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
34429194
label
Talking Points [4]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
34429194
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Talking Points [4]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Jennifer Klein's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
34429194
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7422560-20140536S-048-003-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
8ef724ad9def040c
ocrText
ADDITIONAL MEDICARE TALKING POINTS
ADDING TO ALREADY HIGH COSTS FOR OLDER AMERICANS
Over $40 Billion in Cost-Shifting: Assuming the other half of the Republicans' cuts go
to providers, hospitals, physicians, and other providers would be targeted with a $135 billion
cut over seven years. In 2002 alone a $35 billion cut in provider payments would be needed.
Even if only one-third of Medicare providers cuts overall are shifted onto other payers (an
assumption consistent with a 1993 CBO analysis), businesses and families would be forced to
pay a hidden tax of $40 billion in increased premiums for health care costs between now and
2002.
Rural and Inner City Hospitals At Risk: Cuts of this magnitude, combine with the growing
uncompensated care burden (which would be further exacerbated by Medicaid cuts and
increases in the number of uninsured), would place rural and inner-city providers in
jeopardy because they have limited or no ability to shift costs to other payers. As a result
quality and access to needed health care would be threatened.
MAJOR BURDEN ON RURAL AMERICA
Reducing Medicare cuts would disproportionately harm rural hospitals.
Nearly 10 million Medicare beneficiaries (25% of the total) live in rural America
where there is often only a single hospital in their county. These rural hospitals tend
to be small and serve large numbers of Medicare patients.
Significant cuts in Medicare revenues have the potential to cause a good number of
these hospitals, which are already in financial distress, to close or to turn to
local taxpayers to increase what are already substantial local subsidies.
Rural residents are more likely than urban residents to be uninsured, so offsetting the
effects of Medicare cuts by shifting costs to private payers is more difficult for small
rural hospitals.
Rural hospitals are often the largest employer in their communities; closing these
hospitals will result in job loss and physicians leaving their communities.
UNDERMINES ACADEMIC HEALTH CENTERS
Large reductions in Medicare payments would have a devastating impact on academic health
centers.
These research and training facilities are providing the bulk of medical advances in
the United States. Deep Medicare cuts, combined with private sector cost cutting
efforts that either undercompensate or don't compensate these institutions, will
undermine our position as the world leader in developing new and more effective
health care treatments and technology.
THE URBAN SAFETY NET
Large reductions in Medicare payments could also have devastating effects on a number
urban safety net hospitals.
Urban safety net hospitals are already bearing a disproportionate share of the nation's
growing burden of uncompensated care.
THE REALITY OF MEDICARE GROWTH
Despite the current rhetoric, Medicare expenditure growth is comparable to the growth in
private health insurance.
Under Administration estimates, Medicare spending per person is projected to grow
over the next five years at about the same rate as private health insurance spending;
under CBO estimates, spending per person is projected to grow only about one
percentage point faster than private health insurance.
So, unless Medicare can control costs substantially better than the private sector,
beneficiaries and providers would be forced to shoulder the burden of the huge cuts
being proposed by Republicans.
Budget Notes
August 7. 1995
CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITYS' EXCESSIVE TAX CUTS
FORCE MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES AND THEIR FAMILIES To PICK UP THE TAB
We Should Not Place Extreme Financial Burdens on Older Americans Just to Finance Tax Cuts for the
Wealthiest Americans. The Republican budget cuts Medicare by $270 billion -- $71 billion in the year 2002
alone. The cuts shift costs to seniors who already spend 21 percent of their income out-of-pocket on health care.
Since 75 percent of these beneficiaries have incomes below $25,000, it is hard to see how they can afford to pay
more. The fact is that if the Congressional majority wasn't insisting on their $245 billion in tax cuts for wealthy
Americans, they wouldn't have to impose these burdens on middle class Americans.
Their Cuts Are Real for Seniors: Republicans will call their proposal an increase, not a cut, since spending
will be higher in 2002 than it is today. But, that's like saying a 3 percent raise is sufficient to keep up with 5
percent inflation. Clearly, seniors will not be able to afford the same benefits they get today.
BUT Many of Their Cuts Have Nothing To-Do With The Trust Fund. For example, the Part B premium,
deductible, and copayment increases produce savings but are not dedicated to the Part A Trust Fund. If they are
not being used for the Trust Fund, what are they being used for? Tax Cuts?
$$$ Billions Added to Older Americans' Already High Costs:
Every beneficiary choosing to stay in the fee-for-service plan would pay at least $2,825 more in
premiums and copayments over 7 years; couples would pay at least $5,650.
The average Medicare recipient of skilled nursing home services will pay at least $1,400 more. The
average beneficiary receiving home health care services will pay at least $1,700 more in 2002.
Half A Million Beneficiaries Effectively Thrown Into Poverty: The out-of-pocket increases would effectively
push at least 500,000 elderly into poverty by 2002.
Vouchers Aren't Choice, They're Financial Coercion: Beneficiaries who wish to keep their fee-for-service
plan and a guarantee of their choice of doctor will have to pay significantly more. Even those beneficiaries who
go into managed care will have their current benefits threatened. This is because the Republicans' overly tight
growth rates will, over time, diminish the value of the voucher and the type of coverage it can purchase. The
Republicans choice for seniors: choose to pay more or choose to get less.
To preserve Medicare For Our Grandchildren, President Clinton Believes We Have To Strengthen The
Medicare Trust Fund. Real reform means fixing the Trust Fund, without putting beneficiaries in a fix.
President Clinton's Balanced Budget Will Strengthen Medicare Without Burdening Beneficiaries.
Reduce Medicare spending by $124 billion -- less than half the Republican cuts;
Extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund at least through 2006; This fact has been confirmed by
the Chief Actuary of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA).
Make no new cuts targeted at beneficiaries; and
Accompany reductions in Medicare spending with: 1)new prevention and long-term care benefits; 2) more
plan choices for beneficiaries; 3) aggressive pursuit of fraud and abuse; 4) insurance reform; and 5)
important new insurance affordability protections for small businesses and working families.
08-04-95 02:00PM FROM PWBA OAS
TO 9/4562878
P002
17:17
002/004
08/03/95
HEALTH CARE TALKING POINTS
FOR
SECRETARY'S LABOR DAY SPEECH
The need for comprehensive reform of our nation's health care system is as pressing as ever, and
the Administration remains firmly committed to making the health care system work for working
Americans. Too many Americans work hard yet face the threat of losing their health insurance
when they get sick or lose their jobs - just the times when they can least afford to lose it.
President Clinton's health reform plan takes the first serious steps to improve the health security of
working Americans and help small businesses get and maintain health insurance for their employees,
expanding coverage and reducing costs for average Americans. It also protects Medicare trust fund
solvency through at least 2005, without new burdens for beneficiaries.
In contrast, the Republican Budget Resolution Conference Agreement would cut $270 billion from
the Medicare program over the next seven years in order to finance tax cuts for the well off. This
cut would increase beneficiaries' out-of-pocket costs by tens of billions of dollars, effectively forcing
500,000 elderly into poverty by 2002. Republican proposals that promise choice through Medicare
"vouchers" would actually undermine certain Medicare protections, including a guarantee on the
types of benefits covered.
The President's proposal for Medicare would reduce Medicare spending by $124 billion . less than
half the Republican cuts - while at the same time expanding long-term care benefits for
beneficiaries.
While the Republican plan to address the serious problems of this nation's health care system calls
for unprecedented spending cuts regardless of the consequences for average Americans, Prosident
Clinton's plan improves the health system itself to make it fairer for working Americans and their
families. The President's proposal includes: (1) reductions in Medicare spending while at the same
time expanding benefits and choices for beneficiaries; (2) important new insurance affordability
protections for the temporarily unemployed and small businesses; (3) insurance reform; (4)
aggressive pursuit of fraud and abuse; and (5) expanded consumer protections.
People who work hard, play by the rules, and through no fault of their own lose their jobs
should not face the additional financial hardship of losing their health insurance. Working
families should not have to face financial min if one of their members becomes sick at a time
when they are most vulnerable.
The president's plan provides premium subsidies to enable workers, who might otherwise be
unable to afford to do so, to purchase basic health insurance coverage while they are
collecting unemployment.
These subsidies will be available for up to six months which will allow the vast majority of
1
08-04-95 02:00PM
FROM PWBA OAS
TO 9/4562878
P003
08/03/95 17:18
003/004
workers eligible for the program to be covered until they are able to find a new job.
The program will be structured to provide as much flexibility as possible to enable each State
to operate it in & manner that best fulfills the needs of its workers.
We will structure the program to build on current coverage continuation requirements by
enabling most workers to continue to remain enrolled in the same health insurance plan - and
continue to use the same doctors as a result.
We must ensure that American workers can keep their health coverage if they change jobs and
that Americans and their families will not lose coverage if they get sick.
Recent surveys indicate that up to 30% of workers feel locked into their current jobs because
they fear losing their health insurance. Job lock is a serious impediment to workforce
mobility at a time when the economy needs a more flexible workforce.
Under the President's plan, insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage to
Americans with preexisting medical conditions.
Health plans will have to renew coverage regardless of the health status of a worker
or that of his or her family member,
We must help small businesses get and maintain affordable health insurance for their
employees. Small employers face significant variations in the rates they can be charged based
on health status or the claims experience of their employees even between similar plans,
resulting in substantial premium fluctuations.
Under the Administration's proposal, insurers will be required to offer coverage to small
employers and their workers, regardless of health status.
Insurers will no longer be able to increase premiums on the basis of claims' history as they
do now.
The Administration's plan would let small employers buy the health plans that Federal
employees can buy through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program if they lack
access to a group option through voluntary state pools.
The President's plan would create a fairer system for self-employed Americans who have
health insurance.
Self-employed people will be able to deduct 50 percent of the cost of their health
insurance premiums, rather than 25 percent as under current law.
2
08-04-95 02:00PM FROM PWBA OAS
TO 9/4562878
P004
1004/004
08/03/95 17:18
Consumers need reliable information on which to base their health care decisions and must be
able to protect the benefits they are entitled to.
