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
323152188
label
AARP Video Tape 9/14/92 [OA 5812]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323152188
contentType
document
title
AARP Video Tape 9/14/92 [OA 5812]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13641-008
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Draft Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323152188
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
2021359ac1a87583
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Draft Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13641
Folder ID Number:
13641-008
Folder Title:
AARP Video Tape 9/14/92 [OA 5812]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
18
4
7
AARP VIDEO
TO BE TAPED SEPTEMBER 16, 1992
10:30 A.M.
strait
4040
QUESTION ONE: DO YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE
COMPREHENSIVE REFORM TO PROVIDE HEALTH SERVICES TO ALL
AMERICANS, HOLD DOWN THE INCREASING COSTS OF CARE, AND
PROVIDE LONG-TERM CARE TO THE CHRONICALLY ILL AND
DISABLED? HOW HIGH A PRIORITY ARE HEALTH-CARE ISSUES,
AND HOW WOULD YOU FINANCE THE STEPS YOU BELIEVE NEED TO
OCCUR?
WELL, HORACE, THE QUICK ANSWER IS YES, I SUPPORT
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH-CARE REFORM, AND IN FACT I'VE
ADVANCED A MAJOR PLAN TO ACCOMPLISH IT. AMERICA HAS
THE BEST-QUALITY MEDICAL CARE IN THE WORLD, BUT IT
COSTS TOO MUCH, AND NOT EVERYONE CAN GET IT. THAT'S
WRONG. AND BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE MADE IT
PLAIN THAT THIS IS A REAL CONCERN, NO MATTER WHO WINS
THIS ELECTION -- SOMETHING'S GOING TO CHANGE. THE
DIFFERENCE IS WHAT WILL CHANGE... AND HOW.
- 2 -
MY OPPONENT KEEPS CHANGING HIS PLAN -- AND WHAT
HE'S GOT IS A FOUR-PAGE OUTLINE -- SO IT'S HARD TO TELL
EXACTLY WHAT HE'S FOR. BUT HE'S CONSISTENTLY WANTED
THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL THE HEALTH-CARE SYSTEM, AND
PAY FOR IT WITH HIGHER TAXES. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT, I
THINK, IS PRETTY OBVIOUS: IF BIG GOVERNMENT CAN'T EVEN
BALANCE THE NATIONAL CHECKBOOK, HOW CAN WE EXPECT AN
EVEN-BIGGER GOVERNMENT TO RUN A BALANCED HEALTH-CARE
SYSTEM?
THE BIG-GOVERNMENT APPROACH WOULD EVENTUALLY MEAN
RATIONED HEALTH CARE... AND A NO-WIN CHOICE BETWEEN
BENEFIT CUTS OR PREMIUM HIKES FOR OLDER AMERICANS ON A
FIXED INCOME. IT WOULD ALSO MEAN PRICE CONTROLS... NEW
BURDENS ON SMALL BUSINESSES THAT WOULD COST JOBS... AND
OF COURSE, MASSIVE TAX INCREASES MASQUERADING AS THE
"PAY OR PLAY" IDEA.
DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A SOLUTION TO ME. SOUNDS LIKE A
NATIONAL NIGHTMARE.. A CURE THAT'S WORSE THAT THE
DISEASE.
- 3 -
SO MY APPROACH IS TO LET MARKET FORCES GUIDE THE
WAY. AND THIS IS HOW WE DO IT.
FIRST, WE DON'T THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE
BATHWATER. REMEMBER, OUR SYSTEM, IN A LOT OF WAYS, IS
THE ENVY OF THE WORLD. SO WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE OUR
STRENGTHS, AND KEEP THEM STRONG. THAT INCLUDES ALWAYS
DEVELOPING NEW TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS.
THEN WE SEE WHAT DOESN'T WORK -- WHAT'S KEEPING ALL
AMERICANS FROM BEING COVERED, FAIR AND SQUARE -- AND WE
REFORM IT. WE DO THAT BY BUILDING INCENTIVES INTO THE
SYSTEM FOR CHOICE QUALITY AND INNOVATION. WITH
ONE SIMPLE GOAL: TO MAKE WORLD-CLASS HEALTH-CARE
AVAILABLE, AND AFFORDABLE... TO EVERYONE.
