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
323154247
label
Enid, Oklahoma Convention Center 9/17/92 [OA 7580]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323154247
contentType
document
title
Enid, Oklahoma Convention Center 9/17/92 [OA 7580]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13833-005
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Backup Chronological Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323154247
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d4d4f65a3459071b
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 Backup Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13833
Folder ID Number:
13833-005
Folder Title:
Enid, Oklahoma Convention Center 9/17/92 [OA 7580]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
23
1
2
JD FOSTER /CEA
5084
WW II set 7 marginal tax
SEEN 19/9NCS 21 MILLION
rates ; , vasty expand the
JOBS IN 8'o's USED-
# of people who pay taxes
ACCORDING OF ECONOMIC]
employment #
pin P 1 down - late 70's
under Carter
through 80's = 19.5 million
I
jobs created Jun 80-
end of
2ww 94%
(ratev.
can really
Dec. 89
net
I
50, 90
Street
thing
revenue
and bnt
21m. - from trough it recession in '82
thesene
same
they Acc. of '89
60- 705
most 79 people didn't pay those rates
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 9-16-92 :10:03AM ;
2024566218;# 1
NI 181800018Γ 7021 1 1-10-06 1 STAMPM 1
EVIT
File: BORE/HONEY PRICE
supports
** 1991 CO SEXATE VOTE 52 ** SConRes29. Fiscal 1992 Budget
Resolution. Daschle, D-B.D., motion to table (kill) the Brown,
R-Colo., amendment to eliminate the honey price support program.
Motion agreed to 57-381 X 19-21/ D 38-17 (ND 23-10, SD 18-1),
April 25, 1991.
For All Members
In Alphabetical Order
Grouped by Party
*** YEAS (57)
DEMOCRATS (38)
Adams B (WA)
Deconcini D (AE)
Leahy ? (VT)
Ahaka D (RI)
Dison A (IL)
Mikulski X (MD)
Baucus M (MT)
Exon J (NE)
Mitchell G (ME)
Bentson L (TX)
Ford W (KY)
Nunn 8 (GA)
Bingaman J (NM)
Fowler W (GA)
Riegle D (MI)
Beren D (OX)
Gore A (TN)
*
Robb C (VA)
Breaux J (LA)
Graham B (FL)
Rockefeller J (WV)
Bumpers D (AR)
Harkin T (IA)
Sanford T (NC)
Burdick c (ND)
Heflin X (AL)
SANDOZ s (TN)
Byrd R (WV)
Insuye D (MI)
Shelby R (AL)
simon 7 (IL)
Conrad X (ND)
Johnston J (LA)
Cranston A (CA)
Kerrey 1 (NE)
Wellstone ? (MN)
Daschle T (5D)
Kohl и (WI)
INDEPENDENTS (0)
REPUBLICANS (19)
Gramm ? (TX)
Pressler L (SD)
Bond C (MO)
Burns C (MT)
Grassley C (IA)
seymour J (CA)
Cochran T (MS)
Jeffords w (VT)
Simpson A (WY)
Craig L (ID)
Kassebaum N (KS)
symms 5 (ID)
LOLL T (MS)
Thurmend 8 (SC)
Dole $ (KM)
Muck c (FL)
Warner J (VA)
Domenici PM (NM)
Durenberger D (MN)
*** NAYS (38)
DEMOCRATE (17)
Biden J (DE)
Kennedy $ (MA)
Moynihan D (NY)
Bradley B (NJ)
Kerry J (MA)
Pell C (RI)
Bryan R (NV)
Deutenberg F (NO)
Reid H (NV)
Dodd C (CT)
Levin c (MT)
Barbanes ₱ (MD)
Glenn v (OK)
Lisborman (CT)
Wirth T (CO)
Hollings I (sc)
Metzenbaum H (OM)
INDEPENDENTS (0)
One Issue, Two Fantasies
Both Bush and Clinton fall short in their plans to boost the economy
office and only S64 billion by 1996. The real
cost is arguably at least three times higher
than that: Where will the money come from?
Clinton says he would raise federal tax reve-
nues by $30 billion through a combination of
improved tax collections and new taxes on
orporations and the rich. ("Rich" is defined
as any family with an annual income over
$200,000.) He also says he can cut the cost of
civilian government by $26 billion. Most of
the rest, presumably, is deficit spending.
Such phony bookkeeping enables both
candidates to ignore what is arguably the
biggest economic-policy issue of the 1990s:
the federal deficit. After 12 years of borrow-
ing and spending, the publicly held national
debt has surpassed $3 trillion. The interest
on that debt, now $200 billion a year, is the
fastest-growing item in the federal budget.
The annual deficit, about $320 billion for
1992, squats over the economy like Jabba
the Hutt, keeping interest rates artificial-
ly high, devouring savings and
+CAMPAIGNA
crowding out private investment.
The deficit has already crippled
JOHN FICARA-NEWSWEEK
George Bush's presidency. It sti-
A born-again supply-sider: Campaigning in Michigan last week
fled any thought he may have had
for new federal initiatives, and
BY RICH THOMAS
cent in all federal spending, excluding SO-
it prevented him from propos-
cial security, would mean politically explo-
ing conventional pump-priming measures,
sive cutbacks in sacred cows like Medicare,
such as tax cuts or public-works spending,
Y
ou heard the speeches: Bill Clinton
Medicaid and college-loan guarantees. In
to stimulate the economy during the
and George Bush both say restoring
American productivity and economic
return, some unspecified portion of the pro-
1990-91 recession or in the current recovery.
growth is the No. 1 issue of the
jected savings would be plowed back into
Whoever walks into the White House next
the economy in the form of investment in-
January is going to discover a deficit prob-
campaign. But what are their actual pro-
grams-how do they plan to do it?
centives, capital-gains reductions and, yes,
lem is four years and many billions of dollars
tax cuts for the middle class.
worse than the one Bush inherited in 1989.
A look at the details is, in a word, terrify-
Clinton, in short, promises to spend his
Two gimmicks: Both candidates are duck-
ing. Clinton, despite his neoconservative
ing this brutal reality. Bush pretends he
rhetoric, appears from his policy blueprints
way back to economic health, while Bush
to be a programmatic liberal. He proposes
wants to put government on a crash diet to
can gradually control the deficit by chop-
unleash the magic of the market. What is
ping federal spending twice as much as he
at least two dozen new tax and spending
programs, including national health insur-
terrifying about these two approaches to
lowers taxes. He asks for two gimmicks as
ance, welfare reform, national education
economic policy is that both candidates are
insurance: the line-item veto and the bal-
SO plainly guilty of overpromising. Bush, for
anced-budget amendment. Clinton wants
reform and universal job training. The Clin-
example, would be lucky to win even half his
the line-item veto as well, though he rejects
ton campaign hasn't estimated the cost of
its national health plan and says the other
proposed reductions in federal spending
a balanced-budget amendment. But he as-
three programs should total about $20 bil-
from a Republican Congress-and he would
sumes his spending programs will acceler-
have to settle for much smaller retrench-
ate economic growth and boost tax reve-
lion a year. But the real price is almost
ments if, as now seems likely, the Democrats
nues, thus bringing the deficit toward an
certainly higher-perhaps as much as $150
keep control of the House and Senate. As a
eventual cure. He says his plan will cut the
billion, including health-care reform.
result, his plan to stimulate the economy
deficit in half within four years, and assure
Bush, on the other hand, has suddenly
with tax cuts balanced by spending reduc-
that the deficit continues to fall each year
proclaimed himself a born-again supply-
tions is largely based on political fantasy.
after that." He doesn't explain how this
sider. He wants to cut spending, cut taxes
and let the private sector take care of the
The Clinton program, on the other hand,
miracle will occur-and even if his spend-
nation's economic problems. He declines to
is economic fantasy. By failing to put a price
ing programs are good investment over the
provide the details of his proposed spending
tag on his four biggest programs-aswell.as
long term, he seems not to recognize that
cuts, but they would surely be heroic: his
some of the smaller ones, Clinton is able to
their cost will only worsen the deficit, and
proposal for a reduction of roughly 10 per-
pretend that he would add 2billion to
dampen economic growth, in the near term.
federal spending during his first year in
In fairness to the candidates, many
Americans seem to prefer being lied to. Defi-
32 NEWSWEEK SEPTEMBER 7, 1992
NATIO
cit reduction is a dreary game of parceling
ton's program is bigger and covers everyone.
that government would be the employer of
out austerity and, in effect, picking losers.
(Bush's doesn't.) However sound this may
last resort. All this may be good social policy
The two candidates who offered straight
be, pouring more money into health care
-but many economists, along with virtual-
talk about the deficit in this election year,
does nothing to boost productivity or accel-
ly all conservatives, think these programs
Paul Tsongas and Ross Perot, both bombed
erate growth. As for the rest of their ideas,
would only increase the burden of deficit
out. Tsongas won four Democratic prima-
Bush's job-training program should im-
spending on the private-sector economy.
ries before fading. Perot took one look at the
prove the quality of the work force, and
Past presidents had the luxury of assum-
budget plan his advisers had drawn up and
Clinton's much bigger education and train-
ing the U.S. economy was strong enough to
folded his hand. So assuming Bush and Clin-
ing reforms might do even more long-term
shrug off the deficit's net drag. That's what
ton are playing it safe by avoiding the defi-
good-if he can find a way to pay for them.
Ronald Reagan meant when he quipped,
cit, what else is in their programs that might
Clinton would also spend $20 billion a year
"The deficit? It's big enough to take care of
improve productivity and ensure growth?
to launch a high-tech public-works program
itself." Those days are gone. Whoever takes
Both men have plans to provide health
to improve the nation's roads, railroads and
office next January must understand that if
insurance for the millionsof. Americans who
telecomn unications. And his version of wel-
he doesn't take care of the deficit, it will
now do not have medical insurance. Clin-
fare reform ultimately includes a guarantee
surely take care of him.
Clear Choices: What's in the Candidates' Programs
G
eorge Bush and Bill
Clinton offer the
voters a clear choice
on the best ways to re-
vive the U.S. economy.
A brief and selective
look at the candidates'
WALL
election-year econom-
ic programs:
Bush now calls for an
Bush promises a new
Bush wants to unify 60
Bush wants tax credits
across-the-board cap
tax cut for individuals
existing government
and vouchers to help
on all federal spending
but won't say how big
job-training programs
working Americans
(except social securi-
it would be. He still
into a single national
buy health insurance
ty) of approximately
wants to cut capital-
system tied to local
through the private
10 percent. He wants to
gains taxes, and he
private-industry coun-
sector. His plan
allow taxpayers to ear-
wants new tax incen-
cils. He wants national
would provide basic
mark up to 10 percent
tives for industry. He
education standards
coverage for about
of their income-tax
forecasts 3 percent an-
and tuition vouchers
20 million of the 36 mil-
payments to help re-
nual growth in GNP
that could be used for
lion people who now
George Bush
duce the deficit.
through the mid-1990s.
private schooling.
don't have it.
Comment: Could cut the
Comment: Too good to
Comment: Evolutionary,
Comment: A modest
deficit by $50 billion to
be true. Underestimates
not revolutionary. Little
plan-even so, no word
$60 billion a year-but
the impact of the deficit
new spending; may need
from Bush on how to
will it fly politically?
on interest rates.
to do more.
pay for it.
Clinton says he can
Clinton wants to raise
Clinton proposes
Clinton proposes a
save $26 billion in
taxes on the wealthy
three major job-train-
new universal system
wasteful spending and
and let the middle
ing initiatives. The cen-
of managed health
that the budget will in-
class choose between
terpiece is a national
care financed by em-
crease by no more
lower income taxes
apprenticeship pro-
ployers or by taxes on
than $64 billion by
and tax credits for
gram funded by a 1.5
firms that refuse to
1996. He says the defi-
child care. Overall, he
percent payroll tax on
join. He says he can
cit will be cut in half
says his programs will
employers. He backs
save $80 billion in
over the next four
produce a third more
education reform but
waste and limit future
years and continue to
growth in GNP than
opposes private-
cost increases to 3 or 4
decline thereafter.
Bush's would.
school choice.
percent a year.
Bill Clinton
Comment: His high
Comment: Two times too
Comment: A major ef-
Comment: Universal
hopes are plainly unre-
good to be true. And
fort to improve worker
care is probably inevita-
alistic-and he needs to
hey-what about that
skills. But what's the
ble-but the real trick is
check his arithmetic.
pesky deficit?
real cost?
controlling costs.
34 NEWSWEEK : SEPTEMBER 7, 1992
ILLUSTRATIONS BY DAVID FLAHERTY
EDITS/
(Ferguson/Bunton)
September 16, 1992
11
7:30 pm
ENID
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: CONVENTION HALL
SEPTEMBER 17, 1992
10:00 A.M.
ENID, OKLAHOMA
Good morning, everyone.
(Acknowledgments.)
I've come here today to the "Bright Star of the Great
Plains" to discuss perhaps the most serious issue Americans face
this fall.
I want to speak of our economic future, and of the very real
choices my opponent and I offer for shaping that future.
Enid is the perfect place for this discussion, for in many
ways your community is a metaphor for America. Here we can find
the forces that have made us the world's greatest economic power.
marked
Yesterday, you celebrated the 99th anniversary of the Land
Race -- a peculiarly American experiment.
The government set up the competition in 1893, but then
stood back -- to let free people work their miracles.//And 99
years later, we see the results all around us: hard working
ranchers, some of the world's best oilmen. Enid has become a
thriving center of commerce, a hub of transportation, a producer
of goods sold in every corner of the earth.
A government planner might conjure up this miracle, but only
a free people could have produced it.//The lesson it teaches
should guide us as we look to the challenges ahead.
LITERALLY - THE ANNIVERSARY WAS YESPERDAY; THE CELEBRATION WAS LAST SAMRDAY.
2
We stand today at the edge of a new era. At the close of a
to
long and costly Cold War, we have an opportunity turn our
attention to the problems at home. Americans recognize the world
NEW
is in transition. We feel it in our homes and neighborhoods.
INSERT
In Detroit, last week I presented my Agenda for American
Renewal -- a look at what's wrong in America -- and what's right.
I offered a comprehensive, integrated approach to win the new
global economic competition -- to create the world's first $10
trillion economy -- by early in the next century. 11
My Agenda includes 13 actions that I will pursue in the
first year of my second term -- and I will fight for them with
every ounce of energy at my command.
I want to be specific about what I have to offer America --
because I want to a mandate to govern. I built a mandate in the
Persian Gulf -- and look what we accomplished. I want to do the
same thing here at home. Because just as America has achieved a
lasting political and military security, we can and will forge a
new economic security -- right here at home. 11
Yes, change is underway, because change is the nature of
America. Yet change must be a tool for us, not against us. So
we must never grasp change blindly -- without considering
seriously where those changes will lead us, or what they will
mean in our daily lives.
That is why this afternoon morning I want to lay out the differences
between my Agenda and my opponent's plan. These distinctions are
fundamental: they shape our approach to every major issue in this
3
election -- from education to health care to the renewal of the
American economy.
The first difference is the most profound, for it goes to
the heart of the matter: what makes our economy grow? or more
precisely, who makes an economy grow?
My answer is: individual working men and women. My opponent
puts his faith in different people -- government planners. (boo) He
believes that Washington -- the government -- will produce
economic growth through -- quote -- investing your money more
wisely than you can.
To understand where these differences come from, you have to
look at the differences in who we are -- what we believe.
I came out here, like a number of you, to build a
adult
wildcatting business. I spent half my life in business, and I
had the ulcers to prove it. I built a company from the ground
up, created jobs, and paid my taxes.
On the other hand, my opponent chose to run for office at an
exceptionally early age. He wanted to determine how the people's
taxes should be spent -- how to shape people's lives through more
government programs.
I never forgot my days in the Texas oil fields, so my
philosophy is unleashing the aspirations of the little guy or gal
with the big idea. Aspirations lead to enterprise and enterprise
creates jobs and wealth -- the opportunity that knows no
difference between color, creed or social class. //
4
My opponent and his advisors propose something quite
different.