Insurers will be required to give consumers information on the benefits and limitations of
their health plans
This information will include the identity, location, and availability of participating
providers; a summary of procedures used to control utilization of services; and how
well the plan meets quality standards.
Insurers will be required to provide more expedient notice of benefit claims denial and
enhanced internal grievance and appeals procedures.
3
Budget Notes
Wednesday, August 2, 1995
PRESIDENT CLINTON Vows TO FIGHT SPECIAL INTERESTS,
DEFEND ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH
"On this so-called environmental bill, my message to the American people should be very, very
clear: Don't worry. We'll make common-sense reforms. But the minute this polluter's protection
act hits my desk, I will veto it."
President Clinton
Tuesday, August 1, 1995
Yesterday, President Clinton vowed to veto a bill that protects polluters and guts environmental and
health protections. The House had rejected these extreme anti-environment provisions last week, but special
interests went to work and the Republican leadership rallied just enough support for the bill Monday night.
Victory for Lobbyists. Monday night, in a remarkable exercise of special interest power, the House voted to
gut environmental and public health protections. It was a stealth attack on our environment in the guise of a
budget bill.
Threatens Environment and Public Health. This bill would effectively end federal enforcement of the Clean
Water Act and the Clean Air Act, President Bush's proudest legislative achievement. The GOP bill:
Allows poisons in our drinking water, raw sewage on our beaches, oil refineries to pollute,
Limits a community's right to know what chemicals are toxic which are released in their
neighborhoods.
Would be bad for our children, our health and our environment.
Washington Special Interests Politics. This vote is Washington special interest politics at its most effective
and its worst. Even before the 17 special interest provisions were added, the bill dramatically undercut
environmental protection by cutting environmental enforcement in half.
Should Protect Environment and Economy. We do not need to damage the environment to balance the
budget. The President's budget demonstrates that, and the President has promised to would use his power as
President to help people, not polluters. He believes we can protect the environment and grow the economy.
Meanwhile, Congress Takes Care of Itself. While Congress has been taking care of the special interests, it's
also taking care of itself. While Congress is behind schedule on virtually every budget bill, one bill is right on
schedule the bill that funds the Congress, its staff, and its operations.
Congress Should Take Care of the People's Business. Congress should take care of the people's business
before it takes care of itself. President Clinton will not sign the bill that funds Congress and its staff before it
finishes work on the rest of the budget. The President believes that, in Washington, we would do well to
subordinate the special interests to the broader public interest. That is not happening now, but we can still get
things back on track.
Budget Notes
Thursday, August 3, 1995
PRESIDENT SAYS EDUCATION KEY TO FUTURE,
WILL STOP EFFORTS TO GUT EDUCATION INVESTMENTS
President Champions Education while GOP Prepares to Gut Important Programs: Today, Education
Secretary Riley presents the President with a report on the State of Education in America. that report underlines
what we know: America must invest in education, not cut away at our children's future. But Congress is voting
on a Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill now that slashes education to pay for a huge tax cut for the
wealthy. It's a big step in the wrong direction.
Investing in Education. The President's balanced budget plan builds on America's commitment to education
and protects working families. It increases investments in education -- $41 billion over the next seven years --
to help Americans succeed in the new economy.
GOP Cuts Education to Pay for Tax Cuts for the Wealthy. Republicans are cutting education by $36
billion, including:
Raising the Cost of Student Loans. Republicans pay for their tax cuts by eliminating the grace period
on student loans. It will cost students and parents $9.6 billion.
Killing AmeriCorps. Deny almost 50,000 students a chance to serve their country and pay for their
education;
Eliminating Goals 2000. This effort to kill higher standards for schools earned a rebuke from the
Washington Post's David Broder, who called it "one of the dumbest things Congress could do."
Cutting Back on Head Start. Denying 50,000 children a chance to participate in Head Start in 1996.
Undermining the War on Drugs. Cutting 23 million students from Safe and Drug-Free Schools in
1996.
Cutting Direct Lending. Eliminating the President's program to make student loans more affordable
and saves taxpayers and students billions of dollars.
The Clinton Education Record -- Building for a Better Future. The President is committed to giving all
Americans a chance to build a better future for themselves and their children -- through education and training.
In the past two years, he has had some great successes:
Expanded Head Start
Higher Standards for Our Schools -- Goals 2000
National Service
Cheaper Student Loans
School to Work
High Technology
Improving Elementary and Secondary Education
Budget Notes
Tuesday, August 1, 1995
I.
1995 Deficit Forecast Down By Over $30 Billion. The OMB Mid-Session Review, released yesterday,
forecasts a FY95 deficit of $160 billion. That's a $33 billion reduction from the estimate in the President's
FY96 budget of February. The reduction shows that the President's 1993 Economic Plan continues to bring
the deficit down faster than anticipated.
A $160 billion deficit represents a 45% cut from the FY92 budget of $290 billion and a 47% cut from the
$302 billion deficit that was projected before the President's plan was enacted.
OMB now projects a surplus of $7 billion in 2004 under the President's plan, compared to a $9 billion
deficit projected in June. The fact is, our 1995 deficit is coming in lower than even we anticipated. This
shows that our estimates have always been prudent. Lower deficits today mean lower debt, lower interest
costs, and lower deficits tomorrow. Our economic assumptions remain more conservative than the Blue
Chip forecasters; if you plugged in the Blue Chip forecasts, you would get even lower deficits. It also
makes clear that there is no need for drastic cuts in Medicare, education and the environment to achieve a
balanced budget.
II. GOP Cuts Seriously Undermine The Nation's Battle Against Crime and Drug Abuse. Today, the
President addresses the Fraternal Order of Police convention via satellite. His remarks will include a
critique of the GOP budget priorities. By racing to balance the budget in 7 years, the Republicans would
cut the following effective crime stopping programs:
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): ELIMINATED.
Last week, the House approved FY96 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State, eliminating the COPS program. The COPS program was the centerpiece of the 1994 Crime Bill,
which passed with bipartisan support, and will put 100,000 more police officers on America's streets.
This program is already working to fight crime in communities across the country, but the GOP Bill
would replace it with a general law enforcement block grant program -- a blank check to state and local
governments -- that would not guarantee a single additional new officer. This is unacceptable.
Office of National Drug Control Policy: ELIMINATED
Elimination of all funding for this office, created by President Bush, would severely curtail the
President's ability to sustain a coordinated effort among some fifty Federal agencies involved in drug
control, including enforcement, interdiction, eradication, education, treatment, and prevention. Just when
this coordinated effort is showing sustained results, Republicans propose we revert back to the days when
the nation did not have a coordinated drug-control strategy.
Safe and Drug Free School: CUT BY 60%.
President Clinton's Balanced Budget funds at $500 million per year, providing safer, more drug-free
learning environments for 39 million children in over 14,000 school districts.
GOP Cuts Reduce funding to $200 million, a 60 percent cut from the President's request, depriving over
23 million students of services next year.
International Anti-Drug Cooperation Programs: CUT BY 50%.
An extreme cut that could prevent the continued arrests of the world's top drug kingpins.
President Outlines Agenda for America's Families
Friday, July 28, 1995
Today, President Clinton addresses the American
Federation of Teaches, where he will outline ten points
that form our real family values agenda:
1.
Caring for elderly parents
2.
Family and Medical Leave
3.
Health insurance Reform
4.
Child support enforcement
5.
Prevention of teen pregnancy
6.
Drug abuse prevention
7.
Prevention of teen smoking
8.
Handgun and assault rifle control
9.
Raising the minimum wage
10.
Education
1.
Caring for Elderly Parents. 30 years ago, we
decided to protect our elderly against the costs
of illness with Medicare. Before Medicare, half
of the nation's elderly lacked insurance. Now, 97
percent have insurance, but that new security is
at risk. Congress wants to cut $270 billion from
Medicare, which could mean thousands of dollars in
new out-of-pocket costs for our seniors. The
President is committed to reforming Medicare, but
he will fight these efforts to ruin it.
2.
Family and Medical Leave. The first bill the
President signed into law was the Family and
Medical Leave Act, which allows people to care for
their loved ones without losing their jobs. He
will fight efforts by Congress to cut funds that
make Family and Medical Leave work.
3.
Health Insurance Reform. The President has
proposed health insurance reforms that respond to
the real needs of America's families:
Portable health insurance insurance
should follow people as they move from
one job to another.
Coverage should not be tied to
preexisting conditions.
Establish voluntary purchasing pools to
allow small businesses and self-employed
people top buy insurance on the same
terms as big business.
Make sure that if a parent loses a job,
the family keeps its coverage even if
the parent is unemployed for an extended period of
time.
4.
Child Support Enforcement. President Clinton
believes that anyone who brings a child into this
world must take responsibility for it. That is
why his Administration has worked so hard to
enforce child support collection. The President's
welfare reform plan has five provisions to ensure
the toughest possible enforcement:
Employer reporting of new hires to catch
deadbeat dads who move from job to job;
Uniform interstate child support laws;
Computerized statewide collection;
Efforts to identify the father;
Tough new penalties like revoking
licenses.
Earlier this year, the President signed an
Executive Order to make it easier to find federal
employees who do not meet their obligations to
their children.
5.
Prevention of Teen Pregnancy. The President's
welfare plan includes measures to motivate young
people to make responsible life choices:
Teen mothers on welfare will be required to
live at home with their parents, stay in
school, identify the father, and work after a
limited period of time.
Tough new child support laws so that teen
fathers will know they have to provide child
support for the next 18 years.
States will have the flexibility to try
innovative ways to encourage responsible
behavior, such as rewarding teen recipients
who make progress in school and sanctioning
those who drop out.
School-based teen pregnancy prevention
programs in high-risk areas.
A national teen pregnancy clearinghouse to
disseminate information on model programs.
6.
Drug Abuse Prevention. The President has expanded
efforts to fight the war on drugs, and this year's
budget for that fight is the largest in history.
He will fight the effort in Congress to cut funds
for the war on drugs, and for Safe and Drug Free
Schools. Our children need a constant drum-beat
reminding them that drugs are not safe.
