools.
Evidence suggests that deliberate indoctrination on political
issues by NEA and other ideologically motivated educators is not
an isolated problem:
Earlier this month, at a conference at the University of
Maine, Educators for Social Responsibility held a
day-long workshop on how to train teachers to instruct
children on the virtues of a nuclear freeze.
A program disseminated by the Department of Education's
National Diffusion Network, called "Facing History and
Ourselves," promotes the theme of unilateral disarmament
and nuclear freeze.
Blatantly ideological teaching materials on other topics
have also appeared in the public schools, especially in
"values education" curricula.
We should devise a way to bring these facts to public
attention. The American people do not want to see their public
schools turned into indoctrination centers.
This is an excellent opportunity to make the President's
basic point about American education: We need to get back to the
basics, restore quality education, and do away with the social
engineering fluff that parents have never chosen in the first
place. Simply getting the facts out to the public could
galvanize majority support behind the President's position.
We should have the Department of Education undertake a two-
prong strategy:
-2-
Put someone to work collecting the evidence of whatever
degree and extent of indoctrination is being conducted in
public schools. Identify those indoctrination programs
that are federally funded or supported by lobbies such as
NEA. Build evidence about the worst instances of
political indoctrination.
Have someone at Education take the lead in putting this
evidence before the public and stating forcefully that
indoctrination in the public schools is wrong.
Recommendation
See if Secretary Bell would be willing to implement such
a strategy with Gary Bauer as point man. Gary holds the
crucial slot for this task -- evaluation. He has also
proven an effective public spokesman. At the White
House, he worked with a number of conservative groups
that would be interested in this subject and that need to
be geared up for enthusiastic support of the President.
I
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 29, 1983
FOR:
EDWIN L. HARPER
FROM:
MICHAEL M. UHLMANN
SUBJECT: Short Memo on Wage Gap
As a follow-up to the March meeting with Republican
Congresswomen, it was determined that CEA was to do a
comprehensive study of wage discrimination. In addition, you
asked for a 3-4 page memo on "background and other wage gap
studies." Attached are two CEA reports, either or both of which
seem to fit the bill. The first is a three-and-a-half-page memo
which was sent to you last September; the second is a six-page
memo (with attachments) sent to you earlier this month.
CEA is obviously more competent than the legal office to
prepare a survey of economic studies. If something other than
these two memos is needed, I will be glad to work with CEA to
develop what is necessary.
2
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
WASHINGTON
September 3, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR EDWIN L. HARPER
FROM:
ERIC I. HEMEL EIH
SUBJECT:
Male-Female Wage Differences
Attached is a copy of Tom Kneisner's report on
male-female wage differences in the United States,
Please contact either Tom or myself if you have
any further questions.
SEX DIFFERENCES IN WAGES AND DISCRIMINATION IN THE U.S.
I. The Issues
Why are some women wearing buttons that say "59¢"? The
reason is that recent data indicate that among full time
workers, women earn only about 59% of what men earn. 1 Two
factors make this quite disturbing. First, the roughly 40
percent wage differential between the sexes has existed for a
long time. 2 Second, there is very little difference in the
average number of years of schooling completed by men and
women. 3
The over 40 percent difference in earning power between
the sexes in the U.S. can be decomposed into two sources: (1)
within a given occupation women earn less per hour than men,
and (2) women tend to have relatively low paid occupations.
Let us look at these two topics in more detail.
II. Differences in Male and Female Earnings With a Given
Occupation
The ratio of the earnings of females who were never
married to those of males who were never married is approxi-
mately 0.85. 4 Put differently, the data show a much less
dramatic gap in earnings between single men and single women
than between married men and married women. This suggests that
marriage is crucially involved in determining relative
male/female earnings. In particular, to understand earnings
differences between the sexes one must consider how marriage
and children are involved.
Women typically leave the labor force at sometime in their
lives in order to bear and raise children. Part of the reason
for the gap in earnings between the sexes is the intermittent
labor force participation of married women compared to married
men. Recent estimates show that the long-run effect of exiting
the labor force is to reduce a woman's wages by about 1.5 to
2.0 percent for each year of her nonparticipation. 5 This loss
in earnings may be due both to atrophy of skills as well as
foregone work experience during the time a woman is out of the
labor force.
6
In light of this, approximately one-fifth to one-half of
the 41 percent wage gap between the sexes has been attributed
to differences in job experience and other personal
characteristics related to labor market productivity. 7 This
leaves about one-half to four-fifths of the 41 percent gap
unexplained by sex differences in labor market (productive)
characteristics. Put differently, when economists adjust for
career interruptions and sex differences in personal
characteristics believed to be related to job productivity, the
male/female earnings gap shrinks to between 20 and 32 percent.
2
- 2 -
What causes the remaining 20-32 percent earnings difference
between men and women?
Many factors are involved, including sex differences in
type of schooling and discrimination.
III. Male/Female Differences in Occupations
Recent data show that a large percentage of women (55
percent in 1980) are employed as clerical and service workers.