Their writings refer to European models and industrial
policies. Their ideal is not the entrepreneur, but the
government planner -- the lawyer or policy professor who flatters
himself that he understands the American economy better than the
workers and entrepreneurs who actually make it work.
My opponent and his advisors can trace their intellectual
roots to the turn-of-the century socialists. Their predecessors
advocated large-scale government ownership to give the state the
leading role in the society and economy. Today, European
governments are still selling off the inefficient industrial
monstrosities that were born from those ideas.
Then the socialists became interventionist liberals, who
wanted to create a welfare state. They sought to "level"
differences, to tax success, to redistribute wealth. They ended
up paralyzing the private sector. That's one reason some
European countries today are stuck with unemployment rates around
10 percent. And it's why ordinary Europeans are rebelling
alite
against anything that even smacks of elite central government.
My opponent is drawn to these views; he and a number of his
advisors studied them at Oxford in the '60s. But they are shrewd
enough to know that the welfare state doesn't sell in America, so
my opponent labels his latest technique for government management
-- "investment." No matter what you call it, it's still big-
5
time government spending directed by Washington planners who want
to re-order social and economic priorities. And we cannot have that!!!
My opponent's approach exploits the market, but
fundamentally distrusts it. Where the market can be rough-
edged, they prefer academic tidiness. Where the market is often
unpredictable, they prefer the false certitude of social
engineering -- fashioned by a new economic elite of the so-
called "best and brightest."
From Santa Monica to Cambridge, my opponents are cranking up
their models -- ready to test them -- on you.
You see, your choice about who should lead the American
economy -- the entrepreneur or the government planner -- comes at
a decisive moment in history. 11
From Mexico to Eastern Europe, from Russia to South China,
been
command-and-control economies have dismissed as failures. The
individual is being set free, private enterprise unleashed,
bureaucracies shut down.
At the exact moment the rest of the world is going our way -
- why would we ever want to go their way?
//
What are we supposed to say to a world suddenly copying our
ideas about free enterprise? Just kidding?
11
This is the most fundamental disagreement between us:
whether the driving engine of growth is government
interventionism, or entrepreneurial capitalism. But from this
one disagreement flow many others, with important practical
consequences for our economy, our nation, and your family.
6
Take our second disagreement -- over the issue of taxes.
He wants to raise taxes, I want to cut them.
11
I believe our tax system is fundamentally the product of a
wartime economy. The cost of fighting two World Wars and a Cold
War vastly expanded the number of people who had to pay taxes,
and raised marginal tax rates.
High tax rates created pressure for exceptions -- tax
loopholes. The discovery and enlarging of loopholes has in turn
created a vast industry of accountants and lawyers and tax
specialists, all paid by special interests seeking favored
treatment.
During the 1980s, we slashed the tax on labor -- increasing
incentives for work and creating 21 million jobs 11 Now, we need
to lower the tax on capital -- encouraging more investment that
will create more jobs. 11
My opponent calls for raising marginal rates again. His
approach will cut the demand for labor -- unless you happen to be
a lawyer or accountant or lobbyist.
There's a motive to his madness. My opponent needs the
money to pay for his social engineering. He says it will come
from the "rich." He neglects to mention that two-thirds of the
quote "rich" -- he's targeting are family farmers and small
business owners. His theory is that you may not live the
lifestyle of the Rich and Famous -- but you can be taxed like you
do. N
7
This leads me to our third major difference: government
spending.
Again, the contrast couldn't be more plain. He wants to
raise government spending, I want to cut it. 11
win dollar
The federal government today spends almost a quarter of our
national income. When you add state and local spending, the
figure is about 35 cents.
My opponent thinks government should be bigger. He has
already called for $220 billion in new spending, on top of
today's $1.5 trillion -- so government can lead our economy with
new "investments." And Newsweek suggests that the actual cost
could be three times that.
My proposal to reduce the growth of spending has three
parts: a cap on the growth of mandatory spending, excluding
Social Security; a freeze on domestic spending; and the
elimination of 246 programs and more than 4000 projects we don't
need and can't afford. 11
I want this discipline backed up with a balanced budget
amendment and a line-item veto. 11 And I want to give you the right to
take up to 10 percent of your tax payment -- and dedicate it
solely to cut spending and the deficit. //
My opponent says he would like to cut a government program,
too. One program in the entire federal budget -- the honey bee
subsidy -- worth $11 million. Incidentally, Senator Gore has
voted four times to save the program. 11
2
X / CAN MARK NESHAM, DEP. DIR. B/Q RESEARCH 6-7327
ONLY PROVE
AND July 24,90
SCON RES 29 KISCAL BUDGET LES.
Amend 2 52830 which
DASCEU MATION 10 TABLE
1990 Farm Bill- PASCELL
BROW AMEND is allm INARE
MOTHON to TABLE 7 GRE VOIED YES n TABLE
CHAPEY AMEND
GORG VATED 2 TABLE Apr. 25,91
8
My opponent ducks the subject of spending cuts. He's
proposed about $5 billion in cuts in mandatory spending over four
years. The trends are clear. He wants to increase government's
share of the national wealth, I want to decrease it.
The fourth defining difference? Opening foreign markets for
American goods. Again, two contrasting approaches.
exports
Here in Oklahoma, 65,000 jobs are supported by trade -- and
that number will grow, if we open more foreign markets. That's
why I negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement or
NAFTA why I want a network of free trade agreements with other
countries.
I want lower-priced goods for American consumers, and I know
that, given the chance, the American worker can out think, out
compete, and out create any worker in the world. //
There were times when my opponent said he favored open
trade. Other times -- usually after meeting with big union
leaders -- he has no opinion at all. Asked about the free trade
pact with Mexico he now says -- "When I have a definitive
opinion I'll say so."
That indecision could have disastrous consequences. Make no
mistake: An indecisive President will produce a protectionist
trade policy. Over the past twenty years, Congress has become
much more protectionist. Changes in the way Congress operates
have significantly increased the power of individual members.
And the established special interests have targeted each one --
with a great deal of success. These local interest groups will
9
conspire with their clients in Congress to keep out competition
altogether. Only the President can speak for the national
interest.
The marriage of convenience between the special interests
and powerful Congressmen poses particular dangers to free trade.
Entrepreneurs are very good at taking advantage of foreign
markets; they are not as good at taking lobbyists to lunch. Old
line companies know the game well -- the weaker their competitive
edge in the marketplace, the greater their competition for favors
from Capitol Hill. So the President must be firmly committed to
opening markets -- at home and abroad.
Frankly, I believe that when Americans shop we should give
the first look to products marked Made-in-the-USA.//our quality
revolution has made American products the best in the world. But
they will only remain the best if American business opens itself
to competition. Competition gave American business its
competitive edge, and competition will keep it sharp.
There's a fifth difference between my opponent and me: our
mo-nopoker
attitudes toward government regulation, mandates and monopolies.
I want to minimize federal intrusion in the workings of the
marketplace; my opponent sees regulation as he sees taxes and
spending -- as a chance to reorder society according to planner's
blueprint.
Of course, I believe firmly in government's obligation to
protect the health and safety and rights of its citizens. I
fought for both the Clean Air Act and the Americans With
10
Disabilities Act.
Both will require new regulations -- but we
are proceeding to implement them in the most efficient and least
burdensome way possible.
Last year, Americans expended 5.3 billion hours just to keep
up with federal regulations. That's like watching every pro
football game on television back-to-back for the next 12 million
-- 268,000 years. (That's not including playoffs.) 11
That is why I have ordered a top-to-bottom review of
government regulations, to assess each new rule's impact on
economic growth. And in my Agenda I have called for adding
"sunset" provisions to all new regulations.
Look at health care -- a case study of our different
attitudes toward government regulation. My health care reform
will bring health care to those without it by giving them the
means to choose the kind of care they want. And my program
harnesses the forces of competition to control costs. add In 11
My opponent, by contrast, says that government will simply
issue an edict: Costs shall not rise. And he will order
businesses to provide health care or pay for it -- though he
never quite says how. It sounds simple, even seductive.
But that's not the way the world works. My opponent's new
dictates and taxes won't cure the health care problem; they will
just make the economy sicker. From Warsaw to Prague to Moscow,
government price controls have led to one thing: rationing of
service. In health care, that will mean longer lines,
inefficient service, and lower quality.
11
Our difference in approach to government's role shows up
across the board.
In child care -- I fought to empower parents to choose from
a public agency, a relative, or a church My opponents wanted a
government-knows-best monopoly.
In education -- I'm fighting to give parents scholarships to
choose the best schools for their kids -- public, private or
religious. 11 My opponent bows to the special interests who say
parents should only choose government schools.
Lastly, my opponent and I disagree on an issue crucial to
small businesses. I believe our legal system is out of control, 11
heading for an accident. The litigation explosion has
discouraged risk-taking and innovation, the life's blood of
entrepreneurial capitalism. Today Americans spend up to $200
(dollars)
billion in direct costs to lawyers 5 far more than our
5
competitors in Asia and Europe.
Again, when it comes to legal reform, the difference is
clear: I'm for it. My opponent and the trial lawyers want to
kill it.
In fact, one trial lawyer from Arkansas solicited funds for
my opponent by writing: "I can never remember an occasion when
he failed to do the right thing where we trial lawyers were
concerned."
A truly competitive America cannot afford a President who
worries about doing the right thing for trial lawyers. //
12
We need to sue each other less and care for each other more.
11
These, then, are the six core differences between my Agenda
and my opponent's plan. There are others, but all relate to
America's central challenge -- the challenge of securing peace
and prosperity in a totally new era.
We may talk about the same issues, but the similarity ends
there. My opponent and I hope to take America in very different
directions.
He would unite the Presidency and the Congress to achieve
one end above all others: more government -- a government that
taxes more, spends more, regulates more, encourages more
lawsuits, and shuts off more markets to the products Americans
create.
Those aren't new ideas. They're bad ideas. And they've
been tried before.
Buying my opponent's prescription for the economy would be
like going to the used car lot and buying the lemon you got rid
of 12-years-ago Only this time, there would be higher taxes,
higher interest rates, and higher inflation. This is not a good
deal for America.
On July 20, 1988, my opponent nominated Michael Dukakis for
President. He praised Michael Dukakis then as a "master of
innovation," the architect of the Massachusetts Miracle.
4
Six months later the Miracle was a curse, and Massachusetts
teetered toward bankruptcy.
13
I think America can do without that kind of innovation.
There are some kind of changes America simply can't afford.
I look to a different kind of future. We can build on our
strengths. With inflation kept safely behind bars, our
entrepreneurs can turn to the challenges they love to face:
transforming their dreams into wealth, their risk-taking into
jobs for all Americans.
And the result won't be the mirage of innovation conjured up
by government planners. It will be a wave of genuine innovation
and prosperity, created by free men and women, exploiting
opportunities unprecedented in our history.
1/
That is the choice we face. So I ask when you make that
choice, please consider carefully which candidate's agenda best
fits your beliefs, our national heritage, and our hopes for
lasting peace and prosperity.
Thank you for listening. God Bless the United States of
America.
# # #
TIME OF TRANSMISSION
TIME OF RECEIPT
WHITE HOUSE
SITUATION ROOM
PRECEDENCE: IMMEDIATE
RELEASER:
PRIORITY
ROUTINE
DTG:
MESSAGE NO.
CLASSIFICATION UNCLASS
PAGES 17
FROM JBUNTON
7750
111.5
(NAME)
(PHONE NUMBER)
(ROOM NO.)
MESSAGE DESCRIPTION RECKSIONS/ EDITS FOR
ENID- OKLAHOMA
TO (AGENCY)
DELIVER TO
DEPT/ROOM NO.
PHONE NUMBER
AF 1
CHRISTINA MARTIN
REMARKS: ENID, OKLAHOMA!
HERE'S THE STUFF-
Rich Nolan - RNC
Analysis done by Rep. Policy Gute -
3 alegonics
$5.2 b in manulator cut
over 4 yrs.
doesn't include domestic
discresionary
$ 44 billion gpending savings
Medicare B premiums
potus INTRO: MARK MCCORD
SEN. DON
NICKLES
ROBERTI ANTITONY GOP CANDIDATE
REP. Jim REESE
(Ferguson/Bunton)
September 16, 1992
- NEVA HILL BQ DIRECTOR
2:30 pm
- MAYOR
ENID
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: CONVENTION HALL
SEPTEMBER 17, 1992
10 AO PM AM
ENID, OKLAHOMA
morning
Good afternoon, everyone.
land kush
(Acknowledgments. I'm sorry I missed all the festivities
end
the Cherobee Striprun was
last week I'm told you put on the world's largest horse race.
Please accept congratulations from the guy who's involved in the
world's longest horse race.)
I have come here today to the Bright Star of the Great
Plains to discuss a serious topic -- perhaps the most serious
issue Americans face this fall.
I want to speak of our economic future, and of the very
real, and very different, choices my opponent and I offer for
shaping that future.
Enid is the perfect place to begin this discussion, for in
many ways your community serves as a metaphor for America. Here
in your history you find all the forces that have made us the
greatest economic power the world has ever seen.
Last week, of course, you celebrated the 99th anniversary of
Rush
the Land Race. The race was a peculiarly American experiment.
Only Americans could have mustered the exuberance and guts to
pull it off.
The government was there to help -- surveying and plotting
the land, ensuring against fraud. But then government stood
back, to let freedom work its miracles. And 99 years later, in
2
this lovely town, we see the results all around us: a thriving
center of commerce, a hub of transportation, a producer of goods
sold in every corner of the earth.
It is a miracle only a free people could have produced. It
is a miracle beyond the power of any government planner to
conjure up. And the lesson it teaches should guide us as we look
to the challenges ahead.
We stand today at the edge of the new era. At the close of
a long and costly Cold War, we have an opportunity to turn our
attention to the problems at home. At the same time, Americans
recognize the world is in transition. They feel it in their
homes and neighborhoods; they read about its stirrings in our
fellow democracies.
In Detroit last week I presented my Agenda for American
CRISIS"
Renewal -- a diagnosis of the economic problems we face, and an
explanation of my comprehensive, integrated approach to get our
nation safely to the other side of the new era that confronts us.
I conclude my Agenda with a target for America -- 13 actions
that I will pursue in the first year of my second term with every
ounce of energy at my command.
In the crossfire of a national campaign, issues often become
blurred. Journalists sometimes argue that candidates try to blur
ideas, in hopes of avoiding controversy. But a candidate who
does so, if elected, finds himself without the popular support he
needs to get things done.
3
This year I want a clear mandate from the American people.
You are entitled to know precisely what I intend to do. And once
elected, I will count on your support to translate my mandate
into action.
By boldy taking on the challenges of this new world, America
will forge a new economic security, just as America has achieved
a lasting political and military security.
Change is coming, but that must not be an excuse for rash
judgments. We have the power to direct change. We must never
grasp it blindly -- without considering seriously where those
changes will lead us, or what they will mean in our daily lives.
That is why this afternoon morning I want to lay out the chief
distinctions between my Agenda and my opponent's plan. These
distinctions are fundamental: they color our approaches to every
major issue in this election -- from education to health care to
the renewal of the American economy.
The first difference I want to discuss is the most profound,
for it goes to the heart of the matter: what makes our economy
grow? or more precisely, who makes an economy grow?
the
My answer is: the individual working man and woman. So I
want to unleash the aspirations and ideas of entrepreneurs --
enlarge their capacity to make those ideas work. From these
aspirations come enterprise, and from enterprise comes the
creation of jobs and the creation of wealth.
Our American system of entrepreneurial capitalism is based
on opportunity, and, when it works best, it offers opportunity
4
Newsday May P. 3, Murray 1,991 kempton
without regard to rank or social class.
Napoleon once said that
every one of his privates carried a marshall's baton in his
knapsack.
And indeed, that political revolution freed privates
and sergeants to become brilliant military leaders.
My economic revolution holds the same promise for millions
of Americans with drive and energy and dreams -- the little guy
with the big idea.
Now, my opponent offers a very different answer to the
fundamental question of how an economy grows. His plan is
premised on the belief that Washington -- the government -- will
produce economic growth through the investments of professional
planners.
ORWELL HAD BIG BROTHER, ARKANSAS HAS B/6 BUBBA.