7.
Prevention of Teen Smoking. Too many of America's
children have access to one of the worst killers
in the country -- ordinary tobacco products.
Underage smoking is wrong, bad for kids, and
illegal. We must do more to stop it.
8.
Handgun and Assault Rifle Control. The President
is doing everything in his power to stop the
violence that affects too many of our families:
He stood up and fought for the assault
weapons ban;
Signed the Brady Bill into law;
Is putting 100, 000 more cops on the
street.
9.
Rasing the Minimum Wage. Raising the minimum wage
rewards hard work and gives parents the money they
need to raise healthy children who become
productive adults. The minimum wage is at its
lowest level in 40 years. The President thinks
it's time to change that.
10. Education. Education is the key to our success in
the global economy. It is the fault-line dividing
those who make it from those who don not. That is
why the President has fought to improve our
nation's education system:
Expanded Head Start;
Signed GOALS 2000 into law;
Created the School-to-Work initiative;
Created cheaper, more accessible student
loans.
Created the national service program.
The President is committed to fighting those who
want to roll the back the progress we have made on
education slashing education investments to pay
for tax cuts for the wealthy.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
30-Jul-1995 09:36pm
TO:
(See Below)
FROM:
Jason S. Goldberg
Office of Cabinet Affairs
SUBJECT: Budget Notes 7/31
Budget Notes
Monday, July 31, 1995
Republican Cuts Push 500,000
Medicare Beneficiaries Into Poverty
For 30 years, Medicare has meant financial security and health security for
older Americans. Since 1965, Medicare has effectively lifted millions of older
Americans out of poverty. Prior to Medicare, less than 50 % of the elderly had
health insurance. Today, thanks to Medicare nearly 100 percent of older
Americans have coverage.
To preserve Medicare for our grandchildren, President Clinton believes we
have to strengthen the Medicare Trust Fund, which holds the money we all
pay in to cover hospital, nursing home and home health bills. President Clinton
believes that real reform is about making a situation better, not worse. Real
reform means fixing the Trust Fund, without putting beneficiaries in a fix.
President Clinton's balanced budget will strengthen Medicare. His plan will:
Extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund at least through 2005;
Make no new cuts targeted at beneficiaries; and
Expand benefits for seniors, including free mammograms and respite care
for families of people with Alzheimer's disease.
The Republican plan would severely burden the elderly, and reverse the 30
year tradition of Medicare lifting seniors out of poverty:
In 2002, 500,000 Medicare beneficiaries would effectively be put into
poverty by the increases in out-of-pocket costs for health care. This
number could be even larger if Medicaid is turned into a block grant.
Many states would no longer be able to afford to cover the poor elderly
unless they chose to raise property or sales taxes, or cut other
critical state spending. [According to an HHS study released on July
29, 1995]
These cuts in Medicare and Medicaid are 4 times more than the largest
cuts ever enacted.
In order to stay in fee-for-service plans, where they can choose their
doctor, seniors would be forced to either pay more or get less:
The average Medicare recipient of skilled nursing home services
will pay at least $1,400 more.
The average beneficiary receiving home health care services will
pay at least $1,7000 more in 2002.
Every beneficiary choosing to stay in the fee-for-service plan
would pay at least $2,825 more in premiums and copayments over
7 years; couples would pay at least $5,650. Couples would pay
at least $1,250 more in 2002 alone.
Or, seniors could get a voucher that is too small. Each year private
health care costs would increase 40 percent more than the voucher's
value. Seniors will have to pay more to make up the difference--or be
forced into care they don't want.
The increases in out-of-pocket costs to seniors are needed to pay for a tax cut
for the well-off, not to balance the budget or shore up the Medicare Trust Fund.
Republicans could drop all of their new costs for beneficiaries and balance
the budget if they would just accept the President's tax cut for the middle
class, rather than their huge tax cuts for those who need it least.
Distribution:
TO: [email protected]@INET
TO: [email protected]@INET
TO: [email protected]@INET@EOPMRX
TO: Jeremy D. Benami
TO: Elizabeth C. Bowyer
TO: [email protected]@INET
TO: [email protected]@INET
TO: Phillip M. Caplan
TO: [email protected]@INET
TO: [email protected]@INET
TO: [email protected]@INET
TO: [email protected]@INET
TO: [email protected]@INET@EOPMRX
TO: Paul A. Deegan
TO: Michael D. Deich
TO: Julie E. Demeo
TO: Diana [email protected]@INET@EOPMRX
TO: [email protected]@INET
Budget Notes
Thursday, July 27, 1995
I. REPUBLICANS FEELING HEAT OVER APPROPRIATIONS BILLS -- TOUGH VOTES AHEAD. Congress Daily
reports that "House Republican leaders are facing an open revolt by GOP moderates over legislative provisions
and spending priorities in the FY96 VA-HUD and Labor-HHS appropriations bills."
Rep. Marge Roukema (R-NJ) said a "growing revolution" is developing against the Labor-HHS bill.
Meanwhile, Rep Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) said that the VA-HUD bill "is in serious trouble." [Congress
Daily, July 25, 1995]
The Hill reports that House GOP women are concerned about the anti-choice provisions of some House
appropriations bills. Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-CT) said, "I think there is a lot of concern on both sides that
we need more time to think this through Forcing Members to vote on employees' health benefits is not
what anyone campaigned on." [The Hill, July 26, 1995]
II. PRESIDENT CLINTON SIGNS RESCISSION BILL TO CUT $16 BILLION IN UNNECESSARY SPENDING:
Today, President Clinton signs the rescission bill to cut more than $16 billion of unnecessary spending from
this year's budget. These spending cuts are a down payment on our pledge to balance the budget and proof
positive that the President and Congress can work together to produce good legislation.
Common Ground on Balancing the Budget. President Clinton and the leadership of Congress share a
commitment to balancing the budget. This budget cutting builds on the President's 1993 plan that reduces
the deficit by over $1 trillion dollars over the next seven years. We have differences about priorities -- the
President is committed to investing in education and job training, health care for the elderly, the
environment and public safety, and in keeping our families strong and making work pay; the GOP would
rather just race to cut the budget in 7 years, no matter what the cost. But the important fact is that, for the
first time in a generation, the President and Congress are together committed to putting our fiscal house in
order.
Working Together to Find Common Ground. President Clinton vetoed the original rescission bill
because it cut spending the wrong way, by targeting education and training, environmental protection, and
other key national priorities. He then worked with Republicans and Democrats to produce a better bill that
cuts $16 billion in spending while protecting our key investments in education and training, the
environment, and other priorities.
The President's Budget Plan Builds on Common Ground. The President wants to balance the budget
by following on the model of the rescissions bill -- building on commitments we share, protecting working
families by:
Increasing investments in education and lifelong learning -- $41 billion over the next seven years -- to
help Americans succeed in the new economy;
Strengthening Medicare for older Americans and expanding health care coverage;
Preserving the budgets we need to enforce environmental and health safeguards;
Rewarding work over welfare by defending expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit President
Clinton enacted in 1993;
Boosting innovation to make sure American businesses and workers can be competitive.
dpc talking points
Publication: TP-xx-Social Services
July 20, 1995
Medicare's 30th Anniversary
GOP Tells Seniors to
Pay More/Get Less
1
On the 30th Anniversary of Medicare, remember that Medicare
is a Democratic priority. Democrats always have taken the lead
in protecting seniors and strengthening Medicare. The historical
record is clear: If it had been up to Republicans, Medicare
never would have been enacted.
2
Republicans want to break the 30-year contract with seniors in
order to pay for tax breaks for the rich.
Republicans are keeping their secret plan to cut Medicare under
wraps, but from the details we have it is clear that the conse-
quences of the GOP plan are: Seniors pay more/get less.
dpc
Democratic Policy Committee
Tom Daschie, Chairman
United States Senate
Harry Reid, Co-Chairman
Washington, D.C. 20510-7050
1
On the 30th Anniversary of Medicare, remember Medicare is
a Democratic priority. Democrats always have taken the lead
in protecting seniors and strengthening Medicare. The his-
torical record is clear: if It had been up to Republicans,
Medicare never would have been enacted.
July 30 marks the thirtieth anniversary of the signing of Medicare into law by
President Lyndon B. Johnson. The bill was signed in Independence,
Missouri, home of former President Harry Truman, whose campaign for
national health care reform was the impetus for Medicare.
For 30 years Medicare has enabled Americans to receive quality health care
through their retirement years without risking their financial security- a
successful program of which Democrats can be proud.
The historical record is clear: Medicare is a Democratic priority.
President Truman offered several proposals to Congress.
President John Kennedy made health care for seniors an issue in his
1960 campaign and saw his plan defeated in Congress. Over and over
again, Democrats attempted to pass Medicare legislation. Over and
over again, Republicans voted overwhelmingly against it.
Only after Democrats called the 1964 election a "mandate" for Medicare,
and triumphed at the polls, did the Democratic vision of Medicare
become a reality.
Even then, the majority of Republicans voted against it. They called it
socialism and said we did not need it.
DPC Talking Points
p.2
Today, Medicare is once again under Republican attack. They are making the
same arguments they made in the 1960s, when they sought to defeat it.
Back then Republican Senator Gorton Allott called it a "foot in
the door" for socialized medicine.
House Majority Leader Richard Armey says he "deeply resents
the fact that when 1 am 65, 1 must enroll in Medicare." He calls
it part of government that teaches dependence, and says it is
a program "I would have no part of in a free world."
DPC Talking Points
p.3
2
Republicans want to break the 30-year contract with seniors
in order to pay for tax breaks for the rich.
Republicans threaten Medicare by proposing unprecedented cuts in order to
provide tax breaks for the rich.
Republicans want to cut $270 billion from Medicare so that the wealthiest
Americans can get thousands on tax breaks. Seniors will pay more-and
nothing will be done to protect Medicare for the future.
Republicans are using concerns about the solvency of the Medicare Trust
Fund as a smokescreen to get the money they need for tax breaks for the
wealthy. From the beginning, Republicans fought this program tooth and nail.