In contrast, a large percentage of men (51 percent in 1980) are
employed as professionals, managers, and craftworkers --
relatively higher paid occupations. 8 Because the average
levels of schooling differ little between men and women, we
must look for differences in type of schooling and
discrimination, among other things, to help us understand these
notable differences in occupational attainment.
Recent research indicates that sex differences in college
major and occupation are consistent with the notion that women
foresee the career interruptions associated with raising
children. As a result, they often choose certain careers (such
as a secretary or an elementary school teacher) where their job
skills do not decline very much from disuse. 9 The cost of
this, as one should expect, is a lower average level of
earnings during a woman's lifetime than if she had taken a
career path (such as a research chemist or a computer
programmer) where earnings are high but job skills decline
quickly from nonuse. Thus, one of the causes of a relatively
lower average lifetime earnings profile for women can be a
difference in type of education or on-the-job training.
This brings us to the issue of how much of the sex
difference in the occupational distribution is due to the
choices of women versus so-called occupational segregation --
an inability of women to obtain certain types of higher level
training both in school and on the job. (For example, women
often perceive a special difficulty in getting admitted to
professional schools.) Recent research, however, has been
unable to find what could be called a signficant role for
quantitative measures of occupational segregation in explaining
sex differences in occupation and earnings. Il Occupational
segregation seems to have a much smaller part in determining
male/female earnings differentials than is popularly believed.
III. Summary and Conclusions
There are two general factors underlying why women, on
average, earn a wage that is roughly 60 percent that of men.
(1) Within a given occupation women are paid less then men.
(2) Women are overrepresented in the relatively low paid
occupations.
2
- 3 -
Women's earnings would rise to approximately 68 to 80
percent of men's earnings if women had comparable life time
work histories. This leaves a 20 to 32 percent sex difference
in earnings to be explained. This remaining gap in earning
power results from the different types of careers
characterizing males versus females in the U.S.
A second key question, then, is how much of the remaining
20 to 32 percent difference in earnings is due to occupational
segregation versus differences in the occupational choices made
by women in light of their more complicated requirements for
balancing family versus career? Much of the second part of the
male/female earnings gap can be explained by what seems to be
women foreseeing career interruptions and, as a result,
choosing different types of schooling and training than men
over their lifetimes.
In conclusion, although sex discrimination certainly
exists, the economic literature can be interpreted as saying
that no more than 5 to 15 percent of the wage gap between men
and women is attributable to discrimination, as commonly
measured by economists. This is certainly not trivial, and any
discrimination is unfair to the individuals affected. However,
it is important to note that sex discrimination is not the
primary reason for the earnings gap between the sexes in the
U.S.
CC: GC, AW
2
FOOTNOTES
1
Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1981, Table 679, P. 405.
2
It even appeared in ancient times. Consider this passage
from the Bible. "And the Lord spake unto Moses saying,
and they estimation shall be of the male from twenty years
old even unto sixty years old,
fifth shekels of
silver And if it be a female, then they estimation
shall be thirty shekels." Leviticus 27:3-4
3
Statistical Abstract, Table 232, p. 142
4
Ibid., Table 681, p. 407.
5
Jacob Mincer and Haim Ofek, "Interrupted Work Careers:
Depreciation and Restoration of Human Capital,' Journal of
Human Resources, XVII, 1 (Winter 1982), pp. 3-24).
6
Solomon W. Polachek, "Discontinuous Labor Force
Participation and Its Effect on Women's Market Earnings,"
in Cynthia B. Lloyd, ed., Sex, Discrimination, and the
Division of Labor (New York: Columbia University Press,
1975).
7
Mincer and Ofek, "Interrupted Work Careers."
8
Statistical Abstract, Table 673, p. 401
9
Solomon W. Polachek, "Sex Differences in College Major,"
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 31, 4 (July 1978),
pp. 498-508 and "Occupational Self-Selection: A Human
Capital Approach to Sex Differences in Occupational
Structure," Review of Economic and Statistics, LXIII, 1
(February 1981), 60-69.
10
Statistical Abstract, Table 663, p. 393.
11
See Andrea H. Beller, "Occupational Segregation by Sex:
Determinants and Changes," Paula England, "The Failure of
Human Capital Theory to Explain Occupational Sex
Segregation," and Solomon W. Polachek, "Occupational
Segregation: A Defense of Human Capital Predictions."
All are forthcoming in the Journal of Human Resources.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
April 22, 1983
TO:
Roger Porter
Director, Office of Policy Development
FROM:
Thomas Kniesner
SUBJECT: Update of the 1973 CEA Study of Sex Differences in
Wages Requested by Edwin Harper
I. The Issue
Women's median weekly earnings average about 60 percent of
men's median weekly earnings. This 40 percentage point
differential is especially disturbing to women because it has
existed for a relatively long time. Data presented in Table 1
for full-time, year-round workers show a virtually constant
ratio of women's to men's median weekly earnings since 1939.