Listen carefully to my opponent and his advisers.
Their writings refer to "industrial policies," led by the
government. They draw examples of massive economic combines from
European models. Their ideal is not the entreprenuer but the
government planner -- lawyer or policy professor who flatters
again
himself that he understands the American economy better than the
p.6
workers and entrepreneurs who actually create it.
My opponent and his advisers embody the most recent
variation of one line of 20th Century thought. Their school
gravitates to models of society organized from the top down.
They can trace their intellectual roots to the socialist response
to the no-holds-barred capitalism of the 19th Century. At first,
their predecessors advocated large-scale government ownership to
give the state the leading role in the society and economy. In
5
fact, European governments are still selling off the inefficient
monstrosities that were born from those ideas.
Then the socialists became interventionist liberals, who
wanted to create a welfare state. They sought to "level"
differences, to tax success, to redistribute property. The
rigidity of their government-imposed leveling paralyzed job
TOTOSTER
growth and the innovation of the private sector. That's one
FRANCE 10.3
reason
many
European governments today are stuck with
EGERMANY 15.19
unemployment rates above 10 percent. And that's why their CANADA
REALY
publics are raging against the elite grand designs from national
academies and favored institutions.
My opponent is drawn to these views; he and his advisors
studied them at Oxford in the '60s. But his plan labels the
lastest technique for government management as "investment" --
big-time government spending directed by policy planners who want
to re-order social and economic arrangements.
My opponent's approach exploits the market, but
fundamentally distrusts it. Where the market can be rough-
edged, they prefer academic tidiness. Where the market is often
unpredictable, they prefer the false certitude of social
engineering -- fashioned by a new economic corps of the best and
the brightest.
From Santa Monica to Cambridge, my opponents are cranking up
them out
their models -- ready to test -- on you.
You can trace our different attitudes to the core of our
DAVID
respective political parties. At the Democratic convention,
BOAZ
CATO INST.
WASH. TIMES
OP-EN. AUG.
1992
6
nearly half the delegates were on public payrolls. Our
Republican convention, by contrast, was full of small-business
entrepreneurs who have built their livelihoods in the private
sector, designing and manufacturing and marketing products and
services.
And you can trace our contrasting attitudes to our different
backgrounds. I spent half my life in private business, building
a company from the ground up, trying to make it grow, to create
more jobs -- and, as you know, to pay more taxes along the way.
My opponent, on the other hand, chose at an exceptionally
early age to run for office, to determine how the people's taxes
should be spent -- how to shape people's lives through more
government programs. And according to Newsweek magazine, he's
already got -- at last count -- 62 new programs for you to pay
for. The government unions are popping the champagne corks and
DAVID TELL
bringing out the noisemakers already.
Your choice about who should lead the American economy --
the entreprenuer or the government planner -- comes at a decisive
moment in our history -- and in world history.
From Mexico to Eastern Europe, from Russia to South China,
command-and-control economies are dismissed as failures. The new
era is an era of the individual set free, private enterprise
unleashed, bureaucracies shut down.
So we should ask ourselves: As America enjoys an
unchallenged stature around the world, why should our country
7
embrace an economic logic that the rest of the world has at last
dismissed?
Well, we shouldn't. But my opponent says we should.
This is the most fundamental disagreement between us:
whether the driving engine of growth is entrepreneurial
capitalism or government interventionism. But from this one
disagreement flow many others, with important practical
consequences for the future of our economy, our nation, and your
family.
Take our second disagreement -- over the issue of taxes.
Our difference arises from his preference for government and my
preference for private-sector initiative. And the contrast can
be summarized precisely: He wants to raise taxes, I want to cut
them.
I believe our tax system is a product of a wartime economy.
World War Two forced us to raise large amounts of revenue. We
vastly expanded the number of people who had to pay taxes, and
GRAPH OK, JD FOSTER (5084 CEA)
set in place high marginal tax rates [[CHECK]]. The demands of
the Cold War kept the core of this tax system in place, and even
expanded it.
High tax rates created pressure for exceptions -- tax
loopholes -- and the discovery and enlarging of loopholes has in
turn created a vast service industry of accountants and lawyers
and tax specialists, all in the pay of special interests seeking
favored treatment.
8
During the 1980s, we managed to slash the tax on labor --
19.5 (JD FOSTER) 5084 CEA
lowering the price of work and creating 19 million jobs. My
opponent calls for raising those marginal rates again. His
approach will cut the demand for jobs -- except for lawyers and
accountants, of course, who can always figure out more loopholes.
There's a motive behind this madness. My opponent needs the
revenue to pay for his social engineering. He needs an intricate
tax system as a tool to encourage socially favored, politically
correct types of behavior by businesses and families. He
out
neglects to point that two-thirds of the people who would see
their taxes increase under his proposal are family farmers and
small business owners.
My philosophy moves us in the opposite direction. I want to
reduce the marginal rates on labor -- and cut taxes on savings
and investment. Why? It's common sense. When capital is taxed
heavily, it becomes scarce -- available only to the wealthy, who
need it least of all. But when it is taxed more lightly, it
becomes more abundant. The demand for labor increases, wages
rise, and unemployment lines shrink. That is the kind of economy
I want.
This leads me to our third major difference: government
spending.
Again, the contrast couldn't be more plain. He wants to
increase government spending I want to cut it.
The federal government today spends about 24 cents of every
dollar of national income -- more than $1.5 trillion this year.
354 WITH STATE LOCAL ADDED To FED.
PER J.O. FOSTER 5084 CEA
9
35¢
When you add state and local spending, the figure is xx. So you
can see that governments are already spending almost as much of overyzvel
the national income as the private sector that actually earns it.
To me that suggests a simple truth: Government is too big
and it spends too much.
To my opponent it suggests something else. He has already
called for $220 billion in new spending, on top of the $1.5
trillion -- so government can lead our economy with new
David Tell
p.32
"investments."
And Newsweek magazine suggests that the actual
has said
9/1/92
increase could be triple the amount he has already admitted.
Rich Thomas
Mot to refer
My proposal to reduce the growth of spending has three
to this because
it trashs no too
parts: a cap on the growth of mandatory spending, excluding
Social Security; a freeze on domestic spending; and the
elimination of 246 programs and more than 2000 projects we don't
need and can't afford. I want this discipline backed up with
constitutional balanced budget amendment, a line-item veto and my
tax return check-off proposal to give you the power to cut the
deficit.
Paul Gilman (5199) ONB - range of est. #uedin public depate on in Sen.
Amount of
My opponent says he would like to cut a government program, clinton
Honey Be
too: the honey bee subsidy -- a subsidy, incidentally, that $40 m /per
Budget is
Subsidy
Senator Gore has voted [[xx]] 2 times to save. MARK NESHAM DEP. DIR.
ACENDA 4 RENEWAL 4 B/QISILLES PAPER
RESEARCH B/Q 92
armin
Beyond that, my opponent ducks the subject of spending cuts.
I have already proposed specific cuts in mandatory programs of
#300 BILLION OVER NEXT -VEARS.
$132 billion. But let's not lose sight of the forest for the
$130 AIREADY PROPOSED 9/7/92 DETROIT SPEECH - AGENDA FOR RENEWAL
trees. The trends are clear. Governor Clinton wants to debate
which programs to increase; I want to debate which programs to
Bob Gradel 1
b/c change in fambil
91 act 18.b
BOB GRADY
92
10.7
x4742
lest 93
5.7
To
Date
Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
of
Phone
Area Code 4747
Number
Extension
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
OMB
Message -Paul Gilmar (5179)
- Ron Gryswell (4586)
Operator
AMPAD
23-021 - 200 SETS
EFFICIENCY®
23-421 - 400 SETS
CARBONLESS
10
cut. He wants to increase government's share of the national
wealth, I want to decrease it.
Now, for the fourth defining difference between his plan and
my agenda -- opening foreign markets for American goods.
DAVID
65,000
exports
WALTERS
Here in Oklahoma, 72,000 jobs are supported by trade -- and
USTR
that number will grow, if we build on our success. Opening
foreign markets is central to my agenda. I want lower-priced
goods for American consumers, and I know that, given the chance,
our businesses will maintain our nation's position as an export
superpower.
There are times when my opponent says he favors open trade.
Other times, he has second thoughts. And on some occasions --
usually when he appears before protectionist interest groups --
he has no opinion at all. At one such gathering recently, he was
asked about our new agreement to open markets in Mexico. His
reply was revealing: "When I have a definitive opinion I'll say
so.
"
That indecision could have disastrous consequences. Make no
mistake: An indecisive President will produce a protectionist
trade policy. Over the past twenty years, Congress has become
much more protectionist. Changes in the way Congress operates
have significantly increased the power of individual members.
And the established special interests have targeted each one --
with a great deal of success. If the President doesn't speak
forcefully for the national interest, these localized interest
11
groups will conspire with their clients in Congress to keep out
competition altogether.
The marriage of convenience between the special interests
and powerful congressmen poses particular dangers to open trade.
Our leading-edge entrepreneurs can exploit open markets to the
fullest. But they simply don't have the time or money to launch
ambitious lobbying efforts in Washington. But the old-line gang
know the game well: The weaker their competitive edge in the
marketplace, the greater their competition for favors from
Capitol Hill. The President must be firmly committed to opening
markets -- at home and abroad -- to carry the day.
we
Frankly, I believe that when Americans shop they should give
the first look to products marked made-in-the-USA. Our quality
revolution has made American products the best in the world. But
they will only remain the best if American business opens itself
to competition from all comers. Competition gave us our
competitive edge, and competition will keep it sharp.
IREDUNDANT
My commitment to open trade has shown concrete results: the
North American Free Trade Agreement, and progress toward a new
world trade agreement. And, as I outline in my Agenda, I want to
forge a network of free-trade agreements around the world. Only
an unequivocal commitment to open markets can make this strategy
work.
Every time my opponent has been asked to show such a
commitment, he has waffled; and his protectionist allies in
12
Congress will focus his attention on holding back competition for
old industries, not capturing markets for new ones.
Our entrepreneurial businesses will need all their energy to
focus on the challenge ahead. What they don't need is the
federal government peering over their shoulder, second guessing
every move. That is the fifth difference between my opponent and
me: our attitudes toward federal regulation, mandates and
monopolies.
I want to minimize federal intrusion in the working of the
marketplace; my opponent sees regulation as he sees taxes and
spending -- as a chance to reorder society according to a policy-
planner's blueprint.
Of course, I believe firmly in government's obligation to
protect the health and safety and rights of its citizens. I
fought for both and got them done when others said we couldn't.
Both will require new regulations -- but we are proceeding in the
most efficient and least burdensome way possible.
April
Last year, Americans expended 5.3 billion manhours just to
hours of gov't papernf ork last
yr.
keep up with federal regulations. That is why I have ordered a
ABCSPECH 1991 SPEECH MAY HAMPOON 12,91 June COMMENCEMENT 11991 NFIP
top-to-bottom review of government regulations, to assess each
new rule's impact on economic growth. And in my Agenda I have
called for adding "sunset" provisions to all new regulations.
Look at a health care -- a case study of our different
attitudes toward government regulation. My health care reform
will bring health care to those without it by giving them the
means to choose the kind of care they want. And it harnesses the
13
forces of competition and economies of scale to control costs.
My opponent, by contrast, says that government will simply
issue an edict: Costs shall not rise. And he will order order
businesses to provide health care or pay for it -- though he
never quite says how. It sounds simple, even seductive.
But that's not the way the world works. His new dictates
and taxes won't cure the health care problem; it will just kill
jobs. From Warsaw to Prague to Moscow, government price controls
have led to one thing: rationing of service. In health care that
means longer lines, inefficient service, and a lower quality of
care.
Our difference in approach to government's role shows up
across the board.
In child care -- I fought to empower parents to make their
own choices from a variety of private sector options, while my
opponents wanted a government-knows-best monopoly.
In education -- I'm fighting to give parents scholarships to
choose the best schools for thier kids, while my opponent bows to
the special interests who cling to the government monopoly.
In family leave policies -- I want incentives to give
companies, especially smaller ones, the means and flexibility to
would
provide leave, while my opponent just order it from Washington
and ignore the workers who need it most.
Lastly, my opponent and I disagree on an issue crucial to
small businesses. I believe our legal system is out of control.
The litigation explosion has not only damaged our social fabric;
14
it has discouraged risk-taking and innovation, the life's blood
upto
of entrepreneurial capitalism. Americans today spend^$200
billion in direct costs to lawyers far more than our
competitors in Asia and Europe.
Again, when it comes to reforming our legal system, the
difference is clear: I'm for it. My opponent and the trial
lawyers want to kill it.
In fact, one trial lawyer from Arkansas solicited funds for
my opponent by writing: "I can never remember an occasion when
he failed to do the right thing where we trial lawyers were
concerned."
A truly competitive America cannot afford a President who
worries about doing the right thing for trial lawyers.
We need to sue each other less and care for each other more.
These, then, are the core differences between my Agenda and
my opponent's plan. There are others, but all relate to
America's central challenge -- the challenge of securing peace
and prosperity in a totally new era.
We may talk about the same issues, but the similarity ends
there. My opponent and I hope to take America in very different
directions.
He would unite the Presidency and the Congress to achieve
one end above all others: more and more government -- it taxes
more, spends more, regulates more, encourages more lawsuits, and
fails to open markets to the products Americans create.
15
Those aren't new ideas. They're bad ideas. And they've
been tried before.
Protectionism would raise prices. So would unchecked
regulation. The surge in spending would fuel inflation -- again.
Higher inflation would spike interest rates -- again.
And in response, my opponent and his advisers would let
government's clumsy hand dig deeper and deeper in the market
place, putting American businesses further and further in the
hole.
On July 20, 1988, my opponent nominated Michael Dukakis for
President. He praised Michael Dukakis then as a "master of
innovation," the architect of the Massachusetts Miracle.
FOUR STET
Six months later the Miracle was a curse, and Massachusetts
teetered toward bankruptcy.
I think America can do without that kind of innovation.
You'd better check closely to see what the "new breed" of
Democratic governors are selling -- once you buy it, there are no
refunds.
America will change in this new era. But there are some
kinds of change America simply can't afford.
I look to a different kind of future. We can build on our
strengths. With inflation -- that thief of dreams -- safely
behind bars, our entrepreneurs can turn to the challenges they
were meant to face: transforming their dreams into wealth, their
risk-taking into jobs for all Americans.
16
And the result won't be the mirage of innovation conjured up
by government planners. It will be a wave of genuine innovation
and prosperity, created by free men and women, exploiting
opportunities unprecedented in our history.
That is the choice we face. So I ask when you make that
choice, please consider carefully which candidate's agenda best
fits your beliefs, our national heritage, and our hopes for
lasting peace and prosperity.
# # #
(Ferguson/Bunton)
September 15, 1992
7:00 pm
ENID
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: CONVENTION HALL
SEPTEMBER 17, 1992
XX:XX PM 10 AM
ENID, OKLAHOMA
Good afternoon, everyone.
(Acknowledgments. joke about horse race.)
Great
I have come here today to the Bright Star of the Plains to
discuss a serious topic -- perhaps the most serious issue
Americans face this fall.
I want to speak of our economic future, and of the very
real, and very different, choices my opponent and I offer for
shaping that future.
This. Sept. 10, 1992)
Last week in Detroit I released my Agenda for American
Renewal. My agenda is comprehensive. It diagnoses the problems
we face, and lays out the principles that underlie our approach
to those problems.
I conclude my agenda with a list -- 13 actions that I will
pursue in the first year of my second term with every ounce of
energy at my command.
I have gone into such detail for a simple reason. In the
crossfire of a national campaign, differences can sometimes
become blurred. But elections are about clear mandates; and a
washington
Am Boaz Times
clear mandate from the American people is what I seek in this
:A3
David CATO before INSPITE
election. You are entitled to know precisely what I intend to
Sur Ana. 19th
do, and how I intend to do it.
POTUS Housron GALA
CAROL BROKINGS
nearly 1/2 of all the
WORLD PERSPECTIVES, INC.
Democratic convention
785-3345
delegates are on the public
payroll.
2
And I want to pursue a detailed debate for another reason.