Democrats fought for seniors and for Medicare.
Democrats have always taken the lead in protecting seniors and Medicare.
During this year's budget debate, Democrats tried to put money
back in Medicare by eliminating the GOP tax breaks for the rich.
Republicans voted in lockstep to defeat this effort.
In 1993, Democrats took steps to strengthen the Medicare trust
fund-without a single Republican vote.
In 1995, Democrats will continue to protect Medicare and fight for its solvency.
DPC Talking Points
p.4
3
Republicans are keeping their secret plan to cut Medicare
under wraps, but from the details we have it is clear that the
consequences of the GOP plan are: Seniors pay more/get
less.
The Republicans have tried to keep their secret plan to cut $270 billion from
Medicare under wraps. But leaked documents show that their proposal relies
on a "voucher system." Without a doubt, the secret GOP plan will mean
seniors pay more/get less.
Seniors will have to pay more in premiums, co-payments and deductibles-
an extra $1000 per year or more.
Under the "secret" Republican plan:
seniors who wish to keep their family doctor instead of joining
an HMO will have to pay more;
seniors who are forced for financial reasons to choose an HMO
will have their current benefits threatened-they will get less;
and,
Republicans want to cap Medicare at a rate far below private
sector health care costs.
That's not choice; that's financial coercion!
While the wealthiest Americans are receiving tax breaks under the GOP plan,
seniors on fixed incomes will be paying an extra $1,000 or more a year by
2002 for their health care.
The GOP plan is unfair to seniors and Democrats will continue to fight to
ensure that seniors have access to quality and affordable health care.
DPC Talking Points
p. 5
Republicans say people should ask Democrats the following
questions. We're glad they asked!
Republican Question #1: If Republicans increase Medicare spending from
$4,800 today to $6,700 in 2002, where's the cut?
If seniors are going to pay more but get less, that's a cut. According to the
GOP secret plan:
the annual deductible would increase each year;
the average senior receiving home health care services would
pay $1,020 more;
the average senior recipient of skilled nursing home services
would pay about $1,000 more; and,
the average senior choosing to stay with their current plan (and
doctor) would pay at least $400 more in part B premiums.
If Republicans are not cutting Medicare, then why will their plan require senior
citizens on fixed incomes to pay more-by increasing premiums, co-pay-
ments and deductibles?
How can they argue that they are not making drastic cuts?
Our Question to Republicans:
How are you going to reach $270 billion in cuts?
DPC Talking Points
p.6
Republican Question #2: Do Democrats accept the warning of the Medicare
Trustees and three Clinton cabinet members that Medicare is going to be
bankrupt in seven years?
Yes, and that is why Democrats are asking Republicans to sit down and solve
this problem outside of the budget debate. In the past. when action was
needed to strengthen the trust fund, Democrats always took the lead. Most
recently, in 1993, Democrats extended the solvency of the trust fund-without
a single Republican vote.
Democrats are committed to finding a long-term solution to ensure that
Medicare will be there for future generations. Republicans are cutting
Medicare in order to pay for their tax cuts for the wealthy-that's not reforming
Medicare!
Our Question to Republicans:
If you accept the warning, are you willing to
abandon your plan to give the top one percent
of America's wealthiest a huge tax break and
put the money back into Medicare's future?
DPC Talking Points
p. 7
Republican Question #3: What is the Democratic Plan to save Medicare?
Democrats always have taken the lead in protecting seniors and strengthen-
ing the Medicare Trust Fund. The real question is what is the Republican
agenda for Medicare?
The GOP plan does not address the long-term solvency of the program.
Their unprecedented cuts in Medicare are used to fund the tax
cuts for the rich-not a single dollar is reinvested in Medicare
to help it remain solvent in the long-term.
Their plan does not address the problem Medicare will face in
2010 when the baby boomers begin to retire.
It's hard to believe that Republicans-who fought against enacting Medicare
and continue to try to privatize it-are concerned about Medicare when they
are cutting it to pay for tax breaks for the rich. We should be saving the trust
fund, not creating a slush fund.
Can Americans Trust Republicans
to Protect Medicare?
Before the election last year, Republicans promised they would not make
massive cuts in Medicare:
Majority Leader Bob Dole said, "President Clinton and Vice President
Gore are resorting to scare tactics. falsely accusing Republicans of
secret plans to cut. Medicare benefits... " Washington Post, 11/6/94
Haley Barbour, RNC Chair, said, "[T]he outrage, as far as I'm concerned
is the Democrats' big lie campaign that the Contract with America. would
require huge Medicare cuts. It would not." CNN's Late Edition, 11/
6/94.
DPC Talking Points
p.8
In 1995, they passed a budget which cuts Medicare by an unprecedented
$270 billion in order to pay for tax breaks for the rich.
In 1995, Republican House Majority Leader Armey says that Medicare is "a
program I would have no part of in a free world." Chicago Tribune, 7/11/95
Our Question to Republicans:
What are the details of the secret
GOP plan and why won't they share them
with the American people?
DPC Talking Points
p.9
Common Ground on Protecting Health Care for Seniors
Tuesday, July 25, 1995
Americans Have Long Shared A Belief That Health Care
For Older Americans Must Be Protected. In 1965,
Congress expressed that consensus by creating the
Medicare and Medicaid programs. Because of their
success, nearly all older Americans now enjoy health
care coverage and the freedom and security that come
with it.
Bipartisan Support for Medicare and Medicaid in
1965. Nearly half of all Republican members of
Congress voted to approve the Social Security Act
amendments establishing Medicare and Medicaid in
1965: 65 of 138 GOP Members of the House and 13 of
27 Senators. Said Rep. Paul Fino (R-NY), "This
bill--the Social Security Act of 1965--is more
than a milestone: it is a landmark in the field of
welfare and enlightened social security
legislation
The Social Security Act of 1965
will give our citizens over 65 some measure of the
economic security they deserve. " (4/7/65)
Common Ground Has Held For 30 Years. Through seven
Presidents - - 5 Republicans and 2 Democrats - and 30
different budgets, there has never been a budget that
proposes massive Medicare cuts -- extreme medicare cuts
-- simply to finance tax cuts for the well off.
Common Ground on Responsibility. While some have
sought drastic cuts in Medicare, the common ground has
now held for three decades. Older Americans should
contribute their fair share, however:
Benefits should be maintained and improved,
not cut;
Out-of-pocket costs should be tightly
controlled, not dramatically increased; and
Medicare as a whole should not be used to
finance tax cuts or other luxuries.
Medicare trust fund should be strengthened,
not gutted.
Older Americans should not be burdened with
harmful out-of-pocket increases.
President Clinton Has Held Firm On America's Common
Ground. President Clinton's health care proposals will
strengthen Medicare and maintain security for seniors.
His plan will:
Extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust
Fund at least through 2005;
Make no new cuts targeted at beneficiaries;
and
Expand benefits for seniors, including free
mammograms and respite care for families of
people with Alzheimer's disease.
Republicans Have Abandoned The Common Ground With
Unprecedented And Unnecessary Increases In
Out-of-Pocket Costs For Seniors. The Republican
proposal would:
Cut Medicare and Medicaid by four times more
than the largest prior cuts ever;
Increase premiums, copayments and deductibles
for seniors--with the rise in out-of-pocket
costs totalling $5,650 per couple over the
next seven years.
Not provide real choice, but instead force
seniors to pay more, get less, or both. Under
the GOP plan, in order to keep their own
doctor, seniors would have to pay $1,650 more
in premiums. The average home health care
recipient would have to pay $1,700 more for
needed care. Or, they could get a voucher
that is too small. Each year private health
care costs would increase 30 percent more
than the voucher's value. Seniors will have
to pay more to make up the difference--or be
forced into care they don't want.
The increases in out-of-pocket costs to seniors are
needed to pay for a tax cut for the well-off, not to
balance the budget or shore up the Medicare Trust Fund.
Republicans could drop all of their new costs for
beneficiaries and balance the budget if they would just
accept the President's tax cut for the middle class,
rather than their tax cuts for the well-off.
Talking Points:
FY 1996 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill
July 25, 1995
(updated)
The bill is nearly $2.9 billion below the President's request.
The bill would eliminate the Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) program, which would provide grants to localities
to hire new police and eventually put 100,000 new officers on the
street.
-- To date, COPS has authorized funding for over 20,000 new
officers.
-- Police chiefs and sheriffs around the nation have praised
the program as customer-oriented, non-bureaucratic, and
visionary.
The bill would cut funding for the Violent Crime Reduction
Trust Fund by $24 million below the Administration's request.
-- The bill does not set aside funds for important "smart"
crime fighting initiatives such as Drug Courts, the
President's Crime Prevention Council, violence against women
countermeasures, the Presidential Summit on Crime, and other
crime control programs.
The Administration strongly opposes the bill's proposal to end
funding for the Advanced Technology Program, a productive
industry-government partnership that provides an effective
mechanism to augment economic growth though highly-leveraged,
industry-led research and development.
The bill would cut funding for the Census Bureau and Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) by $94 million below the Administration's
request and $17 million below the 1995 enacted level.
-- BEA would have to reduce regional data on state and local
per capita income and gross state product estimates used for
allocating over $100 billion in federal funds.
The bill would cut funding for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) by $354 million, 10 percent
below the 1995 enacted level and 17 percent below the
Administration's request.
-- Fisheries management and enforcement would be cut by 27
percent below the Administration's request -- costing jobs
in the fishing industry and impeding NOAA's ability to
provide for Pacific salmon recovery.
-- NOAA research would be cut by 24 percent, including major
cuts in climate research and forecasting programs and the
elimination of the Global Learning and Observations to
Benefit the Environment program.
-- The cuts would slow modernization of the National Weather
Service and jeopardize satellite continuity and improvements
in weather forecasts.
The bill does not fund the new $175 million Maritime Security
Program, a Presidential initiative critical to national security
and economic security.
-- That could eliminate over two-thirds of the U.S. -flag dry
cargo international merchant fleet by the year 2000 and cost
over 5,000 seafaring jobs.