The male-female earnings gap can be decomposed into a
number of sources. (1) Women work fewer hours per week than
men. Table 2 shows that the earnings ratio rises to about 70
percent for whites and to about 80 percent for blacks in 1982
once adjustments are made for the fact that women work fewer
hours per week. (2) Within a given occupation women earn less
per hour than men. (3) Women tend to be segregated into
relatively low paid occupations.
There are several policy issues here: How much of (2) is
due to differences in personal characteristics thought to be
related to job productivity (i.e. schooling and experience)
versus wage discrimination? How much of (3) is due to choice
versus unequal access (discrimination) in acquiring schooling
and training? Are activist women's groups correct in their
belief that (3) has a "double" impact because women's
occupations are essentially "underpaid?"
This memo seeks to accomplish three things -- (1) it
summarizes the findings of the 1973 and the 1974 ERP on these
issues, (2) it presents additional results, summarizing what we
know now that we didn't know in the early 70's, and (3) it
points out some related policy issues that should be of
interest to the Administration.
II. Results from the 1973 and the 1974 ERP
Women typically leave the labor force at
some time in their lives in order to bear and
- 2 -
2
raise children. Part of the reason for the sex
gap in earnings seems to be the intermittent labor
force participation of married women.
As of January 1968, median years of continuous
employment with the same employer was 2.4 years for
women and 4.8 years for men. The sex gap in labor
market experience grows with age. In January 1968,
women 55-64 years old had 6.1 fewer years of
experience than men who were 55-64 years old. (See
Table 3)
Some studies suggest that if women had the same
number of years of labor market experience as men,
they could expect to earn about 80 percent as much
per hour as men.
The CEA found in 1973 that there had not been much
change in the occupational distribution by sex
during 1960-1970.
0
They also found evidence that if women had the same
occupational distribution as men during the early
1970's and existing occupational wage differences
stayed the same, women's relative hourly earnings
would have been about 11 percentage points higher.
To summarize the most important findings from the
1973 and 1974 Economic Report to the President, pay
differences within an occupation are much more (twice
as) important as occupational differences in
explaining the sex gap in earning power. Second,
about half of the 30 percentage point sex gap in
hourly earningswould disappear if women had the same
work histories as men. The remainder - the
unexplained residual - could be due to a variety of
unmeasured factors. Examples include unmeasured
differences in other labor market investments (such
as migration), unmeasured differences in the quality
of training or schooling, or discrimination.
III. Additional Results
o
New sources of data have increased our understanding
of the relationship between labor market experience
and earning power. Recent estimates suggest that the
average long-run effect of temporarily leaving the
labor force is to reduce a woman's wage by 1.5
to 2.0 percent for each year of her
non-participation The loss in earning power is due
- 3 -
2
both to foregone experience and atrophy of skills.
The link between labor market experience and earning
power is suggested by the data of Tables 3 and 4,
which show that the sex difference in labor market
experience grows with age while the ratio of women's
to men's earning power falls with age.
Based on the estimates of the effect of foregone
experience cited in the previous paragraph, a woman
could expect to earn between 80 and 90 percent of an
otherwise similar man's wages if she had that man's
job experience and occupation.
Promising signs exist for the occupational prospects
of younger women. Table 3 shows less than a 1 year
experience gap in 1981 for persons 25-34; this is
down from 1.5 years in 1963. During 1972-78, about
69 percent of women's employment growth was in the
higher earnings male-dominated or sex-integrated
occupations. Only 39 percent of employment growth
was in female-dominated occupations. (See Table 5)
The dramatic increase in female employment in certain
key professional occupations is documented in Table
6. Finally, male employment fell by 1.3 million
during the recent recession while female employment
increased by 2.1 million. In 1979, male civilian
employment was 57.6 million compared to 56.3 million
in 1982. In 1979, civilian female employment was
41.2 million compared to 43.3 million in 1982.
A recent comprehensive analysis examined the relative
importance of job experience and occupational
segregation on the sex gap in earnings. White
women 24-34 earn approximately two-thirds of
the average white man's salary in that age group.
Were they to have the same experience in the labor
market and other productive traits, their relative
earning power would rise by about 16 percentage
points (to 82 percent of a similar males' earning
power). If the detrimental effects of occupational
segregation were eliminated, their relative earning
power would rise by 9 more percentage points (to 91
percent of men's hourly earnings). Thus, the wage
depressant effects of occupation segregation seem to
account for at most 9 percentage points of the 33
percentage point sex gap in earning power for younger
workers. A far larger difference (16 percentage
points) is due to differences in experience and other
characteristics thought to be related to productivity
on the job. The results of this analysis are
summarized in Table 7.
- 4 -
2
O
It is important to recognize that economists really
have no way of measuring possible discriminatory
barriers that prevent women from entering an
occupation. Casual observation suggests that women
now have reasonably equal access to colleges and
professional schools but still have difficulty
obtaining access to certain apprenticeship programs,
such as in the union-controlled skilled trades.
Preliminary evidence indicates that women who plan to
have irregular work patterns tend to choose
occupations with short training periods, low atrophy,
and relatively low potential for advancement.