RIGHT NOW, CONGRESS HAS BEFORE IT FIVE LEGISLATIVE
PROPOSALS TO ENACT MY REFORM PLAN. REAL QUICKLY,
HERE'S WHAT THEY'D DO.
- 4 -
0
GIVE FINANCIAL HELP TO ALMOST 100 MILLION LOW- AND
MODERATE-INCOME AMERICANS, SO THEY CAN BUY HEALTH-
INSURANCE COVERAGE;
0
SLASH THE NUMBER OF AMERICAN WORKERS WITHOUT
HEALTH INSURANCE BY ALMOST 90 PERCENT - -- FROM MORE
THAN 34 MILLION NOW, DOWN TO LESS THAN 5 MILLION,
FOR STARTERS;
0
MAKE INSURANCE AVAILABLE TO THOSE WITH SO-CALLED
'PRE-EXISTING HEALTH CONDITIONS
0
END THE FEAR OF 'JOB-LOCK,' WHERE WORKERS CAN'T
MOVE TO A NEW JOB WITHOUT RISKING THEIR COVERAGE;
0
AND GIVE SELF-EMPLOYED WORKERS A FULL, 100-PERCENT
TAX DEDUCTION FOR THE COST OF THEIR HEALTH
INSURANCE;
- 5 -
MY PLAN WOULD GIVE ENOUGH TAX CREDIT TO PAY FOR A
SOLID HEALTH PACKAGE -- TO THOSE FOLKS TOO POOR TO FILE
INCOME TAX. NOW, THAT'S A TAX CREDIT -- NOT JUST A TAX
DEDUCTION. IT'S $3750 WORTH OF REAL INSURANCE,
STRAIGHT INTO THE HANDS THAT NEED IT THE MOST. FOR
FAMILIES THAT MAKE MORE MONEY, BUT STILL FIND IT TOUGH
TO AFFORD INSURANCE, I'M PROPOSING AN EQUAL-SIZED TAX
DEDUCTION.
MY PLAN INCLUDES WAYS TO HELP SMALL BUSINESSES BUY
COVERAGE, BY POOLING THEM WITH OTHER SMALL BUSINESSES
TO GET BETTER RATES AND SERVICES.
IT INCLUDES MEDICAL-MALPRACTICE REFORMS TO END
CRAZY LAWSUITS THAT DRIVE COSTS UP -- AND DOCTORS OUT
OF PRACTICE.
IT INCLUDES REDUCING ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS BY AROUND
25 PERCENT, SIMPLY BY USING AUTOMATION TO CUT
PAPERWORK.
- 6 -
IT STRESSES GIVING CONSUMERS BETTER INFORMATION SO
THEY CAN COMPARE OPTIONS AND GET THE BEST TREATMENT FOR
THE BEST COST.
IT PUTS MAJOR FUNDS TO WORK ON PREVENTING HEALTH
PROBLEMS, WHICH IS A LOT CHEAPER THAN FIXING HEALTH
PROBLEMS.
AND IT CONTAINS INCENTIVES FOR INDIVIDUAL STATES TO
COORDINATE THEIR MEDICAID PROGRAMS. THAT WAY, POOR
AMERICANS CAN GET THEIR HEALTH CARE MORE EFFICIENTLY.
NOW... MY PLAN CAN WORK WITHOUT RAISING TAXES. WE
CAN PAY FOR IT THROUGH A SERIES OF EFFICIENCIES I'VE
SUGGESTED, WHICH MEANS WE CAN CUT OUT CERTAIN PAYMENTS
WE ALREADY MAKE ON BEHALF OF FOLKS WITHOUT INSURANCE.
AND WE CAN ALSO USE THE FUNDS WE SPEND ON INDIGENT CARE
TO HELP THE UNINSURED BUY THE QUALITY CARE THEY NEED.
ALSO, THE CREDITS AND DEDUCTIONS I MENTIONED WOULD BE
PHASED IN, SO START-UP COSTS WOULDN'T BE SO HIGH.
- 7 -
THOSE ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS. IT'S A COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
IT'LL CONTROL COSTS
EXTEND COVERAGE TO ALL
WORKING AMERICANS
AND IMPROVE ACCESS TO QUALITY CARE
FOR EVERYONE -- WITHOUT RAISING TAXES. I URGE CONGRESS
TO ACT QUICKLY ON THESE PROPOSALS, so WE CAN GET ON
WITH THIS CRITICAL REFORM.