The bill would severely damage the Administration's ability to
pursue foreign policy objectives through key U.S. public
diplomacy programs.
-- From the Administration' request, it would cut funding
for USIA operations by 11 percent, international
broadcasting by over 14 percent, and Educational and
Cultural Exchange programs by 24 percent.
The bill would cut funding for the State Department's Capital
Investment Fund in half.
-- This would deprive the State Department of much-needed
funds to invest in modern information technology that will
enable the department, through increased efficiencies, to
meet the challenges posed by tight resource levels.
The bill would cut funding for the Equal Opportunity Employment
Commission (EEOC) by $35 million, or 13 percent, below the
Administration's request.
-- This would prevent EEOC from addressing a backlog of
100,000 unresolved complaints and jeopardize ongoing
management efforts to streamline case processing.
The bill would cut funding for the Legal Services Corporation
(LSC) by a third below the 1995 enacted level, causing a more
than one-third cut in civil legal services to the poor,
particularly those in rural areas and areas with programs that
get a large portion of their funding from the LSC.
Budget Notes
Wednesday, July 25, 1995
COMMON GROUND FOR AMERICA'S COMMUNITIES
While Americans May Differ on Affirmative Action, We Agree on the Need for Affirmative
Efforts to Empower Communities. As he said in his speech last week, President Clinton
supports both affirmative action and an affirmative economic agenda to create more opportunity
for those who take responsibility for work and families. Leading Republicans have also
recognized the need for a positive agenda:
Jack Kemp: "I think race is a legitimate factor to take into consideration It's putting the
cart before the horse to throw out all affirmative action without any idea of what is going to
replace it." [Washington Post, July 22, 1995]
Newt Gingrich: "I don't think the Republican Party should use affirmative action as a
wedge issue We should focus more of our energy on how we design a helping hand we
have an absolute obligation to reach out a helping hand on a one-by-one basis to people who
are trying to rise." [New York Times, July 26, 1995]
Today, President Clinton Challenges Speaker Gingrich To Join Him on Common Ground
for America's Communities. With the release of his urban report, he offers an open hand and a
blueprint for bipartisan cooperation-- to plot a third way beyond the old approach of big
government and the new rage of no government. The President's approach creates a new
common ground based on four principles:
Linking Families to Work.
Leveraging Private Investment.
Taking the Lead from Communities.
Demanding Personal Responsibility.
The President is Calling for a New Effort to Aid Distressed Communities. In order to
achieve the shared goal of economic empowerment for distressed areas, the President proposes to
give government contracts to businesses that locate in poor communities and create jobs for the
people who live in them.
The President Has Already Pursued A Range of Policies that Reflect These Values:
Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities: Communities have united to plan their
own renewal. The President's policies offer the tools to achieve it.
Increasing Access to Capital. A national network of community development financial
institutions will provide billions of dollars in thousands of home and business loans in
distressed areas. Reform of the Community Reinvestment Act will put performance over
paperwork in ensuring that banks fulfill their responsibility to reinvest in the communities
they serve.
A Working Family Tax Cut. The President increased the Earned Income Tax Credit that
provides a tax break averaging $1,400 to over 21 million working families.
Lifelong Learning. The President has invested in education to expand economic
opportunity for all Americans, expanding successes like Head Start and Title One while
developing new initiatives like Goals 2000, School-to-Work Opportunities, National
Service, and direct student loans.
By Contrast, Republicans Are Pursuing a Cruel Policy of Abandoning Our Cities.
Republican policies will punish families who are taking responsibility and reduce opportunity for
all urban residents.
Raising Taxes on Working Families. Republicans propose a $21 billion increase in taxes
on 14 million working poor families.
Reducing Access to Capital. The Republican budget would eliminate the Community
Development Financial Institutions initiative, and their legislative proposals would gut the
Community Reinvestment Act.
Disinvesting in Lifetime Learning. Republicans cut education investments by $36 billion,
and cut central and proven efforts, including Head Start (50,000 children cut next year) ,
Title One (1 million children cut), Goals 2000 (eliminated), national service (eliminated),
student loans (cut $10 billion), School-to-Work (repealed), and job training (cut 30%).
Penalizing Poor Children--But Weak on Work. Republicans propose over $100 billion in
welfare cuts. Rather than empower families to move from welfare to work, they would
slash the child care, health care, and school lunches that working families need.
Raising Rents on the Poorest Urban Residents and Increasing Homelessness. Republicans
would raise rents paid by 600,000 poor urban residents by an average of $500 per year--
using the savings to finance a tax cut largely for the well-off. They would cut assistance
to the homeless by 50 percent and provide no new assistance for incremental housing
vouchers for the first time in 30 years. At a time when low-income housing continues to
be in short supply, these cuts would increase the number of American families living on
the street.
Budget Notes
Monday, July 24, 1995
A BALANCED BUDGET BUILT ON SHARED VALUES
A Tradition of Common Ground. For decades, Americans have shared certain common values. We
believe in helping people make the most of their lives and in moving the country forward. To make
that possible, we shared commitments to:
Investing wisely in education and training;
Protecting the environment and public health;
Keeping our families strong and making work pay;
Helping America's seniors live in health, not sickness;
These shared commitments go beyond partisan politics. They are America's common ground.
Common Ground on Balancing the Budget. Now, congressional Republicans and President Clinton
share a commitment to balancing the budget. This budget cutting builds on the President's success in
bringing down the deficit by over $1 trillion dollars over the next seven years. We have differences
about timing -- the President thinks the budget should be brought to balance in 10 years, while the
GOP would do it in seven -- but the important fact is that, for the first time in a generation, the
President and Congress are together committed to putting our fiscal house in order.
The President's Budget Plan Builds on Common Ground. The President has a plan to balance the
budget that builds on commitments that we have all shared in the past. His budget protects working
families by:
Increasing investments in education and lifelong learning by $41 billion over the next seven
years to help Americans succeed in the new economy;
Strengthening Medicare for America's seniors and expanding health care coverage;
Preserving our ability to safeguard the environment and public health;
Protecting working families who work hard and raise their children well;
Boosting innovation to make sure American businesses and workers can be even more
competitive in the global marketplace.
Republicans Have Abandoned that Common Ground. They are pushing an extreme agenda that
cuts education, health care for seniors and undermines our shared commitments. For example, they
have proposed:
Cutting education by $36 billion eliminating AmeriCorps and Goals 2000; cutting 50,000
children from Head Start in 1996 and 23 million students from Safe and Drug-Free Schools
in 1996.
Requiring seniors to pay as much as $5600 more per couple in higher out-of-pocket costs by
2002 and leave millions of children without insurance.
Raising taxes on up to 14 million poor families by hundreds of dollars each, while targeting a
huge tax cut largely at the well-off.
Budget Working Group
Routing Slip
DATE: 7/21/95
SUBJECT: Republicans on Community Development Block Grants
Name
Room
Name
Room
John Angell
178
Joseph Minarik
244
Michael Barr
TREAS
Nancy-Ann Min
262
Jeremy Ben-Ami
218
Julia Moffett
169
Erskine Bowles
1/WW
Tom O'Donnell
2/WW
Emily Bromberg
106
Jack Quinn
272
Susan Brophy
2/WW
Bruce Reed
216
Don Baer
196
Alice Rivlin
252
Alan Cohen
TREAS
Jake Siewert
169
Barbara Chow
107/EW
Stephen Silverman
160
Bill Curry
469
Greg Simon
288
Paul Dimond
225
Doug Sosnik
G/WW
David Dreyer
TREAS
Gene Sperling
2/WW
Rahm Emanuel
1/WW
George Stephanopoulos 1/WW
Martha Foley
178
Todd Stern
G/WW
Jason Goldberg
160
Leslie Thornton
EDUC
Robert Gordon
223
Barry Toiv
178
Mary Ellen Glynn
G/WW
Laura Tyson
2/WW
Larry Haas
253
Loretta Ucelli
EPA
Karen Hancox
G/WW
Michael Waldman
214
Kitty Higgins
160
Anne Walley
184
Harold Ickes
1/WW
Marilyn Yager
116
Chris Jennings
212
FAX to Treasury: 622-0073
Jennifer Klein
2/WW
FAX to Education: 401-2098
FAX to EPA: 260-0279
David Lane
231
Jack Lew
243
Mark Mazur
318
Gaynor McCown
217
Lorrie McHugh
G/WW
REPUBLICANS ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS
DAN BURTON:
"Rep. Dan Burton, who announced the award Thursday, said he will not
support any major reductions in the federal community development block
grant program in the 1991 federal budget. 'I am a strong supporter of the
CDBG program. This is a program that gives maximum flexibility to local
officials to use the grants where they are needed most,' said Burton in a
prepared statement." (States News Service. 2/1/90]
PHIL GRAMM:
"During votes yesterday, the Senate defeated 63-35 an amendment from Sen.
Phil Gramm that had the potential to kill the housing bill. It would have
changed the formula under which Community Development Block Grants
are distributed to states. Under current law, the $3 billion for programs
ranging from new senior centers to town road upgrades is distributed to the
states based on need. Need is determined by such factors as poverty levels
and the age of housing in a given community. Under the Gramm
amendment, distribution would have been based on population.
"What I am trying to do here is come up with a formula that makes sense,'
said Mr. Gramm, Texas Republican, who said since high-population states
pay most of the federal government's bills, they should receive most of the
benefits." [Washington Times. 6/28/90]
JIM JEFFORDS:
"Some of the affected programs include: community development block
grants (an 11 percent reduction in spending); weatherization (eliminated
completely); low income energy assistance (37 percent reduction);
employment services (eliminated).
"I don't agree with many of his choices," said Sen. James Jeffords, R- Vt.,
adding that Bush's proposals will get a "necessary debate" from Congress.
[Gannett News Service. 2/4/91]
BILL ALTHAUS: "This is taking money away from the level of government closest to the
people and moving it back to another level of bureaucracy," said Mayor
William Althaus, of York, Penn, a Republican who said Bush "has not been
adequately advised" on this matter.