Preliminary evidence also suggests that women tend to
choose occupations with short hours and flexible
schedules. These job characteristics are apparently
"paid for" with lower levels of hourly earnings.
o
The recent economic literature can be interpreted as
indicating that no more than 5 to 25 percentage
points of the wage gap between men and women is
attributable to the concept of discrimination as used
by economists.
o
As economists come to understand more about how the
labor market functions and get better sources of data
about jobs, the unexplained difference in wages
between the sexes falls. Here are some examples of
how better data might reduce the wage gap even
farther. Women use about 50 percent more health care
than men over their lives. Thus, a firm with more
women workers will have higher costs of providing
health insurance. To remain competitive, such a firm
would pay lower wages to its workers. Thus, some of
what are currently thought to be discriminatory wage
differences may simply be differences in the rate of
pay that are necessary to offset sex differences in
health care costs among firms with different numbers
of women workers. Similarly, women live longer upon
retirement than men (about 4 extra years). Part of
the wage difference between men and women may simply
reflect the need to offset the higher pension costs
for women in order to remain competitive. Economists
do not yet have enough data on pension or health
insurance costs to really examine these issues just
raised.
2
- 5 -
IV. Policy Issues
Comparable worth has become an important policy issue
for activist women's groups because women would like
to have equal pay with men but maintain their current
career plans. Comparable worth is seen as a way of
circumventing the market by establishing what amounts
to separate minimum wages for each occupation in each
firm. Occupations where there are currently low
wages due to career interruptions, short work
schedules, and low work experience requirements would
be more highly remunerated by mandate than they are
now if comparable worth schemes are adopted.
Comparable worth would be an administrative
nightmare. In addition, comparable worth laws would
have effects similar to those of the current minimum
wage -- people who keep their jobs at the higher
wages will gain while those who become disemployed
will lose. It would also actually impede women's
real economic progress because it would remove the
incentive to become a plumber rather than a
secretary, an engineer rather than a grade school
teacher.
The relatively low wages for women are sometimes
blamed for the "feminization of poverty.' This term
basically refers to the increase in the number
of female-headed (female householder) families living
in poverty. The data in Table 8 show us that the
poverty rate among such families has actually
declined since 1959. The poverty data in Table 9 and
10 suggests that a major cause of the increase in the
number of female-headed families is marital
disruptions that move people into different
categories within the poverty population. Put
differently, the number of families in the female
householder category of the poverty population has
been growing because when poor families break up, the
female keeps the children and tends to stay in
poverty while the male either moves into a different
category of poverty or leaves poverty altogether.
There has been no increase since 1970 in the relative
number of poor adults who are women, however. (See
Table 10)
V.
Issues to Confront
o
I do not think that many of the conclusions in this
report lend themselves readily to a fact sheet. Both
2
- 6 -
the findings in the 1973 ERP and the additional ones
presented here are the result of examining a large
amount of statistical work. In this regard they are
interpretations rather than official statistics
published by a respected government agency such as
the Census Bureau. This means that some of the
conclusions can be the subject of debate and
reinterpretation . Also, I'm not sure how well a
fact sheet telling women "you really don't know how
well you have it" would go over. It could be rubbing
salt in the wrong people's wounds and just serve to
stir up trouble.
O
What to do about comparable worth? It would be an
administrative nightmare as well as extremely
disruptive to the labor markets. It represents a
wholesale expansion of the minimum wage laws. The
problem is to come out against comparable worth laws
without sounding "for" discrimination.
o
The second issue is one on which the Administration
can be proactive (rather than reactive as with
comparable worth) and therefore sound more "upbeat"
in terms of solutions. In particular, if our initial
examination is correct and the "feminization of
poverty" is largely due to marital disruptions, then
there are a number of potential policies to mitigate
the increase in female householders (female-headed
families) living in poverty. These include attempts
at a more equal sharing in the distribution of
household wealth upon marital breakup (change in
alimony laws), stronger regulations requiring
husbands to make their child support payments, and
the reform of welfare and other government support
programs that currently provide some incentives for
marital disruptions. I understand that some of these
are currently under consideration.
Table 1
2
Female/Male Ratios of Median Earnings of Full-Time, Year-Round
Workers, 1939-19801
1939
.581
1956
.639
1957
.633
1958
.630
1959
.613
1960
.608
1961
.594
1962
.595
1963
.596
1964
.596
1965
.600
1966
.580
1967
.578
1968
.582
1969
.605
1970
.594
1971
.595
1972
.579
1973
.566
1974
.572
1975
.588
1976
.602
1977
.589
1978
.600
1979
.596
1980
.600
1
For 1939 through 1966 data include wage and salary income
only; for 1967-1980 data include in addition,
self-employment earnings.
Source: 1955-1977, Women's Bureau (1979) The Earnings Gap
Between Women and Men; 1939 is reported in Current
Population Report, Money Income in 1974 of Families
and Persons in the United States (Series P-60, No.
101) ; 1978-1980 are from subsequent CPS reports in
series P-60.