QUESTION TWO; WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON CONTINUED
BUILD-UP OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND AND REMOVING
THE LIMITS ON EARNINGS WHICH BENEFICIARIES CAN EARN
BEFORE THEIR BENEFIT IS REDUCED? AND WHAT MEASURES
WOULD YOU SUPPORT TO ASSURE BETTER PROTECTION FOR
EMPLOYEES' PENSION BENEFITS AND ANNUITIES?
YOU KNOW THE OLD SAYING, "IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T
FIX IT"? WELL, SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDING WAS DEFINITELY
BROKEN BEFORE 1983, BUT NOW IT'S FIXED, AND I CAN'T SEE
ANY GOOD REASON TO GO MESSING WITH IT NOW. I'M
COMMITTED TO THE INTEGRITY OF ITS FUNDING, NOT JUST FOR
THOSE
OF
US WHO QUALIFY FOR BENEFITS TODAY BUT FOR FUTURE
GENERATIONS. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF RESCUING THE
SYSTEM IN '83.
- 8 -
SO NO, I'M NOT GOING TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY OR
THE TRUST FUND THAT KEEPS IT SOLVENT. ACCORDING TO THE
LATEST REPORTS FROM THE TRUSTEES, THE FUND THAT PAYS
BENEFITS TO SENIORS IS FINANCIALLY SOUND... AND THEY
EXPECT IT TO STAY SOUND, WELL INTO THE NEXT CENTURY. I
FULLY INTEND TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.
REGARDING LIMITS ON HOW MUCH YOU CAN EARN BEFORE
YOUR BENEFITS START GETTING CUT... I'M IN FAVOR OF
ACCELERATING THE RETIREMENT EARNINGS TEST CEILING
FASTER THAN THE CURRENT LAW ALLOWS. I WROTE MY 1992
BUDGET SO THE AMOUNT OF OUTSIDE MONEY YOU CAN EARN
WITHOUT LOSING BENEFITS WILL JUMP FROM A LITTLE OVER
$10,000 THIS YEAR TO $11,400 NEXT YEAR. TOO BAD
CONGRESS IS SITTING ON THE MEASURE BUT I'LL FIGHT TO
GET IT PASSED.
AND IF I'M RE-ELECTED, I'LL CONTINUE TO PUSH THE
CONGRESS TO MAKE RESPONSIBLE REFORMS OF THE EARNINGS
TEST.
- 9 -
AS FAR AS BETTER PROTECTION FOR PENSION BENEFITS
AND ANNUITIES ARE CONCERNED, I'VE MADE SURE THE PENSION
BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION IS FINANCIALLY STRONG, so
EVERY PLAN CAN COVER ALL ITS OBLIGATIONS. AND I'VE
MADE SURE THE CORPORATION CAN PROTECT PENSIONERS IF
SOMEHOW THEIR PLAN GETS INTO FINANCIAL TROUBLE. THE
BOTTOM LINE IS, I'LL CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE THAT PENSION
HOLDERS IN THIS COUNTRY ARE BACKED BY THE FULL WEIGHT
OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
IF THAT MEANS LEGAL ACTION AGAINST IRRESPONSIBLE
PENSION TRUSTEES, so BE IT. I BELIEVE IN AGGRESSIVE
ACTION WHEN TRUSTEES VIOLATE THEIR OBLIGATION TO BUY
THE SAFEST ANNUITIES AVAILABLE. SEVEN CASES LIKE THAT
HAVE ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD, AND WE FULLY INTEND
TO PROSECUTE THE PEOPLE WHO'VE VIOLATED THE IMPLICIT
TRUST THEIR PENSIONERS HAVE PLACED IN THEM.
QUESTION THREE: DO YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE REFORMING
THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS AND IF SO, HOW? WHAT OTHER
STEPS WOULD YOU TAKE TO RESTORE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN
THE INTEGRITY OF GOVERNMENT AND ELECTED OFFICIALS?
- 10 -
I THINK YOUR QUESTION, HORACE... REFLECTS A- DEEPER
CONCERN THAN JUST CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. YOU'RE
IMPLYING A CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE IN ELECTED OFFICIALS,
AND I THINK YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING A CITIZEN CAN DO IS STUDY
THE CANDIDATES AND VOTE FOR THOSE WHO MAKE THE
STRONGEST CASE FOR THEIR OWN TRUSTWORTHINESS.