"Althaus, who called the Bush plan "anti-federalism," said U.S. mayors have
been spending block grant funds efficiently for 18 years and can continue to
do so. But he also said the mayors would oppose the turnover concept even
if the block grants were not included." [States News Service, 2/8/91]
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved an additional $1.45B to the House's
$882M aid and loan package, for youth summer job-training and increased Head Start
and education funding. The funds were proposed by Sens. Kennedy (D-MA) and Hatch
(R-UT). [Wall Street Journal, 5/20/92]
Increased funding levels would be used to expand the program to allow more children to
benefit from the services that Head Start offers. In addition to serving more children,
efforts have been made to address quality concerns. Increased funding would go to
improve salaries, staff training, hiring additional staff, transportation, and facilities
improvement. [Sen Hatch, Congressional Record, Senate, 9/18/90]
This head start expansion will increase the range of choices available to low-income
families in meeting the needs of their children. The additional 4-year-olds who have an
opportunity to participate in the program will benefit from a jump start in life, which will
have significant rewards in terms of their later success in school. [Sen Dole,
Congressional Record, Senate, 3/15/89]
I share your enthusiasm for Head Start - I visited many Head Start schools - centers in
Kansas, and I - I am pleased that we have increased funding significantly over the years.
[Sen. Kassebaum, confirmation hearing of HHS Secretary Nominee, 1/15/93]
I rise today to introduce legislation setting forth... additional funding for the successful
Head Start and Follow-Through programs... The Head Start Program, with its proven
effectiveness, should be expanded.. [Sen. Kassebaum, Congressional Record, Senate,
5/21/92]
...the enduring success of Head Start over 25 years is the strongest possible lesson in how
to provide a comprehensive coordinated program for children and families. Little did
people realize 25 years ago that this particular program would have the success it has
had... [there is] mounting evidence that early intervention programs such as Head Start
save money in the long run [and help] to change public sentiment and produce a societal
commitment to more collaborative efforts. [Sen. Kassebaum, Congressional Record,
Senate, 9/18/90]
...the great value of the Head Start Program is well known. [Sen Kassebaum,
Congressional Record, Senate, 6/14/90]
I believe the needs of the lowest income can be better and more economically addressed
through Head Start expansion and welfare reform. [Sen. Kassebaum, Congressional
Record, Senate, 3/3/89]
Budget Notes
Friday, July 21, 1995
I.
GOP IN WASHINGTON SWIPES AT EDUCATION AND TRAINING -- FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IN THE
STATES Lose Out: The Administration today will release figures detailing the impact of extreme House
Republican budget cuts on education and training programs on a state-by-state basis. The President
yesterday vowed to veto the Labor/HHS Appropriations bill if passed in its present form.
Secretaries Riley and Reich will participate in conference calls with regional reporters. Several
Governors will also issue press statements on their states' education numbers. Members of Congress will
also use the numbers in appearances and statements in their districts over the weekend and on the floor on
Monday, July 24, 1995.
II. LINE ITEM VETO -- REPUBLICAN ENTHUSIASM FOR A CONTRACT PLEDGE SEEMS TO HAVE
DISAPPEARED: A recent Washington Times article quoted Speaker Gingrich as saying that "we won't get
to [it] this year." David Rosenbaum, reporting in yesterday's New York Times, told us why. They don't
want to give the line-item veto to a Democratic President. Senator John McCain, the Senate's leading
proponent: "There are some who do not want to see this authority in the hands of this President, at least
not until we have finished the appropriations bills." Rep. Gerald Solomon, a leading House proponent:
"I'm not [less enthusiastic]. I want it as a matter of principle. But there are some who are." And, in a
similar AP article yesterday, House Appropriations chairman Bob Livingstone: "We may not want to give
it to this President right at the outset, but let's give it to him eventually."
III. APPROPRIATIONS UPDATE:
Rescissions: Senators have reached an apparent agreement to permit a final vote on the Rescissions Bill.
The vote could take place today.
Thursday, July 20, 1995
The House considered but did not complete the Agriculture appropriations bill.
The House Appropriations Committee worked on the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill but did not
complete it. Among the amendments approved was the termination of Title XX family planning
assistance. Amendments to improve the bill were defeated.
The Senate considered the Legislative Branch appropriations bill.
Friday, July 21, 1995
The House is expected to complete consideration of the USDA Approp. bill and take up the DOT bill.
The House Appropriations Committee is expected to complete the Labor-HHS-Education bill and take up
the Defense appropriations bill.
The Senate is expected to take up the Military Construction appropriations bill and, if necessary. complete
the Legislative Branch bill.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 20, 1995
MEMORANDUM FOR RAHM EMANUEL
BRUCE REED
GENE SPERLING
FROM:
Paul Weinstein
SUBJECT;
Quotes from Republicans on Line-Item Veto
Attached please find a list of recent quotes from key Republicans on the line-item
veto. The quotes from Gingrich and Dole clearly indicate that they strongly favored giving
President Clinton line-item veto authority.
CONGRESSIONAL OPINIONS ON THE PRESIDENTIAL LINE ITEM VETO
GINGRICH
Newt Gingrich supports the line item veto for President Clinton. In response to the question,
"wouldn't [the line-item veto] lower our budget and help the deficit?", Gingrich responded:
"The answer is, yes, it would. And I support it. And I'm hoping we're going to be in
conference this summer. And the line-item vetoes aim specifically at appropriations
bills. And he's already indicated that's how he'd use it. And I hope we're going to be
able to get it passed and to him this summer so he can actually use it. I strongly favor
it. I think 43 of the governors have it. I think you had it when you were governor of
Arkansas.
And I think -- now, it's not going to be by itself a раласеа, but it's going to cut a couple of
billion dollars a year of pork out, maybe as much as $10 billion if we - under certain
circumstances.
And I supported it when we had Ronald Reagan and George Bush. And just as the other night,
frankly, we tried to repeal the War Powers Act to give the President back the right -- the
legitimate power of the Commander in Chief, I think that any President ought to have the
line-item veto. And 1 support President Clinton getting it." (President Clinton/Speaker
Gingrich joint appearance, 6/11/95]
In February, Gingrich wanted the line-item veto "quickly." "[The] line item veto I hope will get
to the President fairly quickly. The President I hope will cut some pork out and that will be an
indirect benefit." [Federal News Service, 2/22/95]
ARMEY
Dick Armey says he wants the line item veto for "every President." Earlier this year, House
Republican Leader Dick Armey said, "We have wanted the line-item veto for years and we've
wanted it for every President." [The Hotline, 2/3/95]
GRAMM
Gramm said Clinton's interest in the line-item veto is new. Last November, Gramm said that he
supports giving the President the line-item veto but said that he doubts Clinton's sincerity in seeking
such authority. "Forgive me for being a little cynical, but when we were trying to do it in the last
two years, we never heard a peep out of the President." [LA Times, 11/22/94]
KASICH
Kasich criticized Clinton for not supporting Kasich's line-item vet bill in 1994. In 1994, In 1994,
Rep. John Kasich criticized President Clinton for not supporting his line-item veto bill. Kasich:
"The President went eyeball to eyeball with change, and he blinked." [Phoenix Republic, 2/15/94]
MCCAIN
McCain says there can be no answer to the deficit without the line-item veto
In 1993, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said that the line item veto "is not the whole answer" to the
deficit problem but added, "There can be no answer without the line item veto." [UPI, 3/10/93]
BOB DOLE ON THE LINE ITEM VETO
APRIL 30, 1993:
Q: Are you in favor of giving a line item veto to the president?
"Yes. I was when we had a Republican president, and I'm still in favor of the line item veto,
but the thing that passed in the House is sort of symbolic, it doesn't really mean anything. I
want a real line item velo, and it can apply to tax expenditures as well." [Reuter Transcript
Report, 4/30/93 (emphasis added)]
FEBRUARY 17, 1993:
"Line item veto, in my view, ought to have strong bipartisan support. It does have strong, fairly
strong bipartisan support now. President Clinton really wants to do this. He can get it done
"I remember Senator Byrd saying you Republicans will rue the day you ever thought about a line
item veto if we have a Democrat in the White House. Well, I don't think that's the case. If the
president, whether he or she be a Democrat or Republican, could put a little more leverage on
Congress, if Bob Dole put something into a bill that you can't justify, he can take it out, and
I'll have to go back to Congress to justify it. That's not a big hurdle.
"So my view is we ought to have the line item velo. We ought to have the balanced budget
amendment. These are basic ways to deal with the deficit, and we need the discipline. "[Reuter
Transcript Report, 2/17/93 (emphasis added)]
MARCH 12, 1993:
"Dole, who also voted in favor of the failed amendment [to the Motor Voter bill that would have
allowed a line item veto], said he would be willing to trust President Clinton to act in a
non-partisan way when he used a line-item veto. 'You're not going to balance the budget,' Dole
said. 'But you're going to save $ 3 billion or $ 4 billion a year [Daily Report For
Executives, 3/12/93 (emphasis added)]
JANUARY 16, 1995:
ROSS PEROT: All right, sir. And then two that are very near and dear to the hearts of the
American people are the line item veto and the balanced budget amendment.
Sen. Dole: "Line item veto - President Clinton supports it. We hope to do that very soon in the
Senate. It takes us a little longer in the Senate because we have different rules. It simply says
that if Bob Dole sticks something in a bill that shouldn't be there, the president of the United
States, whether he or she be a Republican or a Democrat, can just take that out and sign the rest
of the bill. Makes a lot of sense. It gives the president a little more leverage. Some people,
so-called appropriators, in Congress don't like it, but the American people like it. That's going
to be a priority in the Senate and in the House and it has bipartisan support." [Larry King Live,
1/16/95 (emphasis added)]
TO DPC
INVESTING IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING
VS. CUTTING EDUCATION AND TRAINING:
Staff
PRESIDENT'S FY 1996 REQUEST VS.