People are anxious. The changes we see all around us breed
uncertainty. But change must not be an excuse for rash
judgments. We have the power to select the kinds of changes
America will face. And the irreversible mistake would be to
grasp change for change's sake, without knowing where change will
lead us, or what change will entail in the daily life of every
American.
That is why this afternoon I want to lay out the chief
distinctions between my opponent and me. These distinctions are
philosophical, and they are basic: they color our approaches to
every major issue in this election -- from education to health
care to the renewal of the American economy.
The first difference I want to discuss is, I believe, the
most profound, for it goes to the most fundamental question: what
makes our economy grow? Or more precisely, who makes an economy
grow?
My answer is: the individual -- the aspirations and ideas of
entrepreneurs, and their capacity to make those ideas work. From
these aspirations come enterprise, and from enterprise comes the
creation of jobs and the creation of wealth.
Our American system of entrepreneurial capitalism is based
on opportunity, and it offers this opportunity without regard to
rank or social class. Napoleon once said that every one of his
privates carried a general's baton in his knapsack.
3
Entrepreneurial capitalism is based on the belief that every
American should have the chance to wield the general's baton.
Now, my opponent, in addressing the fundamental question of
how an economy grows, offers a very different answer. The
distinction between us is not merely over the role of government
in an economy; both he and I agree that government has a role to
play.
The distinction is between the nature and extent of
government's role. For he sees the government as the catalyst of
economic growth; as the spark that lights the tinder of
enterprise and invention. Over and above the market decisions of
entrepreneurs he places the judgment of government planners and
bureaucrats.
Listen carefully to him and his advisers. For most
Americans the traditional economic model is the small businessman
or -woman, who takes a risk with a nest-egg, offers something new
or better to the consumer, and creates jobs and wealth in the
process.
But for my opponent and his advisers the ideal is quite
different. In their writings they speak often of the "European
model," of societies organized from the top-down. The ideal is
the government planner -- the public policy-maker who studies
charts and graphs in a bureaucratic cubicle, fusses with
econometric models, and in so doing flatters himself that he
understands the American economy better than the workers and
entrepreneurs who actually create it.
4
I believe that my opponent and his advisers do indeed
understand the power of the market -- the market, after all, is
the only mechanism that can create the revenues they need to
finance their social policies.
But they fundamentally distrust the market. Where the
market can be raw and rough-edged, they prefer academic tidiness.
Where the market is often unpredictable and risky, they prefer
the false certitude of theory.
You can see these different attitudes at work in our
political parties. At the Democratic convention, nearly half the
delegates were on the public payroll. Our Republican convention,
by contrast, was full of small business entrepreneurs who have
built their livelihoods in the private sector, designing and
manufacturing and marketing products and services.
And you can trace our different attitudes to our different
backgrounds. I spent half my life in private business, building
a company from the ground up, trying to expand the business, to
create more jobs -- and, as you know, to pay more taxes along the
way ) THIS SOLLNDS NEGATIVE
My opponent, on the other hand, chose at an exceptionally
early age to run for office, to determine how those taxes should
be spent, and to shape people's lives through government
programs.
This choice about who should lead the American economy --
the entreprenuer or the government planner -- comes at a decisive
moment in our history.
5
From Mexico to Eastern Europe, from Russia to parts of
China, command-and-control economies are understood as failures.
The new era is an era of the individual set free, private
enterprise unleashed, bureaucracies shut down.
So why, as America enjoys an unchallenged stature around the
world, should our country embrace an economic logic that the rest
of the world has at last dismissed?
My answer is: we shouldn't. My opponent says we should.
This the most fundamental disagreement between us -- about
the importance of entrepreneurial capitalism. But from this one
disagreement flow many others, with important practical
consequences for our economy.
Take the issue of taxes. Our difference could be summarized
very easily: He wants to raise them
I want to cut them.
But this afternoon, let me address the issue of what that's
so.
SAID/LOFT
Much has been made this election about the conversion from a
wartime economy to a peacetime economy. It is an important
discussion, but one major aspect has so far been overlooked. Our
tax system itself is a product of a wartime economy; peacetime
now offers us the chance to reduce the burden it places on the
taxpayer.
The first income tax was XX percent. The demands of World
War One changed all that; and following World War Two, we have
kept in place that wartime system of taxation, with its high
marginal rates.
6
Those high rates have engendered pressure for exceptions --
tax loopholes -- and the discovery and enlarging of loopholes
has in turn created a vast service industry of accountants and
lawyers and tax specialists, all in the pay of special interests
seeking special treatment.
My opponent calls for raising those marginal rates still
further -- which will only increase the demand for loopholes, and
thus the demand for lawyers and accountants. He says these
higher rates somehow relate to some undefined notion of
"fairness," but he neglects to tell you that two-thirds of the
people who would see their taxes increase are family farmers and
small business owners.
Those people will already be reeling from Governor Clinton's
other tax ideas -- which will lead, for example, to a 7 percent
We
payroll tax for mandatory health care and a one percent tax for
training. Taken together, his tax policies amount to a kind of
w
15
said
punishment against the entrepreneurial spirit -- against the
?
forces of creativity and dynamism our economy thrives on.
Tech
Lincoln
My philosophy moves us in the opposite direction. I want
cut taxes. Why? Again, the answer is experience. In the 1980s,
(81) 82 lowerd rates and broadered base
Spuck
(86)
when we lowered marginal rates, closed loopholes, and broadened
19.5 (JD FOSTER 5084)
the tax base, we created XX million jobs -- almost all of them,
incidentally, in the small, entrpreneurial businesses that
Governor Clinton wants to tax. That's the direction I want us to
move in.
jobs event not ahopy
diart create my
base broadned
7
Governor Clinton will not be budged from his higher-tax
position, and the reason leads me to our third major difference:
spending.
Again, the difference couldn't be plainer. He wants to
sost
increase government spending,
I want to cut it.
TO Fosiek
354 (orac)
add
The federal government today spends 24 cents of every dollar
AND
state ;
of national income -- more than $1.5 trillion this year. To me
local
that suggests a simple truth: Government is too big and it spends
354
too much.
To Governor Clinton it suggests something else. Apparently
he feels $1.5 trillion isn't enough. He has already called for
$220 billion in new spending -- $220 billion that his economic
planners feel they can allocate more rationally and efficiently
than the people who earned it.
My proposal to reduce the growth of spending has three
parts: a cap on mandatory spending, excluding Social Security; a
freeze on domestic spending; and cuts in 246 programs and more
than 2000 projects we don't need and can't afford. Governor
Clinton says he would like to cut a government program, too: the
honey bee subsidy, though he may have to fight his running mate
2
on this one. Senator Gore has voted to three times to save the
subsidy.
DEP. DIR RESEARCH
MARK NESHAM @ ANS B/Q 336-
7327
I have laid my proposed spending reductions on the table for
all to examine, and I welcome the debate. But let's not lose
sight of the forest for the trees. The trends are plain.
Governor Clinton wants to debate which programs to increase; I
8
want to debate which programs to cut. He wants to increase
government's share of the national wealth, I want to decrease it.
The question of government's role also affects one of the
defining issues of this campaign opening markets for American
goods -- and here too my opponent views are different from my
own.
[[ Insert on Oklahoma jobs supported by foreign trade. I
want to build on the kind of success exports have brought to
Enid. Opening foreign markets is central to my agenda. I want
lower-priced goods for American consumers, and I want American
business to make America an export superpower. ]
There are times when my opponent says he favors open trade.
Other times, he has second thoughts. And on some occasions --
usually when he appears before protectionist interest groups --
he has no opinion at all. [NAFTA quote. ]]
A President doesn't have the luxury of indecision. And when
it comes to opening markets, firm leadership is essential.
Here's why: Over the past twenty years, Congress has splintered
into shifting coalitions at the beck and call of well-financed
interest groups. Many of these special interests benefit from
protectionism; they see it as much easier than remaining
competitive. As a result, protectionist sentiment has overtaken
the Congress.
Against this massive protectionist effort to maintain the
status quo, our small businesses are outnumbered. It is left to
the President to speak against the special interests and for the
9
interests of our entrepreneurs -- which is in the national
interest.
we
Frankly, I believe that when they go shopping Americans
should give American-made products the first look. American
products are the best in the world. But they will remain the
best only if American business opens itself to competition from
all comers -- competition gave us our competitive edge, and
competition will keep that edge sharp.
My commitment to open trade has shown concrete results: the
North American Free Trade Agreement; the progress toward a new
world trade agreement; and, as I outline in my Agenda, a network
of free-trade agreements around the world. Only an unequivocal
commitment to open markets will make these possibilities real.
Every time my opponent has been asked to show such a
commitment, he has waffled; and his protectionist allies in
Congress will not permit him to open those markets that our
entrepreneurs will need to thrive. The choice we offer on open
markets is the difference between moving forward and standing
still. And in the global economy, standing still means falling
behind.
In the challenge ahead, small business will need relief from
over-regulation by the federal government. This is the fifth
difference between my opponent and me.
I believe firmly in government's power to protect the health
and safety of its citizens. And there are times when new
government regulation is in order. I'm proud of the Clean Air
10
Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Both of them have
required new regulations to clean our air and to bring disabled
AMericans into the mainstream of our national life.
But tt is in the nature of government always to expand its
power. The Federal Register -- the publication that lists each
year's federal regulations -- has grown to the size of the
Manhattan phone book. Only an active, countervailing force can
check this tendency, so that the need for sound regulation does
not become an excuse for meddling from Washington.
That is why I have called for a top-to-bottom review of all
government regulation, to assess each new rule's impact on
economic growth. And in my Agenda I have called for adding
"sunset" provisions to all new regulations, so that the
government's regulatory policies can adapt themselves to changing
circumstances (growth.) There's no reason regulations should live
longer than my friend George Burns.
My opponent's attitude to regulation can be seen in his
health care proposals. For him regulation is not a necessary
evil but a first resort. I have proposed increasing access to
health care by making the health care market more efficient --
pooling
through larger pools of XX and increasing competition among
private providers.
to
My opponent proposes set up an new government body to
regulate costs. Government control of prices, as any East
European can tell you, leads to one thing: rationing. In health
11
care that will mean longer lines, inefficient service, and
reduced care.
His health care plan is another instance of Governor
Clinton's almost infinite faith in the wisdom of government, and
his near-total distrust of private decision-making.
AND I
Finally, my opponent disagree on an issue crucial to small
businesses: reforming our legal system, putting an end to the
frivolous lawsuits that cripple businesses and coarsen our social
fabric.
Again, when it comes to reforming our legal system, I can
briefly summarize: he's against it I'm for it.
Our disagreement is revealing. As a former businessman, I
understand that growth -- the investment of capital, the creation
of jobs -- comes with risk. My opponent doesn't get it. He
up TO
favors the status quo -- even though Americans today spend $200
billion in direct costs to lawyers.
That is a cost a competitive America simply can't afford --
not now, and certainly not in the next decade. But my opponent
won't budge. Trial lawyers have fought my efforts to reform the
system, and so it's not surprising that they are among the
biggest donors to Governor Clinton's campaign.
Veto of Good Samaritan law. Quote.
We would be a lot better off if sued each other less and
cared for each other more.
These, then, are my core differences with Governor Clinton.
There are others, but all relate to America's central challenge -
12
- the challenge of securing peace and prosperity in a new era,
unlike any other our nation has seen.
STET
I think my opponent and I both recognize this as our great
challenge. I think that's why we address ourselves to the same
topics.
But don't let that similarlity fool you. Though we discuss
the same things, we hope to take America in very different
directions.
My opponent would unite the power of the Presidency and the
power of the Congress in the service of a larger government that
taxes more, spends more, and reneges on its obligation to open
markets to the products Americans produce.
Those aren't new ideas. They're bad ideas. And they've
been tried before.
Together with the higher prices protectionism would bring,
unchecked spending and draconian regulation will fuel inflation -
- again. Higher inflation will spike interest rates -- again.
And in response government's clumsy hand will meddle even
more in the market place, and handicap business more and more
severly.
July 20, 1988
In 1988, my opponent nominated Michael Dukakis for
NOMINATED BY
CLINTON
President. He praised Michael Dukakis then as a "master of
innovation," the architect of the Massachusetts Miracle.
FOUR
weld GOV.
Six months later the Miracle was in tatters, the state was
on the verge of bankruptcy.
(NOV.41988 BOSION HERALD ARRECE)
WHAT
JOHN
I think America can do without that kind of innovation.
- PUBLIC PERCEPTION WAS WASN'T ANYTHING WRONG
SAECHWRITER
By 89 IN SERVING FISCAL PROBLEMS
LEMS/ NEWENSLAN- BOTTON HERALD HEADCINE (VPOTUS)]
late Summer
WHAT A MESS"
13
Of course America will change. But there are some kinds of
change America simply can't afford.
I look to a different kind of future, and I have charted our
course. We can build on our past strengths. With inflation --
that thief of dreams -- safely behind bars, our entrepreneurs can
turn to the challenges they were meant to face: transforming
their dreams into wealth, their risk-taking into jobs for all
Americans.
And the result won't be the mirage of innovation conjured up
by government planners. It will be a wave of genuine innovation
and prosperity, created by free men and women, exploiting
opportunities unprecedented in our history.
That is the choice we face. I ask when you make that
choice, please consider carefully which cnadidate's agenda best
fits your beliefs, our national heritage, and our hopes for
lasting peace and prosperity.
# # #
have highlighted these differences today
PAGE
2
1ST STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright (c) 1988 The New York Times Company;
The New York Times
November 5, 1988, Saturday, Late City Final Edition
SECTION: Section 1; Page 8, Column 3; National Desk
LENGTH: 678 words
HEADLINE: Bush, Saying 'Every Vote Counts,' May Add Visits to Crucial States
BYLINE: By GERALD M. BOYD, Special to the New York Times
DATELINE: LIVONIA, Mich., Nov. 4
BODY:
Vice President Bush shadowed Gov. Michael S. Dukakis through the Northeast
and Midwest today with a relentless attack on his Democratic rival's competence
and ideology.
While Mr. Bush preached largely to the faithful in strong Republican areas,
his strategists reassessed his schedule for the last 72 hours of the campaign.
The Republican Presidential candidate is considering adding appearances in
Colorado, California, Illinois and Kentucky and returning to Michigan. Mr.
Dukakis has also been campaigning in many of these same closely contested
states.
At a stop in this swing area of blue-collar and middle-class voters outside
Detroit, Mr. Bush said: 'Every vote counts this year. There are no sure
things.
Mr. Bush began the day by arguing that his rival had failed to prevent
financial woes in Massachusetts and that the failure was indicative of what
would happen in Washington if Mr. Dukakis won on Tuesday. Earlier this week,
Massachusetts officials reported that state tax collections in October fell
short of projections and that the state had been overdrawn at the Bank of Boston
by $190 million.
'What a Mess'
As he spoke at a morning rally in Fairfield, Conn., Mr. Bush brandished a
Boston newspaper with a headline reading 'What a Mess'' to describe the state's
fiscal picture.
''My opponent has been saying that this election is about competence, not
about ideology, Mr. Bush said, holding up a copy of Wednesday's issue of The
Boston Herald. 'The Governor says he wants to do for the Federal Government
what he's done for Massachusetts, and here is the headline from a Boston paper
two days ago and here's what it says: 'What a Mess.'
''Let me tell you something. This guy has been campaigning on the slogan that
he's one of you and that he's on your side. Well, maybe he would be on your
side, but I don't think the American people want to be on his side.'
LEXIS:NEXIS®
LEXIS·NEXIS®
LEXIS·NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central, Inc.
Recyclable
PAGE
3
(c) 1988 The New York Times, November 5, 1988
The Vice President argued that the Massachusetts situation illustrates how
Mr. Dukakis might handle the Federal budget and said that the state ''got into
it by overspending.
' ' How did he get out of it or try to,'' Mr. Bush asked. ' ' By raising taxes a
total of $180 million this year alone. But he hasn't been able to raise them
fast enough and now he's borrowing like mad, writing checks that he doesn't even
have enough money in the bank to cover.