OF COURSE, SOMETIMES YOU CAN'T TELL. AND POWER HAS
A WAY OF CHANGING PEOPLE, OR BRINGING OUT THEIR WORST -
- ESPECIALLY IF THEY BECOME PART OF AN ENTRENCHED POWER
STRUCTURE.
THAT'S WHY THERE'S A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
PREVENTING PRESIDENTS FROM MAKING A CAREER OF THE
PRESIDENCY, AND I THINK THE CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE A
SIMILAR LAW. WE NEED A CONGRESS OF THE PEOPLE... NOT A
CONGRESS OF PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS.
- 11 -
so I SUPPORT LIMITED TERMS FOR CONGRESS. I THINK A
LOT OF THE UNSAVORY THINGS THAT GO ON IN WASHINGTON
WOULD DISAPPEAR IF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CAME TO
WASHINGTON TO SERVE THEIR CONSTITUENTS' INTERESTS
AND NOT TO PROTECT THEIR OWN.
NOW, I'M NOT SAYING THERE AREN'T FINE MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS. THERE ARE SOME OUTSTANDING SENATORS AND
HOUSE MEMBERS OF BOTH PARTIES WHO'VE BEEN IN OFFICE A
LONG TIME. BUT I THINK THE COUNTRY WOULD BE BEST
SERVED IF WE ESTABLISHED A TWELVE-YEAR CEILING, FOR
BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE. THAT'S SIX TERMS IN THE
HOUSE, TWO IN THE SENATE. AFTER THAT, YOU'RE ONE OF
THE GOOD OLD BOYS OR GOOD OLD GALS, AND YOU TEND TO
SPEND TOO MUCH TIME BROKERING YOUR POWER.
YOU RAISED THE QUESTION OF CAMPAIGN-FINANCE REFORM.
WE NEED IT; NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. THE WAY THE SYSTEM
WORKS NOW IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEMS I'M
TALKING ABOUT. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES STACK THE
DECK IN FAVOR OF INCUMBENTS, AND CHALLENGERS HAVE AN
UPHILL BATTLE TRYING TO WIN A SEAT.
- 12 -
SO YOU GET THE KIND OF MESS WE HAVE TODAY, WITH
SPECIAL INTERESTS RUNNING A CONGRESS THAT SEEMS TO
THINK IT'S UNACCOUNTABLE TO ANYBODY ELSE, ESPECIALLY
PRIVATE CITIZENS.
I'VE CALLED, TIME AND AGAIN, FOR COMPREHENSIVE
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, INCLUDING GETTING RID OF
SPECIAL-INTEREST PAC'S... LIMITING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
SO-CALLED "LEADERSHIP PAC'S"... REQUIRING FULL
DISCLOSURE OF ALL EXPENDITURES AND LETTING POLITICAL
PARTIES SPEND MORE ON CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES. THAT
WOULD LOWER THE TIME CANDIDATES THEMSELVES HAVE TO
SPEND RAISING MONEY -- WHICH THEY LARGELY DO,
UNFORTUNATELY, BY KOWTOWING TO SPECIAL INTERESTS. SO
THESE REFORMS, IF CONGRESS WOULD PASS THEM, WOULD
RESTORE ACCOUNTABILITY TO AN ELECTORAL SYSTEM THAT HAS
CLEARLY GONE 'WAY WRONG.
- 13 -
I ALSO THINK THE COUNTRY WOULD BE IN A LOT BETTER
SHAPE IF THE PRESIDENT HAD A LINE-ITEM VETO, SO THAT
OTHERWISE-GOOD PROPOSALS FROM CONGRESS DON'T GET
REJECTED WHOLESALE... JUST BECAUSE SOME SPECIAL- ON
a
INTEREST GROUP IN CONGRESS TACKS A RIDICULOUS ITEM TO
THE BILL. I'M TALKING ABOUT GRANTS TO STUDY
BLUEBERRIES TACKED ON TO A MAJOR AGRICULTURAL BILL, FOR
EXAMPLE.
TAKEN TOGETHER, ALL THESE REFORMS WOULD COUNTER
SOME OF THE ALARMING UNDERCURRENTS IN NATIONAL POLITICS
TODAY, AND MAKE THE GOVERNMENT MORE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE
VOTERS. WHICH OF COURSE... IS THE WHOLE POINT... OF
DEMOCRACY.