Table 2
2
Female-Male Ratios of Median Usual Weeky Earnings: Full-Time
Wage and Salary Workrs, by Race, With and Without Adjustment
for Hours Worked, 1967-1980
Unadjusted Ratios
Adjusted Ratios
White
Black
White
Black
1967
.608
.700
.676
.738
1971
.607
.707
.669
.747
1973
.606
.718
.669
.756
1974
.598
.731
.659
.768
1975
.613
.751
.672
.789
1976
.615
.738
.676
.781
1977
.606
.731
.669
.775
1978
.599
.732
.660
.773
1979
.609
.726
.671
.768
1980
.627
.760
.686
.800
Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population
Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
2
Table 3
Tenure with Current Employer, by Sex and Age, 1963-1978
Percent with 6 months
or less with current
Median years with
employer
current employer
Men
Women
Men
Women
All
1963
14.7
21.8
5.7
3.0
1968
16.3
23.9
4.8
2.4
1973
15.1
20.8
4.6
2.8
1978
16.6
22.5
4.5
2.6
1981
4.0
2.5
25-34 Years Old
1963
16.2
27.3
3.5
2.0
1968
17.4
29.6
2.8
1.6
1973
15.9
22.8
3.2
2.2
1978
17.4
23.6
2.7
1.6
1981
2.9
2.0
35-44 Years Old
1963
10.5
18.6
7.6
3.6
1968
11.0
19.3
6.9
2.9
1973
8.4
15.7
6.7
3.6
1978
9.8
16.7
6.9
3.6
1981
6.6
3.5
45-54 Years Old
1963
8.1
12.2
11.4
6.1
1968
7.9
12.5
11.3
5.1
1973
5.9
8.9
11.5
5.9
1978
6.1
10.6
11.0
5.9
1981
11.0
5.9
55-64 Years Old
1963
7.2
8.8
14.7
7.8
1968
6.2
10.1
14.8
8.7
1973
4.6
5.8
14.5
8.8
1978
5.2
7.7
14.6
8.5
1981
14.8
9.1
Source:
Occupational Mobility and Job Tenure Survey, U.S.
Department of Labor, Special Labor Force Reports
Nos. 36, 112, 172, 235.
Table 4
Female/Male Ratios of Median Usual Weekly Earnings of (Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers), Adjusted fc
Differences in Hours Worked Per Week, by Age, 1971-1982
Second
Annual
Annual
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
Quarter
Average
Average
Age
1971
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1979
1982
Total
.68
.67
.67
.68
.68
.67
.67
.68
.68
.71
16-19
.94
.86
.87
.90
.90
.92
.91
.90
.92
.91
20-24
.85
.83
.82
.82
.86
.84
.80
.81
.82
.88
25-34
.73
.72
.72
.73
.74
.72
.73
.74
.73
.79
35-44
.66
.61
.61
.63
.61
.62
.59
.64
.64
.66
45-54
.62
.62
.62
.63
.62
.61
.59
.63
.61
.64
55-64
.67
.69
.65
.67
.67
.65
.65
.66
.64
.65
65 and over
.65
.64
.65
.74
.67
.64
.63
.76
.83
.72
1
Female/male earnings ratios were adjusted by multiplying age-specific male/female earnings ratios
by ratios of average hours worked per week by nonagricultural workers on full-time schedules.
(Hours data from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings series, January issues,
annual averages). See Table 1 for unadjusted female/male earnings ratios.
Table 5
Distribution of Employment and Employment Growth by Sex Typing of Occupation, 1972 and
1978
Employed Persons by Sex
Sex Typing of
1972
1978
Net Change, 1972-1978
of Occupation
Total
Men
Women
Total
Men
Women
Total
Men
Wome
Employment in
Thousands:
Male Occupation
40,128
37,443
2,685
42,713
38,868
3,845
2,585
1,425
1,160
Female Occupation
28,226
4,671
23,555
31,046
4,420
26,626
2,820
-251
3,071
Integrated
13,350
8,515
4,835
20,617
12,208
8,409
7,267
3,693
3,574
Total
81,704
50,632
31,072
94,376
55,494
38,882
12,672
4,868
7,810
Percentage
Distribution:
Male Occupation
49.1
74.0
8.6
45.2
70.0
9.9
20.4
29.3
14.9
Female Occupation
34.5
9.2
75.8
32.9
8.0
68.5
22.3
-5.2
39.3
Integrated
16.4
16.8
15.6
21.8
22.0
21.6
57.3
75.9
45.8
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1
In 1972, female occupations have a female share of employment over .532; female share in male
occupations is less than .228. The comparable shares for 1978 are .577 and .247 respectively.
Source: Current Population Survey, and calaculations by Dr. June O'Neill of the Urban Institute.
Table 6
Women as a Percent of Persons in Several Professional and Managerial Occupations
1919-80
Occupational Group
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
198
Clergymen
0.6
1.4
2.2
2.4
4.0
2.3
2.9
4.:
College presidents, professors,
and instructors 1
18.9
30.2
31.9
26.5
23.2
24.2
28.2
33.'
Dentists
3.1
3.3
1.9
1.5
2.7
2.3
3.5
4.
Engineers
(2)
(2)
(2)
.4
1.2
.8
1.6
4.