Throughout the campaign, neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Dukakis has offered a
detailed plan for greatly reducing the Federal deficit, which under the Reagan
Administration has climbed to a higher level than the deficits of previous
administrations combined.
Mr. Bush continued to raise questions about Mr. Dukakis's competence at the
day's major event, a parade through downtown Cincinnati that followed one for
the city's first-place professional football team, the Bengals. The event was
marred slightly by rain. With the Republican nominee's lead in public opinion
polls slipping, Mr. Bush has been increasingly trying to portray a possible
victory in the context of an ideological mandate.
These are the days of all these polls and all these weighty commentaries on
television, analyzing everything to death,' he said in Connecticut. 'But let
me tell you something: The American people are smart. The American people know
the facts. And it is the American people who are going to decide this election.
And it is the people who are going to decide what this victory means.
'And what I am asking the people of this great country to give me on Nov. 8
is not just a political victory, but a mandate, for the mainstream values of
America.
Mr. Bush argued that a victory would be a mandate to keep down taxes, get
Federal spending under control, provide compassion to the victims of crime, to
help make the country a ''kinder and gentler'' America, to help kids and to
improve the environment.
' ' And if you give me your vote Tuesday, you're giving me a mandate for
realism and seeing the world as it is, he said. ''I don't think that this is
any time to gamble on total inexperience in foreign affairs.
GRAPHIC: photo of Vice President Bush (NYT/Paul Hosefros)
SUBJECT: Terms not available
TM
TM
LEXIS:NEXIS®
LEXIS-NEXIS®
LEXIS·NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central, Inc.
Recyclable
PAGE 1
LEVEL 1 - 1 OF 4. STORIES
Copyright 1991 Newsday, Inc.
Newsday
May 3, 1991, Friday, CITY EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 13
Other Edition: Nassau and Suffolk Pg. 130
LENGTH: 508 words
HEADLINE: Anarchy Spawned by Resentment
BYLINE: Murray Kempton
KEYWORD: SOCIAL CONDITIONS; COLUMN; NEW YORK CITY; GOVERNMENT; POLICE
DEPARTMENT; LAWSUIT; ENVIRONMENT
millions of dollars." Every public servant seems to tote about the blank
subpoenas of his next damage suit as every Napoleonic private soldier was said
to carry a marshal's baton in his knapsack.
TM
TM
LEXIS:NEXIS®
LEXIS·NEXIS®
LEXIS-NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central, Inc.
Recyclable
PAGE 1
LEVEL 1 - - 2 OF 8 STORIES
Copyright 1988 Educational Broadcasting and GWETA
The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour
November 4, 1988, Friday Transcript #3295
LENGTH: 9378 words
HEADLINE: '88 - On the Stump;
On the Campaign Trail;
Terminal Case
MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, going into the last
weekend of the Presidential campaign, Vice President Bush talked of a
financial mess in Massachusetts, Gov. Dukakis of closing in on Bush in the
polls, and the nation's unemployment rate fell to 5.3 percent in October. We'll
have the details in our News Summary
...
... struck thousands of computers around the country.
NEWS SUMMARY
TM
TM
TM
LEXIS® NEXIS®
LEXIS-NEXIS®
LEXIS-NEXIS®
Services of Mead Data Central, Inc.
Recyclable
tax rates
(add, on min.
tax)
or more or more
top was 702) 5,
under
or more hi 79 and
troyet that down to
todays rate
ask
320
Ramoua 2816 MARK SAMUELS (6224)
GROWTH OF FEDERAL REGS.
WSJ- EDITORIAL
MAN HOURS
BURDEN PLACES ON PEOPLE
COMPARATIVE NOW/ 20 YEARS AGO
called Ramona
HOW MUCH WAS THE FIRST-EVER INCOME TAX
(READ) a 1912
JOBS CREATED IN THE 80's 3492 Nelson Rockefuller
J.D.FOSTER 19 million or 2/million and /on back
GORE VOTE AGAINST EUMINATING HONEY BEE
SMBSIDY (TWICE) (RNC ?)
, 863-8666 8811 BILL CLARK
(Gveg kenyan)
Mark Neslam 336-7327
11 OK Jobs TIED TO TRADE/ ENID =
MAJOR EXPORT INDUSTRIES
91 ESTIMATE 12,041 manufacturing jobs tred to exports
CLINTON/QUOTE ON VETO GOOD SAMARITAN LAW
FUND RAISING LETTER (WSU)
COMO-AFFER '&8 CONVENIZON MA BANKRUPTOY
Gov. WELD'S OFFICE
244 add state tocal and Fed Goit spend
&
what is the total
354 INCLUDING JANAMUS STATE/LOCAL
(CANT COUNT FED. GRANTS TO STATES)
BUT ONE TIME
40 200419
on the dollar botted
asis TRANK SIT SAW HOMA wot
4.
SINK 4
42/- SPE also of us JUNES 2000
A
was AMOUNT
WITHING JEUMA S.OV was
CANN was
EMAIL
list
1311
STAN
Net
no
FIAND
using
ews
- Gegan Estep - Fed. Reg.
Ruth Ponticis 523-3187
last y.-
174
INF.
- CENTER RON KELLY 634-6220
[Regulatory Service Adnumshution works u/ OMB]
ANAYLSS - no. REPORT 9. COMPARISONS
- Richard Clayprole
523- 4534
- Portion is mon-reguratory pages
16- first mo. of 92
['d8'2
# of regulatory pages
Pres.
Rules
Proposed
NONCES
BIAN
THAT
(Pres)
Rules
PAGE
76
549
12,589
9,325
28,042
6,567
57,072
94
667
16,792
16,761
23,535
9,743
67,716
ase 215P that
4.
X good portion is
5.10
explanation a
beer ESE
copina am is
miterit
to
#
23-709
2019
(2509)
$40,88 ase, May sha
32
200,85
is
NEW ICE: Rapper Ice-T asks Time Warner to hold his
new album until after the presidential election. 1D.
aid to small businesses, in-
TODAY'S DEBATE: Clinton's draft record. In USA
cluding cutting corporate tax
rate from 15% to 10%
TODAY's opinion, "Bill Clinton's 1969 draft status doesn't
measure up to national problems in 1992." 14A.
"Better for Clinton to reaffirm he opposed Vietnam on
Analyzing and comparing
ECONOMIC MANIFESTO: Preside
moral grounds and own up to the fact he went out of his way
the economic plans, 6A
goal' to almost double the nation's
to evade military service," says William Hamilton. 14A.
MONEY:
Dallas city council rejects $275,000 ad con-
tract with Morning News, citing its minority hiring. 2B.
SPORTS: Andretti is turning to Formula One. 12C.
Players win free-agency suit; NI
Chavez, Camacho duke it out for super lightweight. 1,2C.
By Mike Dodd
A jury of eight women, after
Next: Th
Clemson-FSU football game drops ACC title hint. 10C.
USA TODAY
deliberating two days, ruled
while the
that the NFL's Plan B violated
seek an inj
LIFE:
Fall foliage should be spectacular
National Football League
federal antitrust laws.
strictions or
summer rain - and there's still time to plan a
ers gained yardage in their
The plan, implemented by
"We do
for higher salaries and
owners in 1989, enabled each
anything les
On video,
***1/2 Treasures of the Twilight Zon
dom to change teams
team to restrict the movement
total victory
WEATHER: Hot in parts of Plains, sunsh
ursday when a Minneapolis
of 37 players on its roster.
Jeffrey Kes
moderate temperatures along Eastern seaboard.
6
ary struck down the league's
The jury ruled the NFL im-
Said NFI
limited free-agency system.
properly restricted the eight
Browne: "]
By John O. Buckley
But the game isn't over. The
plaintiffs, but awarded only
type victor
verdict's impact is unclear and
four of them $543,000. The
The USFL .
both sides claim victory.
eight had sought $4 million.
antitrust su
USA TODAY INFORMATION HOT LINE: 1-900-555
95¢ a minute; list of services. 5D
Panel rejects
COVER STORY
Inside USA TODA
rebuilding base
A Senate panel Thursday
shot down, 12-8, President
Andrew a
Classified
Bush's promise to rebuild
Crosswo
Homestead Air Force Base.
0
Editorial/
15A
Lotteries
15C
The Senate may review
State-by-st
12A
the decision next week.
From hea
Stocks
4,6-7B
89505
00005
While visiting Home-
stead last week, Bush said
© COPYRIGHT 1992 USA TODAY, a division of Gan Co., Inc.
he'd save the base, at a cost
— and at
of about $800 million.
The Appropriations Com-
USA SNAPSHOTS®
mittee wants a commission
By Deborah
on base closures to decide.
Residents
and Carol J.
A look at statistics that shape the nation
Homestead was on a
USA TODAY
"short list" of bases to be
Red tape
closed before Andrew hit.
depart, 3A
HOMESTI
"I don't think we should
200 mph
three weeks
The number of pages in
consider money for de-
rumbled in
the Federal Register
fense as a jobs program,"
winds, 3A
with everyth
the publication
said Sen. Harry Reid, D-
needed food
listing federal
Nev. Also Thursday:
Where to
toilet paper
regulations:
Ross Perot made a
Since Hu
large, but undisclosed con-
33,553
give help, 2A
left its trail
tribution while touring the
devastation,
Homestead area.
sponded with
21,914
Some people homeless
ed outpourin
before the hurricane
But sometimes there's too much of a
moved into tent cities.
cases of cheap wine. Condoms. Fur-lined
"I'm going to take what I
Ice skates. Knick-knacks. Romance novel
can," said Mike Blados,
"Some people were just cleaning out th
who came from Ft. Lauder-
Lenny Miller, a Miami accountant who
dale. "If it helps me get on
sorting donations in hard-hit Dade C
my feet, all power to me."
'76
78
80
82
'84
86
88
90
- Robert Davis
Please see COVER ST
Source: Office of the Federal Register
By Marty Baumann, USA TODAY
For USA TODAY subscription and customer service
USA TODAY SEPT. 11-13, 1992
looks like Rules proposed rules (ac) Ruth Pontius @Fed Reg. 523-3187
DRAFT
September 16, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
THROUGH:
STEVE PROVOST
FROM:
ANDY FERGUSON
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED REMARKS TO ENID, OKLAHOMA
I. SUMMARY
On Thursday, September 17th, at 10 a.m. you will deliver
remarks to an audience of 2,100 buisness and community leaders at
the Convention Hall in Enid, Oklahoma.
II. DISCUSSION
Your remarks (approximately 12 minutes / teleprompter) are
based on your agenda for American Renewal and highlight six
distinctions between you and your draft dodging opponent.
M
&
buoue
523,5230
(GLENN ESTEP @FED PESS.)
LIDY 332 DT CALLED
agasseM
buty
a AV san or
PAGES VISA Code comp ARED TO
тизани 5-3521 SMAUTER 10 #
TAD BBASUS
ANY CVIT тэли
#vay added
ANDY
2 FED. REGISTER
10/01/00
FROM 405 237 1948
GUARANTEE
SEP 15.92 1:46 PM
P.001
Guarantee Abstract Company
ABSTRACTS
TITLE INSURANCE
REPRESENTING
217 W. BROADWAY BOX 1641
BILL MUMPHREY. PRESIDENT
TOOD HUMPHREY, VICK-PRENDENT
Enid, Oklahoma
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO.
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO.
73702
SOUTHWEST TITLE a TRUST CO.
(405) 237-5537
TICOR TITLE INSURANCE CO.
FAX 405-237-1948
DATE: 15 Sept.1993
OC-SHOME
TIME: 2:45pm
TO: white House Research Staff
FROM: Musum ot the Chaskee Strip
PAGES: 3
(including this
page)
CHECKEE
STRIP
1893
100th Anniversary & September 16th, 1993
COMMENTS:
Oklahoma Historical Society mussums and sites
are maintained for the éducation and enjoyment
Th
002
of all interested persons at no charge. Any per-
son who believes benefits have been denied for
Ok
Museum of the Cherokee Strip
any reason, including race, color, age, sex, die-
507 S. 4th Street
ability, or national origin, may register com-
His
plaints with the Executive Director, Wiley Post
Enid, Oklahoma 73701-5835
Historical Building, 2100 N. Lincoin Blvd., Okla-
So
405/237-1907
homa City, OK 73105, or telephone 405/521-
SEP.15.92 1:47 PM
2491.
MEMBERSHIPS
M
ADMISSION FREE-
Membership in the Society is open to all persons
who are interested in preserving the rich heri-
tage of Oklahoma. Members receive four issues
of
of The Chronicles of Oklahoma each year, twelve
issues of the newsletter, Mistletoe Leaves, dis-
counts on all publications, and invitations to
CI
special evants. Thirteen members of the Society
Board of Directors are elected by the member-
ship. Dues are:
St
Individual $15
Family $25
Student/Retired $10
Institutional $25
Supporting $50
Life $300
GUARANTEE
Open:
9:00 am to 5:00 pm
Benefactor $500
Tuesday through Friday
To join, return this completed form to the Okla-
2:00 pm to 5:00 pm
home Historical Society, Membership Coordina
Saturday and Sunday
tor, Wiley Post Historical Guilding 2100 N.
Lincoln Blvd, Oklahoma City, OK 78105.
THE THEN
Closed:
Monday and State Holidays
Please accept this application to become a mem-
ber of the OHS:
Name
405 237 1948
Type of Membership
Amount Enclosed
This publication, printed in-house by the Oklahoma
Historical Society, 28 iscued by the Oklahoma Histori-
Address
cal Society as authorized by the Board of Directors.
Five hundred copies have been prepared and dis-
50%
tributed at a cost of $0150 each.
City State Zip
En
FROM
5/91
Phone Number
1
2.1
2.
le
Page Extended ociety's istorical
klahoma
[useum
E the
herokee
trip
17 S. 4th Street
aid, Oklahoma
FROM 405 237 1948
GUARANTEE
SEP.15.92 1:49 PM
P.003
OKLAHOMA'S largest land run took place on September 16, 1893 with over
100,000 people racing for approximately six-and-one-half million acres in the
Cherokee Outlet. The Jerome Commission tried to negotiate with the Cherokee
tribe for this land in 1889, but they refused an offer of $1.25 an acre. At
that time the Cherokees were receiving an annual rent of $200,000 for the
area from Cattlemen. In 1892 the President ordered cattlemen out of the
Outlet denying the Cherokees the lease revenue. Giving into pressure, the
Cherokees reluctantly sold the 6,220,854 acre Outlet on December 19, 1891 for
$8,595,736 -- about one dollar an acre. The Poncas and Tonkawas had also
been persuaded to take allotments and open the remaining parts of their
reservations to white settlement, adding this area to the land opened in the
run.
Although 40,000 1/4 Section homesteads were available, many went away empty
handed deciding not to stake claims particularly in the more arid western
regions. Homesteads were not to be free. Congress decreed that settlers had
to pay fees that ranged from $1.25 an acre in the western portions to $2.50
an acre in the east.
Central locations for four land districts were Lo be located at Perry, Enid,
Alva and Woodward. This photograph of probably 1901 shows the Enid town
square looking Northwest. The Enid U.S. Land Office is at bottom right; top
right is the original Garfield County Courthouse; at lower left is Enid's
Post office; top right with its stockade fence is the County Jail.
Extended Page
4.1
September 9, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO:
KATHY SUPER
JOHN KELLER
STEVE PROVOST
FROM:
GARY FOSTER G7
SUBJECT: SITE SURVEY FOR ENID, OKLAHOMA
Attached is the site survey for the President's trip to
Enid, Oklahoma on Thursday, September 17. Once Kathy has the
site "scrubbed", implementation can begin.
TRIP COORDINATOR- SHIRLEY
LEAD
BOB MARLOWE
-
TEAM IN PLACE - 9/12/92
SIGNAL
cc: Bob Zoellick
David Bates
Margaret Tutwiler
Tim McBride
Karen Groomes
v HOMESTEAD ACT
= KEMP REFERENCES To HOMESTERD ACT (CALLED ROB KELNER)
- FAR; AWAY MORE
SENT BY: XEROX Telecopier 7017: 4- 8-9> : 2:15AM
4073800062-
4562983:# 1
FAX To: GARY HOSTER
FROM: Doub DUVALL
REPORT
SURVEY proor OKLAHOMA.