# # #
Please
Muhe a
speech file
For
A.A.R.P.
(Ken A. GANY G)
of put this
in.
Scully comments
spar (Askew/Gershowitz) Gary
September 14, 1992
800 AM 9/16
4:00 p.m.
AARPVIDEO
PRESIDENTIAL TALKING POINTS: AARP VIDEO
TO BE TAPED SEPTEMBER 16, 1992
12:15 P.M.
[Question one: Do you support or oppose comprehensive
reform to provide health services to all Americans, hold down the
increasing costs of care, and provide long-term care to the
chronically ill and disabled? How high a priority are health-
care issues, and how would you finance the steps you believe need
to occur?]
a strong
Well, Horace, the quick answer is yes, I support
comprehensive
comprehensive health-care reform, and in fact I've advanced
a
Compr májor plan to accomplish it. America has the best-quality
medical care in the world, but it costs too much, and not
everyone can get it. That's wrong. And because the American
people have made it plain that this is a real concern, no matter
who wins this election -- something's going to change. The
difference is what will change and
how.
My opponent wants the government to control the health-care
system, and pay for it through higher taxes. The problem with
that, I think, is pretty obvious: If big government can't even
balance the national checkbook, how can we expect an even-bigger
government to run a balanced health-care system?
A
Keys changing his plant- So 1 it's what hard he's to for. tell wanted But he's consistently
has and is what a outline Vague he 4 page
The big-government approach would eventually mean rationed
health care
the no-win choice between benefit cuts or premium
hikes for older Americans on fixed income. It would also mean
price controls
new burdens on small businesses that will cost
jobs
and of course, massive tax increases masquerading as the
"pay or play" idea.
Doesn't sound like a solution to me. Sounds like a national
nightmare
a cure that's worse that the disease.
So my approach is to let market forces guide the way. And
this is how we do it.
First, we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Remember, our system is in many ways the envy of the world. So
we need to recognize our strengths, and keep them strong. That
includes always developing new techniques and tools.
Then we see what doesn't work -- what's keeping all
Americans from being covered, fair and square -- and we reform
it. We do that by building incentives into the system for
choice, quality and innovation. And the goal is simple: To make
world-class health-care available, and affordable
to everyone.
Right now, Congress has before it five legislative proposals
to enact my reform plan. Real quickly, here's what they'd do.
o
Give financial help to almost 100 million low- and moderate-
income Americans so they can buy health-insurance coverage;
Slash the number of American workers without health
insurance by almost 90 percent -- from more than 34 million
now, down to less than 5 million, for starters;
2
Make insurance available to those with so-called 'pre-
existing health conditions';
End the fear of 'job-lock,' where workers can't move to a
new job without risking being uncovered;
And give self-employed workers a full, 100-percent tax
deduction for the cost of their health insurance;
Solid
My plan would give enough tax credit to pay for a basic
health package -- to those folks too poor to file income tax.
That's a tax credit -- not just a tax deduction. It's $3750 of that
can be paid directly to an insurance company For Coverage for those
insurance straight into the hands that need it the most. For
families that make more money, but still find it tough to afford
S. gnificant tax deluctions and credits to I lower
insurance, I'm proposing a tax deduction of equal size. their costs.
My plan includes ways to help small businesses buy coverage,
much
and better
by pooling them with other small businesses to get better rates services
It includes medical-malpractice reforms to end crazy
lawsuits that drive costs up and drive doctors out of practice.
It includes reducing administrative costs by around 25
percent, simply by using automation to cut paperwork.
and employers
It stresses giving consumers better information so they can
on doctors hospitals and
compare options and get the best treatment for the best cost.
It puts major funds to work on preventing health problems,
which is a lot cheaper than fixing health problems.
And it contains incentives for individual States to
coordinate their Medicaid programs so that poor Americans get
their health care more efficiently.
3
also transfer the major subsidies that we
pay for indigent care
to instead by quality the
United
Now, my plan can work without raising taxes. We can pay for insurance
health caw
insurance
it through efficiencies I've suggested, which means we can cut
for the
out some payments we already make to people without insurance.