Lawyers and judges
.5
1.4
2.1
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.9
12.
Managers, manufacturing
Industries
1.7
3.1
3.2
4.3
6.4
7.1
6.3
12.
Physicians
6.0
5.0
4.4
4.7
6.1
6.9
9.3
13.
1
Data for 1920 and 1930 probably include some teachers in schools below collegiate rank. The Offi
of Education estimates the 1930 figure closer to 28 percent.
2
Less than one tenth of 1 percent.
Note.-Data are from the decennial censuses. Data for 1910 and 1920 include persons 10 years of age
and over; data for 1930 to 1970 include persons 14 years of age and over.
Source: Economic Report of the President, 1973 and Department of Labor, Employment and Earnings,
January 1981.
Table 7
2
Effect of Explanatory Variables on Female/Male Hourly Earnings
Ratios
Net ratio adjusting
for sex differences
in labor market ex-
perience and other
Net ratio also
production traits,
adjusting for %
Gross ratio of
other than % female
Female in an
hourly pay
in an occupation
an occupation
All blacks,
ages 24-34
81.7
85.2
91.2
All whites,
ages 24-34
66.6
82.0
89.2
24-29
71.1
79.3
87.7
30-34
61.1
82.1
86.5
12 years of school
or less
64.1
76.5
84.2
1 year of college
or more
72.1
79.1
86.7
Source: June O'Neill, The Determinants and Wage Effects of Occupational
Segregation, The Urban Institute, March 29, 1983, p. 76.
Note: The variable % female in an occupation is used to capture the
detrimental effects of occupational segregation on women's wages.
2
Table 8
Trends - Poverty Rates of Female Headed Families
(Percent of group in poverty)
Poverty
Rates
1959
1969
1974
1979
1980
All female headed
families (FHF)
42.6
32.7
32.5
30.2
32.7
FHF with children
59.9
44.9
43.8
39.4
42.9
FHF with work experience
33.3
23.5
21.9
18.9
20.2
FHF worked full-time year-
round
16.6
8.5
8.3
5.4
5.4
FHF, head did not work
54.1
45.9
48.2
49.5
53.5
FHF with Public Assistance
61.9
68.7
2
Table 9
Poverty Status of Unrelated Individuals, and Families, by Family Type:
1960, 1970, 1980, and 1981
(Numbers in thousands. Persons as of March of the following year)
Number Below Poverty
Level (000's)
1981
1980
1970
1960
Total
13,341
12,444
10,237
13,169
Unrelated individuals
6,490
6,227
5,023
4,926
Male
2,239
2,109
1,431
1,510
Female
4,251
4,118
3,592
3,416
Families
6,851
6,217
5,214
8,243
Married-couple families
3,394
3,032
3,132
Male householder, no wife
6,289
present
205
213
147
Female householder, no
husband present
3,252
2,972
1,934
1,955
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
March Current Population Surveys.
2
Table 10
Persons 16 Years Old and Over Below the Poverty Level, by Sex:
1966, 1970, 1980, and 1981
(Numbers in thousands. persons as of March of the following year)
1981
1980
1970
1966
Total
20,600
18,961
15,855
17,266
Male
7,708
6,970
5,908
6,681
Female
12,892 (63%)
11,991 (63%)
9,947
10,585 (61%)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
March Current Population Surveys.
)
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 29, 1983
FOR:
EDWIN L. HARPER
FROM:
MICHAEL M. UHLMANN
SUBJECT: Response to Congresswomen
As I mentioned to you, Legislative Affairs does not think it
would be useful to respond in writing at this stage to Republican
Congresswomen about the issues they raised in their March meeting
with the President.
Nevertheless, we thought it might be useful to have for
internal purposes some writing showing our responses to the
issues raised. The attached reflects my understanding of where
we stand today.
2
Response to Republican Congresswomen's Concerns
1.
Equal Rights Amendment
The President has taken action to ensure legal equality
for women:
-- 50 States Project
-- Federal Equity Project
-- Vigorous enforcement of existing laws
The President opposes the Equal Rights Amendment. The
President's approach of ensuring legal equity is a better
approach.
The President believes that fairness requires that the
people be given the chance to speak on some other
amendments -- balanced budget, school prayer,
right-to-life.
2. Economic Equity Act
The Administration has already achieved many of the
proposals in the original EEA.
The CCEA is considering whether the Administration should
support the tax measures proposed in the EEA.
The President has said that he will be proposing pension
equity legislation sometime in 1983.
The CCHR is considering whether to recommend
establishment of a Presidential Commission on Insurance
Equity.
3.
Child Support Enforcement
The CSEP is already an effective program, and the
Administration is considering either legislative or
administrative action to improve the performance of state
governments in collecting child support payments under
the program.
4. Wage Discrimination
The CCMA is undertaking to ensure that women in the
government have a full opportunity to compete for
management level jobs.
CEA will do study on pay gap.
2
-2-
5. Day Care
50 States Project working to identify state regulations
that inhibit day care.