PAGE 1 OF6
FI-HOLDEN c 1988
SENT BY: XEROX Telecopier 7017: 4- 8-9> : 2:16AM ;
4073800062-
4582983;# 2
September 9, 1992
As. is not 2 but just
MEMORANDUM TO:
GARY FOSTER
FROM:
DOUG DUVALL
Perther The Rutz
SUBJECT:
SURVEY REPORT FOR ENID, OKLAHOMA
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1992
lining will they can be
EVENT SCENARIO:
The President will travel from Washington, D.C. to Enid,
not
Oklahoma. Air Force One will land at Vance Air Force Base and the
cconmab
President will motorcade 10-15 minutes to downtown Enid. The
the
presidential motorcade will drive through a parade route in Enid's
in
main square. The parade will be open to the public. The parade
will conclude at Enid's Convention Hall where the President will
QUEAN
give a major address on the economy. The event will be sponsored
by the Greater Enid Chamber of Commerce and other local service
organizations. After the event, the President will motorcade to a
KHG K 9/10
nearby location for a brief Victory 92 fundraiser before returning
to Vance Air Force Base for his departure for Atlanta, Georgia.
7:15
EVENT PROPOSAL:
Enid, a city with a population of over 50,000, is located in
the heart of Garfield County. Garfield is one of the top five
Republican counties in the state. Much of the county's economy is
based on agriculture (wheat farming, ranching) and energy.
PARADE ROUTE
Downtown Enid has a strong image of "small town America" with
its courthouse in the center surrounded by small stores,
restaurants and banks. Its wide streets and sidewalks are very
conducive for a parade. I propose the motorcade drive north on
Grand, east on Randolph (in front of the courthouse), and south on
Independence to the Convention Hall. The Convention Hall is on the
corner of Independence and Cherokee. The parade route could
certainly be extended if crowd estimates seem large.
There is also a gazebo in front of the courthouse. An encee,
a country western band, and other local entertainment could perform
from that central area. The emcee could "hype up" the crowd in
anticipation of the President's arrival. A press platform could be
built across the street from the gazebo with the courthouse and a
flag-waving crowd as the backdrop.
The Greater Enid Chamber of Commerce is having a parade this
Saturday in honor of the Celebration of the Cherokee strip Land
(Sept.12th)
SENT BY: XEROX Telecopier 7017: 4- 8-9> ; 2:17AM :
4073800082-
4582983:# 3
H
1893
Rush. on September 16, 1863 thousands of land-seekers, dreamers
and budding entrepreneurs made a run on the land of the Cherokee
there was only vacant prairie. Enid, Oklahoma was born on that day
Strip, claiming property and building towns where hours before
and has turned from a tiny prairie town into a cultured city. The
President should certainly mention this in his remarks since he
will be in Enid exactly 99 years after the city was founded.
The Cherokee Strip Days Celebration parade on September 12th
will include a centennial wagon, stagecoach, horses, school bands,
floats, etc. The Chamber of Commerce said they would be happy to
invite back any parade entry we may want to include in the
President's parade on Thursday.
CONVENTION HALL ADDRESS
The entire event will be sponsored by the Greater Enid Chamber
of Commerce and local service organizations. Enid has the largest
membership of Ambucs (American Business Clubs) in the nation. The
Chamber also has a close working relationship with the Rotary and
Lions clubs. The event will have to be ticketed on a first come
first serve basis with a certain allotment designated for the
Chamber and other organizations. Members of those organizations
should have to come down to the Chamber and pick up tickets
themselves. There should be some limit to the amount of tickets
each member can receive. This will give us control over who is
invited and exactly how many will attend. Obviously, an allotment
of tickets must also be made for the GOP.
The motorcade can arrive at the rear of the Convention Hall
off Independence Ave. There is a garage door which leads into the
back-stage area. There are also dressing rooms suitable for
holding rooms. The podium will be on the stage itself which is
approximately 3-4 feet above the floor of the basketball court.
The Convention Hall is a sports arena which seats 1700. A
standing crowd of 500+ could fit on the floor in front of the press
platform. The platform could be at a head-on position at center
court. The press filing center can be located at the Cherokee
Strip Conference Center only a block away. The Conference Center
could also be used to pipe the President's remarks to an overflow
crowd of several thousand.
The arena is not air conditioned BO everyone should be
encouraged to dress casual. I visited the arena on a day that was
94 degrees and it was not too warm. The manager feels that the
hall can be adequately ventilated by opening windows and doors
prior to the President's arrival.
it WAS +
Empty lit probably for not TV This quality be filming to & watchel
SENT BY: XEROX Telecopier 7017; 4- 8-8> ; 2:17AM ;
4073800062-
4562983;# 4
CONTACTS:
Not from area
(DINE)
Neva Hill, Bush-Qyayla 92, 405/528-2874
Mark McCord, President, Greater Enid Chamber of Commerce
405/237-2494
turned sign upside down cattle drovers
Jon Blankenship, Director of Conference Center and Convention Hall
405/234-1919
Jim Ferree, city Manager, 405/234-0400
Norman Grey, Mayor of Enid
George Storer, Police Chief
= LOCAL c}w BAND
ACIDIENCE- - IN COL. 2,100 (MOSTLY BIS. community)
"
COLLRITIONSE- Bus KOS IN
12,000 @ PARAOE ON SAT,
" Bright star of the Great Plains" pideo/presentation
Couty pop. 55,000
- & second largest grain storage area in world Air
-
community nearing involved ml 50 defense (Vance for Base)
train picot ( been there yrs.)
military here revered- really taken then in
large town for area - small enough consider air fore family
mid- America, family orcential valus - held deady
hub for medical sinces in area 4 cultramsders hospitals
heavy oil 4 gas products area, promot natural gas
retail hub for ok
- big railroad town (
1
David George claimed to be John wilkes Boothe male in same place,
SENT BY: XEROX Telecopier 7017; 4- 8-8> ; 2:18AM ;
4073800062-
4562983;# 5
ENID, OKLAHOMA
PARADE ROUTE
THURSDAY, SEPT 17, 1992
$
RANDOLPH
OGAZESO
0
COURTHOUSE
BROADWAY
PAST
OFFICE
STORES
STARES
LIBRARY
MAIN
INDERGUDENCE
CHECOKE
STAIP
CONFERENCE
CENTER
GRAND
CHEROKEE
CONVENTION
HALL
OKLAHOMA
Newsday
may 3, 1991
P.13
MURRAY KEMPTON
"every Napoleanin private so Idier was said
to carry a marshal's baton m his knapsach."
MARK SAMUELS
VEEP 6224
REMARKS BY DAVID MCINTOSH
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS
TO THE FORT WAYNE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
JULY 22, 1992
Good afternoon. First, I'd like to thank the Chamber of
Commerce on behalf of Vice President Quayle and the Council on
Competitiveness for inviting me back to Indiana. It is my
privilege to share with you what's on the agenda for the
President's Council on Competitiveness.
It's good to be here in Indiana for two reasons. First of
all, it's great to be in the Midwest. I grew up in a small town
just 30 minutes North of here, Kendallville. So I appreciate the
value of being raised a Hoosier. As the Vice President puts it,
the people are nicer, they work harder, and there's nothing
better than true, midwestern family values.
In Indiana, we are particularly fortunate to have strong
political leadership. Our Senators, Richard Lugar and Dan Coats
have made a commitment to the people of Indiana to protect and
promote family values. They are working to get our economy
growing again -- without putting a burden of new taxes on the
working men and women of the Hoosier State. Senator Dan Coats
has been a strong supporter of the Vice President's efforts to
rid our legal system of excessive legislation. He has co-
sponsored our reform legislation and supports product liability
reform and medical malpractice reform. Let me say this,
Indiana's Senators have been an enormous help to President Bush
and Vice President Quayle.
The second reason that I'm glad to be here, is quite
frankly, that I'm not in Washington.
There has been a lot of criticism leveled at Washington
politicians lately. The American people no longer think that
unelected Washington bureaucrats know what is best for the
nation. Let me tell you -- the American people are right.
Across the country we have seen a resurgence of the "throw
the bums out" attitude. It has been growing steadily in reaction
to, among other things, run away budget deficits, congressional
check bouncing, wasteful spending, unauthorized "perks", and the
inability to pass meaningful reform legislation.
President Bush has taken decisive steps to fundamentally
reform the way things are done in Washington.
He has submitted legislation to end special privileges for
Congress. It is time that civil rights laws that protect
against age, race, sex and disability discrimination apply
to Congress just like the rest of the country.
He has proposed limiting the terms of Members of Congress to
12 years. He has submitted a growth package that would
reduce capital gains and other taxes and stimulate economic
growth in our country once again. He supports a balanced
budget amendment.
And, he has implemented a moratorium on new regulations
since his State of the Union Address in January. He
directed the Council on Competitiveness to continue efforts
he initiated in the Reagan Administration as Chairman of the
Task Force on Regulatory Review to reform the regulatory
process and remove excessive red tape and burdensome
regulation.
Two Views for the Future
Today, America stands at a threshold that will determine the
course our country is to take into the next century. Americans
will choose between two competing views of how our society should
be organized.
On the one hand, President Bush and Vice President Quayle
have strongly articulated the belief in a free market system--a
system that promotes individual liberty and freedom for all, that
provides economic opportunity and the promise of well-being for
everyone who is willing to work and try to succeed, and an
economy where competition brings out the best in all of us. This
competition will continue to spur America on to be the best
country in all the world.
On the other hand, we see the shopworn ideas of central
planning and social engineering being repackaged as a new
covenant founded on big government. The purveyors of this false
covenant promise something to everyone, but fail to mention that
the American people will be left to pay the tab. This Trojan
Horse is meant to disguise the outdated ideas of environmental
extremists, self-appointed consumer advocates, and liberal
special interest groups and their allies who man the
bureaucracies back in Washington.
But, Trojan Horse or not, these conflicting world views are
not new. They were explained by Churchill in his last speech on
the hustings:
"Among our socialist friends there is great
confusion about private enterprise. Some see it as a
predatory tiger to be shot. Others see a COW to be
2
milked. Only a handful see it for what it really is--
the strong and willing horse that pulls the whole cart
along.' "
These two world views can best be distinguished by their basic
premises. The Council on Competitiveness uses four fundamental
principles in implementing our assignment from Vice President
Quayle.
First, a free market and a competitive economy are the best
allies of the American people. Our economy is what made America
a world leader, and it is a strong economy that will keep America
at the forefront of a rapidly changing global market. Second,
there are some times when free markets do not work completely.
Individuals can impose costs upon their neighbors such as the
pollution that may be sent into the air on one man's property and
land onto his neighbor's. In these cases, it may be appropriate
for the government to take action to prevent this harm.
However, a third principle is mindful of the fact that, in
most cases, government regulation is costly and unnecessary. The
less regulation, the less government intrusion into people's
lives, the better.
Fourth, the protection of private property is absolutely
critical to the success of the free-market system. The principle
of private property is one of the fundamental American values
that is essential to our free market, capitalist system. Today
Eastern Europe and Russia are throwing off their communist
systems and adopting notions of private property and free
markets. It is ironic that here is the United States we have
seen an ever accelerating trend toward taking away private
property rights by federal regulation.
The Constitution protects private property rights and says
that landowners must be paid just compensation when the
government takes their property. It used to be a landowner knew
when the government was doing that, because it parked tanks on
the land or took and built a runway for an airport. When the
government did this, they paid the fair value of the land.
Today, government regulations are not quite so obvious.
Regulators come in and say, "You can't use your land for this,
you can't use your land for that, or in some cases, "You can't
use your land at all, but it's still yours, so we don't have to
pay you the money.' Well, if you can't use your property, it's
as bad as having tanks parked on it or a runway built over it.
Now the Supreme Court in Lucas and other decisions has recognized
that the landowner does indeed have a constitutional right to
compensation for regulatory takings. Perhaps Wayne Shotey, a
farmer from Syracuse, Indiana described the problem best when he
asked,
3
"If government can control any of our lands that are
privately owned, what keeps them from controlling all?
What happens to private property rights?"
Let us contrast these four principles with the fundamental
principles of the opponents of the Council on Competitiveness.
Probably the best source for these principles can be found in a
recent book published by Senator Al Gore entitled Earth in the
Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit.
The guiding principles of those who oppose the Council on
Competitiveness stand in direct contrast to the principles we
follow.
First, they unabashedly stand for central government
planning as opposed to the use of market forces. Free markets
stand as a threat to the central planners because they cannot
control them. America needs to fully implement command-and-
control, top-down decision-making. Government regulation is the
preferred option, not the alternative of last resort. And there
is no place for property rights.
History has provided us with a clear lesson of the failures
of the command and control policies in the former Soviet Union
and Eastern Europe. Indeed, history has shown that these
countries are not only the worst economic systems in the world,
but also have inflicted the most harm to their environment of any
countries on the Earth. It is obvious to all of us that the
great experiment in communism has failed miserably. The great
experiment in central planning and international bureaucracy has
failed miserably. It is no wonder, then, that the proponents of
these ideas are now forced to use a Trojan Horse of promised
moderation in order to have any hope of foisting them upon the
American people.
Second, they call, both explicitly and implicitly, for the
abdication of democratic lawmaking in favor of multinational
treaties. They prefer global bureaucracies, which have no checks
and balances, and are not accountable to the people. To them, the
"Europeanization" of our society is necessary so that all
nations follow the same rules and standards. (And these rules
are designed to rig the system so that America pays most of the
bill-- as much as $100 billion, and is placed at a competitive
disadvantage.) Only unelected bureaucrats are capable of
understanding the problem, and hence able to devise solutions.
Third, they believe that the United States must abandon
rational, science-based, decision-making in the promulgation of
environmental regulation. Disaster is too imminent to employ
benefit-cost analysis. We must sacrifice our very livelihoods to
combat even speculative problems. The costs of regulation must
4
be high to punish us for our past greed.
Fourth, they blame America first -- the American people are
the problem. Let me quote to you from one of the most surprising
passages of Al Gore's book:
"Again we must not forget the lessons of World War II. The
Resistance slowed the advance of fascism and scored
important victories, but fascism continued its relentless
march to domination until the rest of the world finally
awoke and made the defeat of fascism its central organizing
principle from 1941 through 1945. But too many ignored the
early warnings
The world is once again at a critical juncture. A
relentless advance is again claiming victims throughout the
world, and again courageous men and women are standing in
the path of destruction and calling upon the rest of the
world to help stop the invasions. But this time we are
invading ourselves and attacking the ecological system of
which we are a part. "
They have met the enemy --- and it's the American worker who toils
in a steel mill, the American farmer, and the American small
businessman.
The differences that these two approaches will have on the
average American's life can be seen in the key reforms for which
President Bush has turned to the Council on Competitiveness,
chaired by Vice President Quayle, to implement.
Civil Justice Reform
First, we need to reform our civil justice system. As Vice
President Quayle asked the American Bar Association, "Does
America really need 70% of the worlds lawyers?" Often the
lawyers earn 50% or more of the amount paid out in lawsuits. We
have proposed over 50 reforms to eliminate incentives for lawyers
to file frivolous and excessive lawsuits.
Our reforms will:
Free up people from the heavy load of excessive
litigation. It stops innovation, shuts down community
projects, and ultimately costs consumers.
Speed up justice for legitimate claims, by unclogging
courts of abusive lawsuits.
End the abuse of junk science.
5
Regulatory Relief
The second major reform the President has tasked the Council
on Competitiveness with is stopping excessive regulations.
The burden of excessive Federal regulations on American
citizens is enormous. One study shows they cost us $400 billion
per year -- that's $4,300 per household each year.
Often times, we see regulations that are just plain stupid.
They are counterproductive, they don't work, they impose needless
headaches and costs on the little guy out there in the real
world. And when we see these stupid regulations, we go back to
the bureaucrats in Washington and ask them -- "WHY?"
Let me share with you a few choice examples of some of the
stupid regulations we see.