And we can also cut costs in our federal health programs. And
the credits and deductions I mentioned would be phased in, so
start-up costs wouldn't be very high.
very
Those are the highlights. It's
a
comprehensive plan
it'll control costs
extend coverage to all working
Americans
and improve access to quality care for everyone --
without raising taxes. I urge Congress to act quickly on my
proposals, so we can get on with this much-needed reform.
[Question two: What is your position on continued build-up
of the Social Security Trust Fund and removing the limits on
earning which beneficiaries can earn before their benefit is
reduced? And what measures would you support to assure better
protection for employees' pension benefits and annuities?]
You know the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
Well, Social Security funding was definitely broken before 1983,
but now it's fixed, and I can't see any good reason to go messing
with it now. I'm committed to the integrity of its funding, not
just for us who qualify for benefits today
but for future
generations. That was whole point of rescuing the system in '83.
So no, I'm not going to touch Social Security or the Trust
Fund that keeps it solvent. According to the latest reports from
4
the Trustees, the Fund that pays benefits to seniors is sound
and it's projected to remain sound well into the next century. I
fully intend to keep it that way.
Regarding limits on how much you can earn before your
benefits start getting cut I'm in favor of accelerating the
Retirement Earnings Test ceiling faster than the current law
allows. I wrote my 1992 budget so the amount of outside money
you can earn without losing benefits will jump from a little over
$10,000 this year to $11,400 next year. Too bad Congress is
sitting on the measure -- but I'll fight to get it passed.
And if I'm re-elected, I'll continue to push the Congress to
make responsible reforms of the earnings test.
As far as better protection for pension benefits and
annuities are concerned, I've made sure the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation is financially strong, so every plan has
enough to cover all its obligations. And I've made sure the
Corporation can protect pensioners if somehow their plan got into
financial trouble. The bottom line is, I'll continue to make
sure that pension holders in this country are backed up by the
full weight of the U.S. Government.
If that means legal action against irresponsible pension
planners, so be it. I believe in aggressive action when trustees
violate their obligation to buy the safest annuities available.
Seven such cases have already been brought forward, and we fully
intend to prosecute those who have violated the implicit trust
their pensioners have placed in them.
5
[Question three: Do you support or oppose reforming the
campaign finance laws and if so, how? What other steps would you
take to restore public confidence in the integrity of government
and elected officials?]
I think your question reflects a deeper concern than just
campaign finance reform, Horace. You're implying a crisis of
confidence in elected officials, and I think you're right.
The most important thing a citizen can do is study the
candidates and vote for those who make the strongest case for
their own trustworthiness.
of course, sometimes you can't tell. And power has a way of
changing people, or bringing out their worst -- especially if
they become part of an entrenched power structure.
That's why there's a Constitutional amendment preventing
Presidents from making a career of the Presidency, and I think
the Congress should have a similar law. We need a Congress of
the people not a Congress of professional politicians.
So I support limited terms for the Congress. I think a lot
of the unsavory things that go on in Washington would disappear
if members of Congress came to Washington to serve their
constituents' interests
and not their own.
Now, I'm not saying there aren't fine Members of Congress.
There are some outstanding Senators and House Members who have
been in office a long time. But I think the country would be
6
best served if we established a twelve-year ceiling, for both the
House and the Senate. That's six terms in the House, two in the
Senate. After that, you're one of the good old boys, and you
tend to spend too much time brokering your power.
You raised the question of campaign-finance reform. We need
it; no question about it. The way the system works now is a
perfect example of the problems I'm talking about. With all its
Political Action Committees, the system stacks the deck in favor
of incumbents, and challengers have an uphill battle trying to
win a seat.
So you get the kind of mess we have today, with special
interests running a Congress that seems to think it's
unaccountable to anybody else, especially the voters.
I've repeatedly called for comprehensive campaign finance
reform, including getting rid of special-interest PACs
limiting contributions from so-called "leadership PACs"
requiring full disclosure of all expenditures
and allowing
political parties to spend more of their funds on Congressional
candidates, which lowers the time candidates themselves have to
spend raising money -- which they do by kowtowing to special
interests. These reforms, if Congress would pass them, would
restore accountability to an electoral system that has clearly
gone wrong.
I also think the country would be in a lot better shape if
the President had a line-item veto, so that otherwise-good
proposals from Congress don't get rejected wholesale because some
7
special-interest group in Congress tacks a ridiculous item to the
bill. I'm talking about grants to study blueberries tacked on to
a major agricultural bill, for example.