Private Sector Initiatives Office and Women's Bureau,
DOL, are working to encourage private sector day care.
6.
Budgetary Concerns
The Administration will do better job of communicating
the "fairness" of its budget proposals.
7.
Better Communication/Republicar Initiative
The President will be speaking on the Administration's
achievements on matters of concern to women.
The Administration is preparing fact sheets and issue
papers explaining its positions and achievements on
matters of concern to women.
THE WHITE HOUSE
washington
May 2, 1983
NOTE FOR ROGER PORTER
FROM: BILL BARR
Attached are the draft responses
that you requested on the flexi-
time bill.
I
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 2, 1983
Dear Sandy:
Thank you for your letter concerning Senator
Armstrong's flexitime bill. I appreciate the
role you have played in focusing attention on
this important initiative. As you know, last
Congress we supported Senator Armstrong's
efforts.
In the next few weeks, the Cabinet Council on
Human Resources will be considering whether
the Administration should take a leadership
role in seeking enactment of this initiative.
Sincerely yours,
James A. Baker, III
Chief of Staff
Alexander B. Trowbridge
President
National Association of
Manufacturers
1776 F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 2, 1983
Dear Sandy:
Thank you for your letter concerning Senator
Armstrong's flexitime bill. As you know,
last Congress we supported Senator
Armstrong's efforts.
In the next few weeks, the Cabinet Council on
Human Resources will be considering whether
the Administration should take a leadership
role in seeking enactment of this initiative.
Sincerely yours,
Edwin L. Harper
Assistant to the President
for Policy Development
Alexander B. Trowbridge
President
National Association of
Manufacturers
1776 F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 2, 1983
FOR:
ROGER B. PORTER
FROM:
STEPHEN H. GALEBACK SHS
SUBJECT: Public Policy and the Family
As you requested, I have prepared a paper to help in
preparation of your talk about public policy, the family, and the
Reagan Administration. As it happens, just a week ago I gave an
address to a conference of the Christian Legal Society on
precisely this topic. I have included some of the discussion
points I used in my talk, along with the three-part summary of
information that you requested.
To keep the memorandum concise, I have given only a brief
description of each policy initiative. I can give supplementary
details and citations, if you wish, for any of the initiatives.
I.
Introduction
Through most of American political and legal history, the
role of the family has been assumed, not debated. So long as a
consensus on the role of the family existed among the American
people and our opinion leaders, there was no need for debate.
By the 1970s, however, the consensus behind the traditional
view of the family as the basic unit of society had eroded,
especially among professionals who often preferred government
rather than family as the provider of services to children.
President Carter's White House conference on the family
highlighted the growing conflict over the most basic questions
concerning the family. The White House conference was unable to
resolve the most basic question of how to define the family.
Pro-family groups preferred a definition of "persons related by
blood, heterosexual marriage, or adoption." Others preferred a
definition that would include any group of two or more persons
who share resources, share responsibility for decisions, and have
some undefined commitment to one another, regardless of blood,
legal ties, adoption, or marriage.
As pro-family scholar Allan Carlson has commented, "If there
can be no definition that excludes any form of human
cohabitation, then what is a family policy trying to save, or
strengthen, or help?"
The growing political debate over the role of the family in
the 1970s led Senator Laxalt to introduce the Family Protection
Act in 1979, which was then re-introduced by Senator Roger Jepsen
in 1981. This Act included 32 concepts, covering a broad array
of issues that have an impact on the family, such as (1) parental
rights in education, such as visitation of classrooms and review
of textbooks; (2) educational savings provisions; (3) tax
deductions for expenses of adoption; (4) home health care -- tax
deductions and credits for those who care for elderly relatives
in the home; (5) IRA for unsalaried spouse; (6) elimination of
marriage tax penalty; (7) parental notification when government
grantees give prescription contraceptive drugs or devices to
minors; (8) voluntary prayer in the public schools; (9) pro-
hibition on representation by Legal Services Corporation in cases
of divorce, homosexual rights, abortion, and busing.
-2-
II. Policy Initiatives of Reagan Administration
A number of pro-family initiatives have already been
implemented during our term in office, either as explicit
proposals of the Administration, or as initiatives in Congress
that we supported. It is instructive to see how many ideas from
the Family Protection Act have already become law during our
Administration.
A. Policy Initiatives Already Enacted or Implemented
o
Alleviation of the marriage tax penalty -- Although we
have not eliminated the difference in tax treatment
between a married two-worker couple and a similarly
situated unmarried couple, we have reduced the amount by
which the married couple is more heavily taxed, in the
ERTA of 1981.
HHS parental notification requirement for prescription
contraceptive drugs or devices to minors -- Our
regulation was enjoined by the lower federal courts, and
the issue is now on appeal.
Child care credit -- We substantially increased the
amount of the credit, in order to make it possible for
spouses to choose freely whether to work in the home or
outside the home, and also to enable single parents to
meet family responsibilities.
-- Next year we are adding a line item on the 1040A
Short Form for child care expenses.
-- Tax incentives for business to provide child care as
part of employees' benefit packages.