Flooding Balcony rule. We call one of them the "flooding
balcony" regulation. Anybody who has been involved in
construction of apartment buildings knows that when you build a
balcony so that the tenants can go out and enjoy the fresh air,
you put it about an inch or two lower than the doorway. One of
the well-meaning laws we have in Washington is to ensure that the
handicapped can have access to buildings.
As the regulators were drawing up the regulations to enforce
this act, they realized that someone in a wheelchair would have
difficulty getting out onto the balcony. They decided to require
that the balconies be raised level with the doorways. This seems
like a good idea. But, when we showed it to people who know
about building apartments, they came back to us and said, "You
really don't want to do this. The first day it rains,
everybody's living room will be flooded." So we went back and
told the regulators and said, "This is one we don't need." "
The Dangers of Showering. Another one of my favorites is an
EPA draft study that came across my desk the other day about the
inherent dangers of taking showers. It turns out that, because
we put chlorine in our water to make it safe, minute amounts of
this substance are released when you take a shower. Now before
anyone did a reality check, this discovery sent off alarm bells
that showers may be hazardous to your health. But fortunately
when we looked into it further, we found out it was safe to
shower after all.
EPA V. the Tooth Fairy. Not long ago the Environmental
Protection Agency declared that extracted baby teeth were
considered "hazardous waste" and therefore couldn't be returned
by dentists. So much for the Tooth Fairy. They have changed
this -- now kids can take home healthy teeth to put under their
beds at night.
6
CAFE. One of the most frustrating examples of stupid
regulations are fuel efficiency standards. In the name of a good
cause--saving energy and more fuel efficient cars -- Congress has
created something called the "Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency"
the CAFE standard -- not a new fast food chain.
The consumer doesn't really benefit, because the net effect
of this regulation is that consumers are forced to drive smaller
cars. Studies have shown that these smaller cars lead to more
traffic fatalities and more injuries on our highways. In Indiana
alone, this legislation will lead to 22-24 more highway
fatalities annually. The Competitiveness Council has lead the
charge against efforts by Senator Gore and his cohorts on Capital
Hill to make these CAFE regulations even higher. So here we have
another example where someone back in Washington thinks he knows
what's best for the American family when it comes to buying a
car.
Who pays for these regulatory excesses?
American workers, farmers, consumers, small business and,
ultimately, the taxpayers pay for these excesses.
o
The American workers pay, when they lose their jobs
because regulations force factories to shut down or
move overseas.
For example, another problem with the CAFE rules is the
effect that these standards have on U.S. auto companies. They
put Ford, G.M., and Chrysler at a disadvantage vis a vis their
foreign competitors. of course, this means that American workers
here in Indiana, lose their jobs. In fact, because of one
provision in this regulation, U.S. companies are encouraged to
buy foreign auto parts in order to avoid the regulatory burden.
I know from personal experience just how important the auto
parts industry is to economic growth in communities like your
own. When I was a young man, working my way through college, I
had a summer job at the Kendallville Foundry. We stoked the
cupola, poured the cast iron, and produced the castings that
eventually became parts for automobiles manufactured in Detroit.
For me, this was a summer job to help pay for college. But for
many of my colleagues, the men who worked in that foundry, this
job was their livelihood. It allowed them to put bread on the
table for their families; buy clothing for their children; and,
if they worked hard and saved, perhaps one day help pay for their
children to go to college as well. The thought that these jobs
would be sent overseas because of federal regulation dreamed up
by some uncaring bureaucrat in Washington is unconscionable.
What do the proponents of central planning say about CAFE
7
regulation? Al Gore, states unequivocally:
"The government must establish higher mileage requirements
for all cars and trucks sold in the United States."
He is co-sponsor of the bill to raise the current average from
27.5 mpg to over 40 mpg even though one government study shows
that increasing the standard just one mile per gallon would cost
100,000 automobile jobs. To him, the blind pursuit of higher
CAFE goals is far more important than the jobs of the workers in
foundries like the one at which I worked in Kendallville.
Farmers pay when their land is effectively taken out of
use through excessive regulations.
Under the Vice President's leadership, the Council is
examining proposed changes in the wetlands delineation manual.
Last summer we developed a consensus recommendation, which helped
put the "wet" back in the wetlands. The Council's consensus
proposal struck an important balance -- reaffirming the
President's goal of "no net loss" of environmentally important
wetlands, while allowing for legitimate land use and ensuring the
protection of constitutional private property rights.
For example, Delbert Graft, a farmer from Avilla, Indiana,
was involved in a three year legal dispute, forced to spend $4000
in legal fees, and was forced to make numerous trips to
Indianapolis and even Washington. Ultimately, his 7.9 acres of
land which were originally worth $15.8 thousand were devalued to
$0.0.
What do the environmental extremists have to say to the
American farmer? Al Gore says, "[T]he productivity of some of
our best land is being steadily damaged by those who have no
qualms about maximizing short-term gains at the expense of long-
term sustainable use. " According to Gore, the government knows
better than the individual farmer what is in the public interest.
President Bush and the Council on Competitiveness, on the
other hand, much prefer entrusting the land to the farmer who has
the most incentive to protect the environment on the farm for
himself and for his children in future years. The farmer or the
bureaucrat in Washington?
O
The consumers pay, when they have to pay higher prices
for a product -- or when there are fewer products from
which to choose.
Let me give you an example of one of the Competitiveness
Council's initiatives that will help consumers: improving
8
America's drug approval process. While other modern industrial
countries have agencies similar to the FDA, most of them approve
drugs faster than we do -- and they are doing it without
compromising their standards for safety, efficacy, and quality.
It takes us an average of 9.75 years to develop a new drug--
Europe and Japan can to the same in 5-6 years. That leads
reasonable minds to believe that America can do better, if the
bureaucracy would get out of the way and allow doctors to give
safe and effective drugs to patents.
We estimate that we will save millions of lives, and
billions of dollars, if we adopt 11 specific reforms that Vice
President Quayle announced last fall to speed up this process.
Already a new treatment for AIDS has been approved under this
system of accelerated approval. These reforms will speed up new
advances to combat cancer, alzheimer, cystic fibrosis, and many
other life threatening diseases.
What do the social engineers have to say on this subject? I
am sure they want to speed up lifesaving therapies. However,
when faced with the trade off between developing therapies that
save peoples' lives or not cutting down trees, it's not so clear.
A recent example is the drug taxol that is derived from the bark
of the yew tree. Al Gore questions whether it would be
appropriate to cut down these trees, even if it is the only way
to make a supply of this drug. To him, the trade-off of three
trees for a human life is an ambiguous one. To President Bush
and Vice President Quayle, it is clear that when it comes to
approving safe, effective drugs to treat cancer, AIDS and other
life-threatening diseases, if we can do better, we must do
better.
Small businesses pay, when they are forced to shut down
or locate overseas by excessive compliances costs to
regulations, and endless redtape.
This last year, the Council reviewed new regulations
implementing the Clean Air Act. One of these regulations
established a broad new requirement that businesses obtain
permits from state and local authorities and the EPA in
Washington. Many of you may have read about this in the
newspaper, especially since so many in the environmental movement
were claiming that we were creating a loophole in the Clean Air
Act.
Well, as Paul Harvey says, "let me tell you the rest of the
story. " The regulation that the Council reviewed doesn't allow
one additional pound of pollution to be emitted into the air
beyond what Congress provided in the Clean Air Act. Rather, it
eliminates unnecessary paperwork and excessive litigation by
streamlining the requirements for businesses to obtain permits.
9
Perhaps more importantly, it exempts many of the small businesses
-- such as dry cleaners, printers, small machine shops and others
who only had de minimis levels of emissions. They will be spared
the huge paperwork requirements and a permitting process that
could have held them up for 18 months at a time.
During the review of the permitting regulations, the Vice
President received a letter from a Senator on behalf of Intel
Corporation, one of the few remaining American computer chip
manufacturers. Intel expressed concern that, if the original
plan for this permitting regulation went into effect and greater
flexibility were not built into the regulation, they would not be
able to afford to build a new computer chip plant here in
America. This new plant would be one of the cleanest
manufacturing facilities of all time. (It has to be, since any
minute dust or other particulate would disrupt the delicate
manufacturing of this new generation of computer chips.)
Yet excessive regulation threatened to force the company to
move this new facility overseas to compete in the world market
place. With it would go several thousand American jobs at one of
the most environmentally clean facilities ever to be built. So,
we at the Council on Competitiveness said let the free market
operate. Reduce red tape and excessive regulation, and all
America will benefit the economy and protect the environment.
What do the advocates of central planning say? They would
be suspicious of such market choices and want the government to
choose whether or not these new technologies should be built.
This lengthy process of review and approval by bureaucrats back
in Washington would have ensured that the American company could
not compete in the world marketplace, and therefore, by
necessity, would have to build its manufacturing facility
overseas.
O
Finally, the taxpayer, pays the bill when local
governments are heavily regulated.
Last May the City of Columbus, Ohio submitted a report that
outlined the costs of compliance with Federal environmental
regulations. Not all Federal regulations, just environmental
regulations. Over the next ten years, the city estimates that
they will cost over $1 billion. That's over $900 per household
in Columbus. And the Columbus experience is not unique. I
venture to say that cities such as Ft. Wayne, Elkhart, and South
Bend will soon be confronted with similar expenses.
That's also $1 billion dollars that could be used to provide
shelter for the homeless or day care services for the poor.
I submit, as does the City's report, that many of those
10
regulations are not necessary. Many of them are not going to
have any real impact on the environment -- but they will have a
definate financial impact on the towns that are forced to pay for
them. With the Federal government asking so much, it is no
wonder that many States that in the past could easily balance
their budgets -- now have to struggle to do so.
What do the bearers of the Trojan Horse have to offer the
American taxpayer? Once again, a page from Senator Gore's book
sheds light on their true agenda. He advocates that the best
policy in this area is one that imposes huge new carbon taxes on
all Americans. He supports legislation by Henry Waxman that
would place a tax of $100 per metric ton of carbon emissions.
According to a recent study by the CONSAD Research Corp, carbon
taxes of the sort Mr. Gore supports could destroy more than
600,000 American jobs. Another study, conducted by the
Department of Energy, found that such a tax would result in an
increase of 26 cents per gallon of gasoline at the pump.
Clearly something must be done to stem the tide of more
regulations. The President's Council on Competitiveness is here
to help the American people regain their freedom and be more
competitive at home and abroad.
The Moratorium on New Regulations. The Council is also
coordinating the moratorium on new regulation, which President
Bush established in his State of the Union speech. President
Bush called on all the agencies to conduct a thorough review of
their programs. He asked them to eliminate needless, burdensome
regulations and accelerate programs which promote economic
growth.
Let me share with you a few highlights of these deregulatory
initiatives.
Economic Impact of First 90 Days of President Bushes Initiatives.
The Administration estimates that the reforms that it
completed in the first 90 days of the moratorium will ultimately
save American consumers and workers $15 to $20 billion per year.
This translates into a savings of between $225 and $300 per year
for the average family. These actions will also increase the
amount of available credit by approximately $15 billion, making
home ownership more affordable and providing the financing
necessary for further business expansion and job creation. For a
typical family taking out a $100,000 thirty-year loan pm a new
home, for example, these changes could translate into a $180
reduction in annual mortgage payments.
Reducing Costs for Small Businesses. The SEC has taken a
11
number of actions to eliminate barriers to investment in small
businesses. Among many other initiatives, the SEC proposed a
regulation to increase from $500,000 to $1 million the amount
that small businesses can raise through stock offerings without
registering with federal regulators.
The IRS imposes approximately $1 trillion on the private
sector each year in the form of administrative costs. In an
effort to reduce these costs, the IRS "Simplified the Payroll Tax
Deposit System." Presently, many employers must make payroll tax
deposits as often as twice a week, usually on different days of
the week, and the deposit requirements may change substantially
within the same quarter. These changes will not only reduce
costs, but they will reduce the number of penalties by up to 20%.
These are just a few highlights of the Administration's
activities. As President Bush said when he extended the
Moratorium, "This is just a downpayment on savings to come."
Congressional Efforts to Stop Regulatory Relief
In light of these recent successes, you might think that
Capitol Hill would respond with a near-unanimous outpouring of
support. Think again, the reaction has been just the opposite.
For example, the day the Vice President announced the drug
approval reforms, we got a letter from three senior Committee
Chairman asking us to hold back.
Now there are efforts on the Hill to put a stop to President
Bush's plan to cut back excessive regulation. Despite the fact
that 83% of Americans believe that we have too many unnecessary
and costly regulations, many of our elected representatives want
to handicap the President's regulatory reform efforts in a purely
political move to stir up trouble in an election year.
Democrats on the Hill have proposed legislation that would
zero out $86,000 in funding for the Council. How ironic -- the
one place Congress wants to cut spending is for the entity
within the White House that the President has given the
assignment to cut back excessive regulatory burdens.
Such a bill is clearly unconstitutional. The President and
the Vice President are the only elected officials in Washington
who represent the entire American People. It is their duty to
review regulations to make sure they are in the public interest.
Even more ironic is the fact that many members of Congress
have written to the Vice President on behalf of their
constituents complaining about excessive regulations. These
Congressmen and women claim to be pro-worker, pro-business, and
pro-consumer when they go home to their districts. Then they
turn around and vote against the Council on Competitiveness --
12
the chief advocate against bureaucracy and redtape -- when they
get back to Washington.
I am sometimes asked how much of a difference can the
Council make Let me relate something that happened to me not
long ago, which made me conclude that our efforts are worth it.
When the Council was considering what to do to speed up the
drug approval process, we heard from patient groups representing
the victims of cancer and other diseases. One young lady, named
Susan Tomlinson, represented the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. She
came in and told us about the need to speed up new therapies to
treat this life-threatening disease. She said that if we could
only speed up the government approval process, therapies that
were in the pipeline could offer hope for tens of thousands of
Americans who suffer from cystic fibrosis. Then she explained
that the average age to which a victim of cystic fibrosis can
expect to live is 28 years. She herself was 28 years old. She
has cystic fibrosis.
You could have heard a pin drop in the meeting with the
Council on Competitiveness. Here was a brave, young woman
telling the Vice President of the United States and many members
of the President's Cabinet that some of the reforms they were
considering were the only hope that she, and others like her,
have.
A few months ago, I ran into this young lady and asked her
how she was doing. She smiled at me and said things were just
great. Since the Council meeting, she has been able to take a
new treatment that helps clear away the mucous from her lungs and
literally offers her a new breath of life. She is on her way to
completing law school and expects many years of normal, happy
life.
It is events such as this that make every minute of my job
worthwhile. And Suzanne is just one example of the people who
are affected by the Council on Competitiveness effort.
Let me say to the people in Indiana -- the workers, the
farmers, the consumers, the small businessmen -- who are looking
to the Competitiveness Council to stand up and say, "stop!" to
the federal regulators. We will fight on. President Bush and
Vice President Quayle have only begun the war on excessive,
burdensome, and bureaucratic federal regulations. We will stand
up to those in Congress who want to protect special interests.
We will stand up against those who want to pile more and more
regulations onto the back of American workers and American
consumers. And to quote President Bush, we will draw a line in
the sand and say, "This will not stand.'
Thank you and God Bless you.
13
MARK SAMUELS
VEEP 6224
REMARKS BY DAVID MCINTOSH
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS
TO THE CLEAN AIR ACT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
MAY 27, 1992
Good afternoon. It is a privilege to address such a
distinguished and knowledgeable group. I am certainly grateful
to Bill Rosenberg for giving me this opportunity.
First of all, let me thank each of you for your contribution
to the Administrations efforts to implement the new Clean Air
Act. Working together with you, EPA will be able to carry out
the ambitious CAA program -- a program backed by this
Administration to ensure dramatic improvement in air quality for
all Americans.
I want to give you some idea of what the Council on
Competitiveness is, how it fits within the Administration's
overall regulatory review process and how it is carrying out the
President's regulatory relief agenda. In particular, given your
interest in the Clean Air Act, I will discuss the Council's role
in coordinating the implementation of the fifty or more major,
new rules that flow from the Act.