Taken together, all these reforms would counter some of the
alarming undercurrents in national politics today, and make the
Government more accountable to the voters. Which is the whole
point of democracy.
8
Scully D's
(Askew/Gershowitz)
September 14, 1992
5:30 p.m.
AARPVIDEO
PRESIDENTIAL TALKING POINTS: AARP VIDEO
TO BE TAPED SEPTEMBER 16, 1992
12:15 P.M.
[Question one: Do you support or oppose comprehensive
reform to provide health services to all Americans, hold down the
increasing costs of care, and provide long-term care to the
chronically ill and disabled? How high a priority are health-
care issues, and how would you finance the steps you believe need
to occur?]
Well, Horace, the quick answer is yes, I support
comprehensive health-care reform, and in fact I've advanced a
STET major plan to accomplish it. America has the best-quality
medical care in the world, but it costs too much, and not
everyone can get it. That's wrong. And because the American
people have made it plain that this is a real concern, no matter
who wins this election -- something's going to change. The
difference is what will change and how.
My opponent wants the government to control the health-care
system, and pay for it with higher taxes. The problem with that,
I think, is pretty obvious: If big government can't even balance
the national checkbook, how can we expect an even-bigger
government to run a balanced health-care system?
fow
keeps changing his plan - & what he's got is a 4- page
outline - 1 AO it's hand to tell exactly what his/or.
But he's consisten they wanted
The big-government approach would eventually mean rationed
health care
and a no-win choice between benefit cuts or
premium hikes for older Americans on a fixed income. It would
also mean price controls
new burdens on small businesses that
would cost jobs
and of course, massive tax increases
masquerading as the "pay or play" idea.
Doesn't sound like a solution to me. Sounds like a national
nightmare
a cure that's worse that the disease.
So my approach is to let market forces guide the way. And
this is how we do it.
First, we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Remember, our system, in a lot of ways, is the envy of the world.
So we need to recognize our strengths, and keep them strong.
That includes always developing new techniques and tools.
Then we see what doesn't work -- what's keeping all
Americans from being covered, fair and square -- and we reform
it. We do that by building incentives into the system for
choice
quality
and innovation. With one simple goal: To
make world-class health-care available, and affordable
to
everyone.
Right now, Congress has before it five legislative proposals
to enact my reform plan. Real quickly, here's what they'd do.
Give financial help to almost 100 million low- and moderate-
income Americans, so they can buy health-insurance coverage;
2
Slash the number of American workers without health
insurance by almost 90 percent -- from more than 34 million
now, down to less than 5 million, for starters;
Make insurance available to those with so-called 'pre-
existing health conditions';
End the fear of 'job-lock,' where workers can't move to a
new job without risking their coverage;
And give self-employed workers a full, 100-percent tax
deduction for the cost of their health insurance;
solid
My plan would give enough tax credit to pay for a basic
health package -- to those folks too poor to file income tax.
Now, that's a tax credit -- not just a tax deduction. It's $3750
worth of real insurance, straight into the hands that need it the
most. For families that make more money, but still find it tough
to afford insurance, I'm proposing an equal-sized tax deduction.
My plan includes ways to help small businesses buy coverage,
by pooling them with other small businesses to get better rates
+ services
It includes medical-malpractice reforms to end crazy
lawsuits that drive costs up -- and doctors out of practice.
It includes reducing administrative costs by around 25
percent, simply by using automation to cut paperwork.
It stresses giving consumers better information so they can
compare options and get the best treatment for the best cost.
It puts major funds to work on preventing health problems,
which is a lot cheaper than fixing health problems.
3
And it contains incentives for individual States to
coordinate their Medicaid programs. That way, poor Americans can
get their health care more efficiently.
Now
my plan can work without raising taxes. We can pay
for it through a series of efficiencies I've suggested, which
means we can cut out certain payments we already make on behalf
USE the funds
of folks without insurance. And we can also cut in our
we spend on digent care to help the uninsured buys the quality
ant
federal health programs. Also, the credits and deductions
I
costs
They
mentioned would be phased in, so start-up costs wouldn't be so
need.
here
high.
Those are the highlights. It's a comprehensive plan
it'll control costs
extend coverage to all working
Americans
and improve access to quality care for everyone --
without raising taxes. I urge Congress to act quickly on these
proposals, so we can get on with this critical reform.