Strengthening of the Child Support Enforcement Program --
Forty percent (40%) of divorced spouses entitled to
child support payments under court order or agreement do
not receive them; our Child Support Enforcement Program
is designed to ensure that parents meet familial
responsibilities, so that children do not lose essential
economic support as a result of family breakup.
Administrative waivers of Medicaid eligibility
requirements, to allow dependents such as Katie Becket
in Iowa ( for whom the President personally intervened)
to receive care at home rather than in an institution,
and still be eligible for Medicaid payments.
The Jobs Partnership Training Act, which phases out
CETA, taragets AFDC mothers and disadvantaged youth,
thus contributing to their ability to support a family.
-3-
Encouraging U.S. Attorneys to take more vigorous action
to enforce federal laws against pornography, especially
child pornography.
Mrs. Reagan has headed an effort to encourage mothers to
band together to form local support groups to ward off
drug use by children.
Crackdown by federal law enforcement officials against
drug import traffic.
Foster grandparent program -- to bring family-like
attention to elderly persons who often have no family
near them.
Tax deduction for expenses of adopting hard-to-place
children.
B. Pro-Family Proposals of the Administration
Tuition tax credits -- The President has recognized that
the family is the basic unit having the right and
responsibility of educating children; tuition tax
credits are designed to make this right and
responsibility a reality for all Americans, not just the
well-to-do.
Vouchers for Title I education subsidies -- To give
lower-income parents greater choice in the type of
education for their children, while maintaining
eligibility for Title I education subsidies.
Family responsibility for part of the expenses of care
of elderly parents -- To discourage the idea that
elderly relatives are to be cast off from family
responsibility into the hands of the government.
III. Existing Pro-Family Aspects of Law That We Support
The most basic question of governmental policy with regard
to the family is whether the government recognizes the family as
the basic unit providing care, services, nurture, and education
to children, rather than seeking to provide government services
directly to children as a substitute for the family. Our tax
system was set up to recognize the legitimate claims of the
family. A tax exemption is provided not only to each individual
taxpayer, but also for each dependent. The idea is that
government should leave in the hands of families those resources
that are essential to meet the basic needs of family members.
Erosion of the value of these exemptions erodes the ability of
the family to act as the basic unit in society.
-4-
The President has acted to prevent further erosion of the
value of dependent exemptions, by indexing them along with all
other tax brackets. Beginning after the third year of our
phased-in tax cuts, the dependent exemption will rise
automatically each year to compensate for the effects of
inflation.
Unfortunately, during the build-up of the Great Society
programs beginning in the mid-1960s, the value of the dependent
exemption was allowed to erode dramatically, and a multitude of
federal programs to give direct benefits to children began to
take the place of the family role. Student loans for college;
ever-increasing federal aid for elementary and secondary schools;
special programs for women, infants, and children; school lunch
programs; and a host of other federal payments were undertaken in
place of a policy of leaving resources in the family in the first
place. President Reagan has been striving to turn back this
tide.
Nothing has had greater impact in restoring the ability of
families to meet the needs of family members than the President's
tax cuts. Middle-income families had been driven into tax
brackets intended for the wealthy, resulting in an inability to
provide for family members without incurring greater and greater
sacrifices.
Welfare programs can exert an adverse impact on the family.
Under President Reagan's leadership, however, federal involvement
in welfare programs has been modified in ways that have
effectively encouraged families to take a greater role and
responsibility in earning the family budget, rather than lapsing
into welfare dependency. The report recently released by the
Department of Health and Human Services shows that many families
have been weaned off dependence on partial welfare payments, and
have worked hard to reach the satisfying and rewarding position
of self-sufficiency. Having more parents who successfully
support their families is an important pro-family step.
IV. Initiatives to be Considered for the Future
Greater incentives to give family-based care for elderly
dependents, handicapped children, orphans, and others
whom we have tended to place in institutions rather than
in families.
Increase in the dependent exemption, to compensate for
some degree of its erosion in the past.
Expansion of the idea of education vouchers to give more
effective choice to parents at all income levels for the
education of their children.
Making sure that our programs to help the victims of
broken families do not end up encouraging the phenomenon
of family breakup.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 23, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR STEPHEN H. GALEBACH
FROM:
ROGER B. PORTER
REF
SUBJECT:
Public Policy and the Family
Recently I accepted an invitation to address a major
national family organization and their annual conference.
I want to talk about public policy, the family, and the Reagan
Administration.
As part of my preparation, I would appreciate very much
if you would pull together a three-part paper.
The first part would outline what policy initiatives the
Reagan Administration has proposed with respect to the family
or which have major impacts on the family and what new poli-
cies we have put in place either administratively or legisla-
tively.
The second part would outline the existing pro-family
parts of the law that we support. Together the first two
parts should form the basis for our current family policy.
The third part would look at what things we might con-
sider doing beyond what we have already proposed or supported.
I know of your real interest in and familiarity with fam-
ily issues and look forward to looking at your paper. It
would be most helpful to me if I could have it by close of
business on Monday, May 2, 1983.
Thank you very much.