REPUBLICAN FY 1996 EXPECTED ACTION
7/12/95
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S 10-YEAR BUDGET
REPUBLICAN CUTS
Goals 2000: Help States
Increase to $750 million in FY 1996,
Eliminate all funding for education
and schools raise
supporting improvements for over 8 million
reform.
academic standards and
children in 16,000 schools. By FY 2002,
student achievement
funding would increase to $896 million,
supporting improvements for over 44 million
children in 85,000. schools.
Education for
Increased by $573 million over the last 2
Reduce funding by $1.1 billion in FY
disadvantaged students:
years; increase by $302 million in 1996,
1996, cutting 1.1 million children from
Help low-income
serving as many as 300,000 more children in
the program in FY 1996 alone. A
students achieve high
1996 alone, and providing increases in the
freeze at this level would, by 2002,
standards
future.
cut an additional 600,000 children
from the program.
Safe and Drug-Free
Fund at $500 million per year, providing safer,
Reduce funding to $200 million, a 60%
Schools and
more drug-free learning environments for 39
cut from the President's request. This
Communities
million children in 14,000 school districts.
would deprive over 23 million students
of services next year.
Head Start:
Increase FY 1996 funding by $400 million and
Cuts funding by $135 million from FY
Comprehensive services
add 32,000 new Head Start slots for children
1995 level. 45,000-50,000 children
for pre-school youth &
in 1996, and a total of 50,000 new slots by
would be cut off current Head Start in
toddlers to increase
2002.
1996 to maintain program quality.
school readiness
Freezing funding at the reduced level
would cut off up to 230,000 children
below the President's proposed level
for 2002.
Child Care &
Increase funding by $100 million in FY 1996.
Provides no added funding in FY 1996.
Development
States could use these funds to serve 70,000-
70,000-80,000 fewer children in
Block Grant: Child care
80,000 more children of working poor
working-poor families could be served
assistance for working
families.
than under the President's proposal.
poor families
Summer Jobs for
Funding for about 615,000 jobs for
Program eliminated beginning in 1996,
disadvantaged young
disadvantaged young people in the summer of
wiping out job opportunities for some
people
1996.
4.3 million disadvantaged youth over
the next 7 years.
Job Training for
Put Skill Grants directly into the hands of
Cuts funding by 50% below the
dislocated workers, low-
disadvantaged and dislocated workers, with
President's request, and 25% below
income adults
800,000 Skill Grant recipients in 1996.
1995.
Increase 1995 funding by 40% to $3.1.B
AmeriCorps: College
Expand by $242 M to provide nearly 50,000
Eliminated. Over 4.3 million service
Aid for National Service
opportunities for community service and
opportunities for youth in their
college aid, and 580,000 youth (K-12) other
communities abolished over 7 years.
service opportunities.
ALL EDUCATION AND
INCREASE EDUCATION, TRAINING AND AID
THE BUDGET RESOLUTION CUTS
TRAINING
TO STUDENTS BY $40 BILLION IN
OUTLAYS FOR EDUCATION AND
DISCRETIONARY OUTLAYS OVER 7 YEARS
TRAINING BY $36 BILLION INCLUDING
(Budget Function 500)
$10 BILLION IN LOAN BENEFITS TO
STUDENTS
Budget Notes
Thursday, July 20, 1995
I. THE REPUBLICAN MEDICARE CHOICE: You can choose to pay more or you can choose to get less.
HCFA Administrator Bruce Vladeck testifies today before the House Ways and Means Committee strongly
criticizing Republican Medicare voucher proposals. He will testify that:
The Republican Medicare cuts will constrain spending at levels substantially below the private sector.
Medicare beneficiaries will pay more to stay in a plan that allows them to choose their own doctor.
He will also contrast the Republican approach with the Presidents' "right way," which balances the budget and
strengthens the Medicare Trust Fund while still protecting beneficiaries from any new cost increases.
Laura Tyson and Secretary Shalala will make press calls to the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New
York Times, L.A. Times, USA Today, and the AP to follow up on the testimony.
Democratic Senators will hold a press conference criticizing the GOP proposal for Medicare vouchers and for
using Medicare cuts to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.
II. GOP SWIPES AT EDUCATION AND TRAINING: The House Approp. Com. is expected to consider the 1996
approp. bill for Labor, HHS, and Education. OMB yesterday informed the Committee that the President will
veto the legislation if sent to him in current form. Key elements of the subcommittee proposal:
GOALS 2000: Eliminate all funding for education reform.
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities: Deprive over 23 million students of services next year.
Head Start: Cut off 45,000 to 50,000 children in 1996 alone.
Summer Jobs for young people: Eliminated. Job opportunities for 4.3 million youth cut over the next 7 years.
Job Training: Cut funding by 50 percent below the President's request
Title I: Deny help reaching higher academic standards to over 1 million disadvantaged students.
III. APPROPRIATIONS UPDATE:
Wednesday, July 19, 1995
The House Appropriations Committee approved the FY 1996 appropriations bill for the Commerce. Justice, and
State. The bill would make it impossible to fulfill the commitment made by the President and the Congress to put
100,000 new law enforcement officers on the nation's streets.
The House approved the 1996 Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. An amendment by Rep. Hoyer to remove the
bill's restrictions on abortion services in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan was defeated by 188-235.
Thursday, July 21, 1995
The House floor is expected to complete consideration of USDA and DOT FY 1996 appropriations.
The House Approp. Com. is expected to consider the FY 1996 Defense appropriations bill.
Talking Points:
FY 1996 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill
July 19, 1995
The bill cuts 1996 funding for the Interior Department by
almost $850 million, 13 percent below the Administration's
request.
The bill would cut funding for the National Biological Service
to $113 million, 35 percent below the Administration's request,
and eliminate the Bureau of Mines, hampering the ability of land
management agencies to make resource decisions on an objective
scientific basis.
The bill would cut funding for natural resource protection and
land management operations in the National Park Service, Bureau
of Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service by $174
million, or 7 percent, below the Administration's request.
The bill would prevent responsible administration of the
Endangered Species Act by cutting funding for Endangered Species
Act prelisting and recovery activities which help keep species
off the endangered or threatened species list so local
communities are not negatively affected by the Act.
The bill would eliminate the Education Department's Office of
Indian Education and cut by 12 percent the Administration's
funding request for critical education, law enforcement, health
and safety and other services on Indian reservations.
The bill rejects the Administration's $106 million increase in
funding for Indian Health Services (IHS) to support staffing at
new health facilities and allow expansions in women's and elderly
health, child abuse, and urban Indian health care.
-- Instead, the bill would require the IHS and tribal health
care programs to absorb $90 million in expected increases
for current program activities.
The Administration strongly opposes the bill's 40 percent
overall cut in Energy Conservation programs.
-- The 50 percent cut in the State Grants program would mean
that 50,000 to 60,000 low-income homes would not be
weatherized and numerous state energy initiatives would not
be funded through Energy Department block grants.
-- Cuts averaging 37 percent in Energy Conservation research
and development would make meeting climate change and
greenhouse gas reduction goals more difficult and impair the
ability of the building and industrial sectors to become
more energy efficient.
The bill would eliminate the longstanding moratoria on oil and
gas leasing and drilling on certain lands of the Outer
Continental Shelf, endangering the environment and the economies
of California, Florida, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, and other
coastal states.
The bill would eliminate funding for the Stewardship Incentives
Program and would cause a subsequent $27 million loss of
leveraged funding from private landowners and states.
-- This loss of funding would curtail the implementation of
stewardship practices, such as reforestation and timber
stand improvements, on thousands of acres of non-industrial
private forestlands.
The Administration opposes the bill's proposed lifting of the
moratorium on patenting mining claims on federal lands, which
would lead to the privatization of valuable federally-owned
mineral deposits with only minimal returns for taxpayers.
The bill would make drastic cuts in funding for the arts and
humanities and museum services, undercutting the Administration's
commitment to preserving American artistic and cultural heritage
and expression.
-- The bill would cut funding for the National Endowment for
the Arts by $73 million below the Administration's request,
to a level 40 percent below 1995.
-- The bill would cut funding for the National Endowment for
the Humanities by $83 million below the Administration's
request, to a level 42 percent below 1995.
The Administration objects to bill language that would prohibit
the funding of AmeriCorps national service projects.
-- AmeriCorps members have already begun to make
contributions to improving the environment.
For instance, at the Everglades-South Florida
project, 110 AmeriCorps members have worked on 55
individual projects at four National Parks and six Fish
and Wildlife units;
-- 30 of 40 planned water monitoring stations have been
installed, calibrated, and placed in operation, saving
$250,000 annually.
Budget Notes
Thursday, July 20, 1995
I. THE REPUBLICAN MEDICARE CHOICE: You can choose to pay more or you can choose to get less.
HCFA Administrator Bruce Vladeck testifies today before the House Ways and Means Committee strongly
criticizing Republican Medicare voucher proposals. He will testify that:
The Republican Medicare cuts will constrain spending at levels substantially below the private sector.
Medicare beneficiaries will pay more to stay in a plan that allows them to choose their own doctor.
He will also contrast the Republican approach with the Presidents' "right way," which balances the budget and
strengthens the Medicare Trust Fund while still protecting beneficiaries from any new cost increases.
Laura Tyson and Secretary Shalala will make press calls to the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New
York Times, L.A. Times, USA Today, and the AP to follow up on the testimony.
Democratic Senators will hold a press conference criticizing the GOP proposal for Medicare vouchers and for
using Medicare cuts to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.
II. GOP SWIPES AT EDUCATION AND TRAINING: The House Approp. Com. is expected to consider the 1996
approp. bill for Labor, HHS, and Education. OMB yesterday informed the Committee that the President will
veto the legislation if sent to him in current form. Key elements of the subcommittee proposal:
GOALS 2000: Eliminate all funding for education reform.
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities: Deprive over 23 million students of services next year.
Head Start: Cut off 45,000 to 50,000 children in 1996 alone.
Summer Jobs for young people: Eliminated. Job opportunities for 4.3 million youth cut over the next 7 years.
Job Training: Cut funding by 50 percent below the President's request
Title I: Deny help reaching higher academic standards to over 1 million disadvantaged students.