[Question two: What is your position on continued build-up
of the Social Security Trust Fund and removing the limits on
earnings which beneficiaries can earn before their benefit is
reduced? And what measures would you support to assure better
protection for employees' pension benefits and annuities?]
You know the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
Well, Social Security funding was definitely broken before 1983,
but now it's fixed, and I can't see any good reason to go messing
with it now. I'm committed to the integrity of its funding, not
4
just for us who qualify for benefits today
but for future
generations. That was the whole point of rescuing the system in
'83.
So no, I'm not going to touch Social Security or the Trust
Fund that keeps it solvent. According to the latest reports from
the Trustees, the Fund that pays benefits to seniors is
financially sound
and they expect it to stay sound, well into
the next century. I fully intend to keep it that way.
Regarding limits on how much you can earn before your
benefits start getting cut
I'm in favor of accelerating the
Retirement Earnings Test ceiling faster than the current law
allows. I wrote my 1992 budget so the amount of outside money
you can earn without losing benefits will jump from a little over
$10,000 this year to $11,400 next year. Too bad Congress is
sitting on the measure -- but I'll fight to get it passed.
And if I'm re-elected, I'll continue to push the Congress to
make responsible reforms of the earnings test.
As far as better protection for pension benefits and
annuities are concerned, I've made sure the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation is financially strong, so every plan can
cover all its obligations. And I've made sure the Corporation
can protect pensioners if somehow their plan gets into financial
trouble. The bottom line is, I'll continue to make sure that
pension holders in this country are backed by the full weight of
the U.S. Government.
5
If that means legal action against irresponsible pension
trustees, so be it. I believe in aggressive action when trustees
violate their obligation to buy the safest annuities available.
Seven cases like that have already been brought forward, and we
fully intend to prosecute the people who've violated the implicit
trust their pensioners have placed in them.
[Question three: Do you support or oppose reforming the
campaign finance laws and if so, how? What other steps would you
take to restore public confidence in the integrity of government
and elected officials?]
I think your question, Horace reflects a deeper concern
than just campaign finance reform. You're implying a crisis of
confidence in elected officials, and I think you're absolutely
right.
The most important thing a citizen can do is study the
candidates and vote for those who make the strongest case for
their own trustworthiness.
of course, sometimes you can't tell. And power has a way of
changing people, or bringing out their worst -- especially if
they become part of an entrenched power structure.
That's why there's a Constitutional amendment preventing
Presidents from making a career of the Presidency, and I think
the Congress should have a similar law. We need a Congress of
the people not a Congress of professional politicians.
6
So I support limited terms for Congress. I think a lot of
the unsavory things that go on in Washington would disappear if
members of Congress came to Washington to serve their
constituents' interests and not to protect their own.
Now, I'm not saying there aren't fine Members of Congress.
There are some outstanding Senators and House Members of both
parties who've been in office a long time. But I think the
country would be best served if we established a twelve-year
ceiling, for both the House and the Senate. That's six terms in
the House, two in the Senate. After that, you're one of the good
old boys or good old gals, and you tend to spend too much time
brokering your power.
You raised the question of campaign-finance reform. We need
it; no question about it. The way the system works now is a
perfect example of the problems I'm talking about. Political
Action Committees stack the deck in favor of incumbents, and
challengers have an uphill battle trying to win a seat.
So you get the kind of mess we have today, with special
interests running a Congress that seems to think it's
unaccountable to anybody else, especially private citizens.
I've called, time and again, for comprehensive campaign
finance reform, including getting rid of special-interest PACs
limiting contributions from so-called "leadership PACs"
requiring full disclosure of all expenditures
and letting
political parties spend more on Congressional candidates. That
would lower the time candidates themselves have to spend raising
7
money -- which they largely do, unfortunately, by kowtowing to
special interests. So these reforms, if Congress would pass
them, would restore accountability to an electoral system that
has clearly gone 'way wrong.
I also think the country would be in a lot better shape if
the President had a line-item veto, so that otherwise-good
proposals from Congress don't get rejected wholesale
just
because some special-interest group in Congress tacks a
ridiculous item to the bill. I'm talking about grants to study
blueberries tacked on to a major agricultural bill, for example.
Taken together, all these reforms would counter some of the
alarming undercurrents in national politics today, and make the
Government more accountable to the voters. Which of course
is
the whole point
of democracy.
8