III. APPROPRIATIONS UPDATE:
Wednesday, July 19, 1995
The House Appropriations Committee approved the FY 1996 appropriations bill for the Commerce, Justice, and
State. The bill would make it impossible to fulfill the commitment made by the President and the Congress to put
100,000 new law enforcement officers on the nation's streets.
The House approved the 1996 Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. An amendment by Rep. Hoyer to remove the
bill's restrictions on abortion services in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan was defeated by 188-235.
Thursday, July 21, 1995
The House floor is expected to complete consideration of USDA and DOT FY 1996 appropriations.
The House Approp. Com. is expected to consider the FY 1996 Defense appropriations bill.
INVESTING IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING
VS. CUTTING EDUCATION AND TRAINING:
PRESIDENT'S 1996 REQUEST VS.
REPUBLICAN 1996 EXPECTED ACTION
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S 10-YEAR BUDGET VS
REPUBLICAN CUTS
GOAL 2000
CLINTON BALANCED BUDGET PLAN:
states and schools raise
academic standards
and student achievement
Increase to $750 million in 1996, supporting improvements for over 8
million children in
16,000 schools. By 2002, funding would increase to $896 million,
supporting improvements for over 44 million children in
85,000 schools.
GOP CUTS
Eliminate all funding for education reform.
EDUCATION FOR DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS
CLINTON BALANCED BUDGET PLAN:
Education for disadvantaged students: Help low-
income students achieve high standards
Increased by $573 million over the last 2 years; increase by $302
million in 1996, serving up to 300,000 more children that
year alone, and providing increases in the future.
GOP CUTS:
Reduce funding by $1.1 billion in 1996, cutting 1.1 million children
from the program that year. A freeze at this level would, by 2002, cut
another 600,000 children from the program.
SAFE AND DRUG FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES
CLINTON BALANCED BUDGET PLAN:
Fund at $500 million per year, providing
safer, more drug-free learning environments
for 39 million children in over 14,000 school
districts.
GOP CUTS:
Reduce funding to $200 million, a 60
percent cut from the President's
request, depriving over 23 million
students of services next year.
HEAD START:
CLINTON BALANCED BUDGET PLAN:
Increase 1996 funding by $400 million and
add 32,000 new Head Start slots for children
in 1996 - - and 50,000 new slots by 2002.
GOP CUTS:
Cuts funding by $135 million from
1995 level, cutting 45,000-50,000
children off Head Start in 1996 to
maintain program quality. Freezing
funding at the reduced level would
cut off up to 230,000 children below
the President's proposed level for
2002.
Summer Jobs for
disadvantaged young
people
CLINTON BALANCED BUDGET PLAN:
Funding for about 615,000 jobs for
disadvantaged young people in the summer
of 1996.
GOP CUTS:
Program eliminated beginning in
1996, wiping out job opportunities for
some 4.3 million disadvantaged youth
over the next 7 years.
Job Training for
dislocated workers,
low-income adults:
CLINTON BALANCED BUDGET PLAN:
Put Skill Grants directly into hands of
disadvantaged and dislocated workers, with
800,000 recipients in 1996. Increase 1995
funding by 40 percent, to $3.1 billion.
GOP CUTS:
Cuts funding by 50 percent below the
President's request, and 25 percent
below 1995.
AmeriCorps: College
Aid for National Service
(in VA/HUD appropriations bill)
CLINTON BALANCED BUDGET PLAN:
Expand by $242 million to provide nearly
50,000 opportunities for community service
and college aid, and 580,000 youth (K-12)
other service opportunities.
GOP CUTS:
Eliminated. Over 4.3 million service
opportunities for youth in their
communities abolished over 7 years.
ALL EDUCATION AND
TRAINING
(Budget Function 500)
CLINTON BALANCED BUDGET PLAN:
INCREASE EDUCATION, TRAINING AND AID
TO STUDENTS BY $40 BILLION IN
DISCRETIONARY OUTLAYS OVER 7 YEARS
GOP CUTS:
THE BUDGET RESOLUTION CUTS
OUTLAYS FOR EDUCATION AND
TRAINING BY $36 BILLION
INCLUDING $10 BILLION IN LOAN
BENEFITS TO STUDENTS
Budget Notes
Tuesday, July 18, 1995
GOP PROPOSAL OFFERS FALSE CHOICES FOR OLDER AMERICANS: In yesterday's New
York Times, Robert Pear outlined the highlights of a GOP Medicare working document revealing
how the GOP plans to cut $270 billion in Medicare. While the previously secret plan will claim
more choices through vouchers and Medical Savings Accounts, the article makes clear that the GOP
plan calls for, "numerous options that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries who stay in
the standard program" with higher premiums, deductibles and co-payments. (approx. 90% of all
current beneficiaries are in standard fee for service plans).
This follows comments by House Majority Leader Dick Armey that Medicare is "a program I
would have no part of in a free world." He added that he "deeply resents the fact that when I'm 65
I must enroll in Medicare." [Chicago Tribune, July 11, 1995]
Today, Principal HHS Dep. Asst. Sec. Judy Feder, testifying before the House Commerce
Committee, will sharply criticize Medicare vouchers. The theme of her testimony will be that the
Republicans are not offering real choice. Instead, they propose financial coercion by -- as the New
York Times reported -- making the current program far more expensive for current recipients.
The Republican Medicare Choice:
You can choose to pay more -- OR --
You can choose to get less.
Feder will also provide preliminary projections of how much more beneficiaries will have to pay
under the GOP plan in order to ensure that they can keep their doctor or stay in their plan.
Complete talking points will be distributed [Jennings/Klein].
APPROPRIATIONS UPDATE
Monday, July 17, 1995
The House considered the FY 1996 Interior appropriations bill (but did not finish).
Tuesday, July 18, 1995
The House is expected to consider the FY 1996 Treasury-Postal appropriations bill.
This legislation would eliminate funding for the Council of Economic Advisors, and it
contains provisions designed to restrict Federal employees and their dependents from
choosing a health plan that incudes coverage for abortion service.
(The House is expected to complete consideration of the FY 1996 Interior approp. bill.)
The House Approp. Com. is expected to take up the FY 1996 VA-HUD appropriations
bill. As approved by the VA-HUD Subcommittee, the bill would eliminate funding for
AmeriCorps; cut funding for HUD programs for the homeless in half; and sharply
reduce EPA funding, cutting enforcement programs by 1/2 and staffing by 1/3.
The Senate Approp. Com. is expected to approve its 602-(b) allocations for FY1996.
A BALANCED BUDGET FOR WORKING FAMILIES:
FOUR FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
THE PRESIDENT HAS PRESENTED A FRAMEWORK THAT CAN UNITE AMERICANS.
While some oppose balancing the budget and Republicans are pursuing an extreme agenda, the
President has a balanced budget for working families that will raise standards of living and
empower people to be the winners, not the victims, of economic change. Both his plan and the
GOP plan have serious spending cuts and reach balance, but there are fundamental differences: the
President's plan invests more, not less, in education and training; his protects Medicare
beneficiaries while taking steps toward health care reform; and his targets tax cuts only to working
families, not to the most well-off. Now, it is time for an open, civil debate. The President will not
allow Republicans to use the threat of a trainwreck--shutting down the government--to force
extreme cuts in Medicare and education to pay for tax cuts for the well-off.
1. INVESTING IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING VERSUS GUTTING EDUCATION AND
TRAINING. For Americans to win in the new economy, we must cut the budget deficit and the
education deficit. The President would increase investment in education by $40 billion over 7
years--from Head Start to college opportunity. Republicans cut education by $36 billion.
The President will have no choice but to veto appropriations bills now moving through
the House which cut education to finance tax cuts for the wealthy. Cuts include:
-- Eliminating AmeriCorps--50,000 opportunities for national service in 1996.
Eliminating Goals 2000-supporting higher standards in 16,000 schools in
1996.
Cutting 50,000 children from Head Start in 1996.
--Cutting 23 million students from Safe and Drug-Free Schools in 1996.
2. PROTECTING MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES IN THE CONTEXT OF HEALTH CARE
REFORM VERSUS $5600 IN BENEFICIARY CUTS PER COUPLE TO FINANCE TAX
CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY: While both the President's and the Republican plan takes steps to
secure the Medicare Trust Fund until 2005, there are deep differences between the two.
The Republicans cut over twice as much from Medicare.
Their Medicare proposal will require seniors to pay as much as $5600 more per couple
in higher out-of-pocket costs by 2002. The President has zero beneficiary cuts.
Their massive Medicaid cuts will leave millions of children without insurance. The
President has a per capita cap that achieves limited savings the right way.
While Republicans have no health care reform, the President is taking key steps toward
reform: expanding benefits for mammograms and Alzheimer's respite care; reforming
insurance markets to protect individuals changing jobs and stop discrimination for pre-
existing conditions; and offering 6 months of coverage for those who lose their jobs.
Republicans would not need one penny in Medicare beneficiary cuts if they accepted the
President's targeted middle-class tax cut, rather than their tax cuts for the well-off.
3. ENSURING TAX FAIRNESS FOR WORKING FAMILIES, VERSUS HUGE TAX CUTS
FOR THE WEALTHY AND TAX HIKES FOR THE WORKING POOR: The President
supports a targeted tax cut to help working families invest in themselves and their education,
including a tax deduction for education expenses. Republicans are proposing a huge tax cut largely
targeted at the well-off--possibly including a tax loophole to allow some profitable corporations to
pay zero taxes. And, they want to raise taxes on up to 14 million poor families by hundreds of
dollars each--rolling back the President's Earned Income Tax Cut expansion.
4. BUDGET THAT PROTECTS WORKING FAMILIES: The President believes we must
balance the budget in a way that protects the economy--by reaching balance gradually over 10
years, not arbitrarily in 7 years. A top national forecaster (WEFA) found that their plan would
slow growth and raise interest rates by a third to over 8.5%, while still not getting to balance until
2004. We can't take risks with working families. The President has a prudent 10 year path.