The Council was established on March 31, 1989, by President
Bush. It is a successor to the Task Force on Regulatory Relief,
chaired by then-Vice President Bush. The Council is chaired by
the Vice President and is comprised of the Secretaries of the
Treasury and Commerce, the Attorney General, the Director of OMB,
the Chairman of the CEA, and the Chief of Staff to the President.
In addition, for issues relating to programs of particular
agencies, the heads of the agencies also sit as full members.
Bill Reilly attends, whenever an environmental issue is on the
agenda.
President Bush has given the Council on Competitiveness two
key assignments. The first is to develop general policy
positions that improve US competitiveness at home and abroad.
Civil Justice Reform is an example. Many of you may have
seen reports of Vice President Quayle's presentation to the ABA
of the Council's comprehensive program proposal for reforming our
Nation's civil justice system. Currently, it's a $300 billion-
per-year drain on the Nation's economy. The Council developed a
report, the "Agenda for Civil Justice Reform in America,"
containing fifty initiatives to unclog the court system and
control the rapidly escalating cost of litigation.
Property Rights Protection. The principle of private
property is one of the fundamental American values so essential
to our free market, capitalist system. Today, Eastern Europe and
Russia are throwing off their communist systems and adopting
notions of private property and free markets. It is ironic that,
here in the United States, we have seen an ever accelerating
trend toward taking private property rights by federal
regulation.
The Constitution protects private property rights and says
that landowners must be paid just compensation when the
government takes their property. Now the Supreme Court in First
English Evangelical Lutheran Church and Noland has recognized
that the landowner does indeed have a constitutional right to
compensation for regulatory takings. The Vice President strongly
supports that principle and has worked hard to require federal
regulators to minimize the taking of private property in federal
regulations.
The second major task the President has given the Council on
Competitiveness is coordinating the review of regulations. You
are all familiar with Executive Order 12291. It requires all
agencies to base their decisions on a benefit/cost analysis when
they draft new regulations. The mandate is to maximize the
benefits to health, safety, the environment, the economy, taking
into account the cost to American workers, consumers, and the
economy. Of course, the other general Administration goals I
mentioned earlier -- avoiding excessive litigation, protecting
property rights, as well as, Federalism --are also important to
this review process. OMB is charged with reviewing regulations
to make sure the President's policies are accurately reflected.
The Council on Competitiveness coordinates this process and
serves as a Cabinet level body to resolve policy issues that
might arise as a result of the review.
The Vice President has directed the Council to draw on
four fundamental premises in implementing these assignments:
1.
A free market and a competitive economy are the best means
to secure economic growth and environmental protection for
the American people.
2.
There are times when the market fails to protect the
environment and it is then proper for government to
intervene in order to protect the public interest.
3.
This intervention in the form of regulation does impose real
economic costs borne by American consumers, workers,
businesses, taxpayers and the public at large. These costs
must be minimized whenever possible.
2
4.
When it is appropriate to regulate, we should do so using
market-based approaches, that draw on individual incentive
to maximize the environmental benefits and minimize the
economic costs.
Let me discuss each of these four premises in the context
of environmental policy in general and the Clean Air Act in
particular.
First, a free market and a competitive economy are the best
allies of the American people. Our economy is what made America
a world leader. And, it's a strong economy that will keep
America at the forefront of a rapidly changing global market.
I am reminded of Churchill's last speech on the hustings.
"Among our socialist friends there is great confusion about
private enterprise. Some see it a predatory tiger to be shot.
Others see a COW to be milked. Only a handful see it for what it
really is -- the strong and willing horse that pulls the whole
cart along."
Indeed, a strong, vibrant, free-market economy that creates
wealth is also a pre-requisite for a healthy, clean environment.
To prove the point, you need only compare the environmental
problems of the U.S. and our allies in Western Europe to the
environmental devastation that has been wreaked upon the people
in the previously communist countries of Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union.
In addition to Chernobil, one hears reports of natural
resources being depleted and the lakes and the streams being
poisoned. For example, the formerly blue Danube has turned black
and Lake Baikal is a "dead" lake. The air is poisoned by smog
and toxic emissions and soil littered with both hazardous and
industrial waste. In the territories of the former East Germany,
Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, these environmental
problems have created serious health hazards - for example, the
frequency of various pulmonary diseases among children and adults
is many times that of developed Western countries. Infant
mortality and life expectancy levels also approach that of Third
World countries.
Second, we believe that when there are market failures,
there is a proper role for government policies to protect the
public interests. In the area of the environment, this means
strong government actions. We owe it to ourselves and to future
generations to make the world we live in a better place.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of every individual to make
sure we have a clean environment. And most of the time he or she
will have ample incentive to do so. But, there are times when
the environmental harm is not experienced by the person who is
polluting (economists refer to these as "externalities"). In
3
these instances it is appropriate for the government to act on
behalf of society as a whole.
President Bush and Vice President Quayle are committed to
vigorous policies to clean up the air. This administration has
a strong record and has been pursuing a sound and balanced
environmental protection policy. As the EPA Administrator Reilly
noted in his April 30 National Press Club speech, "By the
traditional measures by which Administrations are judged on the
environment -- budget support, vigor of enforcement, and new
initiatives -- President Bush and the environment both have fared
well."
Indeed, most observers believe that, all in all, the quality
of the environment in the U.S. has vastly improved over the last
decade. The numbers speak for themselves:
From 1980 to 1990: sulfur dioxide emissions have dropped
27%; carbon monoxide emissions are down 31%; ground ozone levels
are down 16%; there is a 12% decrease in concentrations of
nitrogen dioxide and a 26% decrease in concentrations of
particulates; and most impressive, lead emissions fell by 89%
from its 1980 levels. Recent experience shows that toxic
releases to the air declined even faster. In one year, 1988 to
1989, these emissions dropped 14%.
The Administration has pioneered a number of significant
advances in environmental protection.
The President's leadership was indispensable in
securing the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 --a feat that both the environmentalists and
Congress have been unable to accomplish for over a
decade.
You are all familiar with key elements of this
legislation including a permanent cap of 10 million
tons on SO2 emissions that cause acid rain, provisions
to reduce toxic air emissions by 90% that will clean up
smog in cities across America, and a strong program to
encourage the use of alternative fuels.
The third, fundamental principle of the Competitiveness
Council is that the intervention in the free market through
regulation imposes real economic costs and that these costs must
be minimized whenever possible.
According to a recent study by Tom Hopkins at the Rochester
Institute the total annual costs of all federal regulations --
environmental and other types -- is over $400-$500 billion.
Federal regulations end up costing each family over $4200 per
year; by the year 2000, the costs are projected to rise to over
4
$4600 per year. Also, as the President noted, "the government
generated more than 5.3 billion hours of paperwork last year --
enough to keep 2 million people busy doing nothing but filling
out forms. Most economists would agree that the impact of these
costs is no different from that of a tax burden of a similar
fiscal magnitude.
The Council on Environmental Quality estimates that the US
had $115 billion in expenditures on federal environmental
protection per year on programs in place before the Clean Air
Act. And, you are all familiar with the estimate of the cost
compliance with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 of roughly
$25 billion per year. This estimate assumes the most cost-
effective implementation strategy.
It all adds up to roughly 2% of GNP. By contrast, West
Germany spends 1.5%, Finland 1.3%, the Netherlands and the U.K.
1.25%, France 1.1% and Norway .8%. This makes the United States
one of the world's leaders in environmental expenditures.
Who pays the cost of regulations?
The consumer pays, when he or she has to pay
higher prices for a product or service.
One of the most obvious examples is the price consumers pay
for electric utility rates. The industry is heavily regulated
under a variety of the CAA provisions, e.g., Titles I, III, IV,
V. Depending on how a variety of regulatory issues are resolved,
ranging from acid rain-related controls to non-attainment
requirements, utilities would have to bear hundreds of millions
and even billions of dollars of additional costs. Given the
public service nature of utilities, these costs are certain to be
included in their rate bases and would be ultimately passed along
to various categories of consumers, who use electricity. In the
end, the costs of the CAA are passed on to the consumer.
The American worker pays, when he or she loses a job
because regulations force factories to shut down or
move overseas.
For example, in a recent letter to the Vice President,
Senator Pete Dominici related a story how Intel, one of the
largest U.S. chip manufacturers, is agonizing over the issue of
where to site its new planned $1.5 billion facility. They would
like to build it in the U.S. However, unless Titles I, III, and
V of the CAA indicated they would have sufficient flexibility in
operating the facility, the letter indicated they could decide
to build it overseas. Significantly, this is not the case of a
company trying to avoid environmental responsibility. Everybody
agrees that Intel has an excellent environmental record. There
is also no question that their facility would be the world's most
5
modern chip-making installation, and would not be a major
polluter. What Intel does need to know, however, is how much
flexibility will they have in responding to changes in consumer
demand for their product? [DR where do we stand with this? Do
we have the letter]
Small businesses pay, when they are forced to
shut down from excessive compliance costs to
regulations and endless filing requirements.
Another very real result of excessive regulation is that
small business, which provide 66% of workers with their first
job, can not afford to open up in new markets because of the
increased cost of compliance. In some cases, the existing
business are forced to close down.
The flight of business from California is a case in point.
According to a May 19 Wall Street Journal article by Philip
Verleger, several recent studies indicate that onerous
environmental regulations were the primary cause of the
manufacturers flight from Southern California. Indeed, Verleger
argues that such regulations discourage sighting of enterprises
"in two industries that might otherwise might be attractive to
Los Angeles enterprise zones: furniture and metal
fabrication the furniture industry faces difficulty because air
quality rules limit the use of paints and adhesives. Metal
fabrication companies face limits on their emissions."
But the problem is not limited to the problem in CA. For
example, the President recently received a letter from Charles
Doyle, the mayor of Texas City, TX. The mayor reports that,
because of inordinate delays in receiving necessary approvals,
Mitsubishi Materials Corporation has abandoned its quest to build
a copper smelter in Texas City. The project has been on hold
since 1987, and was repeatedly delayed by numerous and redundant
permitting requirements. Ironically, the copper smelter would
have employed the pollution-free, highly economic continuous
smelting process. It would have been good for both the
environment and the economy.
O
The taxpayer, pays the bill when local
governments are heavily regulated.
Last May, the City of Columbus submitted a report that
outlined how much it will cost in order to comply with Federal
environmental regulations. Not all Federal regulations, just
environmental regulations. Over the next ten years, they
estimate that it will cost the City over $1 billion. That's over
$900 per household in Columbus. That's also $1 billion dollars
that could be used to provide shelter for the homeless or day
care services for the poor.
6
Finally, the environment also suffers from ill
conceived and unnecessary regulations.
For example, EPA, just last week issued the so-called Wepco
rule, which removed a number of existing regulatory impediments
to the installation of pollution controls and modernization of
electric utility plants. Prior to this change, you had the
anomalous situation, in which utilities, in order to avoid being
subjected to a costly and burdensome new source review process,
were reluctant to make changes in their operations in ways that
are clearly beneficial to the environment. Fortunately, this
particular regulatory bottle-neck was removed. But many others
still remain. For example, we have been told that some
facilities would like to use recycled aluminum cans as the raw
input to produce new cans. Apparently, this is a much cleaner
and more efficient process than smelting raw materials. However,
if they have to comply with regulatory requirements applicable to
true smelters, it is economically unfeasible.
In addition to economic costs, there are other costs as
well. The key problem is that the American people are losing
faith in the ability of their government to devise sound
regulations. According to a recent poll:
90% of those surveyed believe that consumers ultimately
pay the costs of all regulation.
66% are surprised that the costs of environmental
regulations are often never considered.
80% think that failing to consider the cost to
public in setting environmental regulations is a bad
approach.
If these perceptions become entrenched, it might well
undermine the social consensus that is essential to the
government's ability to provide for environmental protection in
the future.
It is because of these higher costs that the Council on
Competitiveness insists there be a vigorous cost/benefit
analysis for all new regulations. The American people have the
right to expect that there be true benefits flowing from new
regulations, and that the benefits truly outweigh the cost to
society.
The Council's fourth premise is, where regulation are
necessary, they should be based on free market principles. Where
competition fails to reduce pollution we will regulate. But we
will do so in the least intrusive manner to correct the market
7
failure. Moreover, when it appears that some regulatory
strictures are necessary, we try to develop them in ways that are
compatible with the imperatives of Federalism, the protection of
individual liberty and traditional values.
President Bush, Vice President Quayle and Bill Reilly have
championed certain principles that will enable us to obtain
environmental protection at the lowest cost to society:
Whenever possible, set performance standards and allow
business to choose which technology (or which changes
in manufacturing processes) to use to meet the
standard.
Encourage American businesses to implement voluntarily
environmental protection measures that also make
business sense.
To the maximum extent possible, we should rely on
market forces.
Instead of prescribing how much pollution should be reduced
by each individual business, we prefer to set the overall
pollution reduction targets and then allow companies to trade
pollution credits. In the acid rain area alone, this approach
saves approximately $1 billion. One example that shows great
promise is the South Coast Reclaim Program. Beyond these
initiatives, the Administration, building upon its earlier "cash
for clunkers" program, is in the process of developing additional
trading initiatives. Such initiatives would allow the States,
but not force them, to offer trading programs, for example,
enabling mobile and stationary sources to trade pollution credits
to comply with Clean Air Act requirements. Such trading can be
initially done on a pollutant basis; once sufficient scientific
basis exists to allow inter-pollutant trading, we would allow it
as well.
To use innovation, new approaches:
In the process of determining what constitutes the most
cost-effective approach to pollution reduction, we are prepared
to consider non-traditional measures. It may indeed be the case
that pollution minimization/prevention is, in appropriate cases,
more cost-effective than adding additional, end-of-the-pipe
controls. However, pollution prevention cannot be viewed as a
panacea, to be pursued in all circumstances. Nor can it be used
as an excuse to allow government bureaucrats to micro-manage
industrial production.
We realize, of course, that the use of market based
approaches requires the promulgation of certain key principles -
accountability (e.g., monitoring, reporting, no double-
8
counting), quality control and consistency (e.g., establishing
proper base-line allocations), and appropriate measures to secure
compliance, backed up by strong enforcement procedures.
We believe that it is especially important to approach
environmental protection in a way which is compatible with
economic growth, because the remaining environmental problems are
highly complex and costly to fix. The solutions are uncertain
and involve a complicated calculus of benefits, risks and costs.
Often, one environmental goal conflicts with another
environmental objective. One good idea that this committee could
review, which would go a long way of resolving this tension, is
the use of multi-media permits. I commend EPA and Amoco for
working together on a pilot project designed to test the
feasibility of this idea.
Efforts to use market based approaches have shown great
promise. As the Administrator Reilly recently pointed out, "In
the newly emerging marketplace, the green of environmental
protection is beginning to form a ready alliance with the green
of profits. A new environmentalism is taking shape in this
country; it integrates environment and economics."
I want to commend this committee for your excellent
contributions to the development of various innovative, market-
based approaches to pollution reduction. I believe that the
document that you are discussing today contains useful
suggestions on how to organize trading systems. We are committed
to working with you and environmental and industry groups to
further refine these concepts.
Let me explain how we are applying these four (4) principles
as part of the President's regulatory relief initiative. In his
State of the Union address, President Bush called on all the
agencies to conduct a thorough review of all their programs, and
report to him the results. He asked them to eliminate needless,
burdensome regulations and to accelerate programs that promote
economic growth.
The regulatory relief initiative has already produced a
substantial reduction in regulatory burdens. The reforms
completed or set in motion since January 28 will ultimately save
American consumers and workers roughly $15 to $20 billion per
year. That is about $300 per year for the average American
family.
EPA's report in general was one of the best efforts at
identifying areas where we can continue to accomplish the
agencies measures while reducing regulatory costs. While many of
the Clean Air Acts regulations are not subject to the moratorium
because they have statutory deadlines, this process has allowed
us to focus on reducing the cost of these regulations. As part
9
of the initiative, the Administration has developed several
innovative, market-based approaches to reduce the costs of
meeting the Clean Air Act's requirements.
One such initiative, known as the "Cash for Clunkers, " will
help businesses meet the tough standards of the Act by
giving them emission reduction credits if they take older,
high-polluting automobiles off the road.
EPA also issued the WEPCO rule that enables electric
utilities to avoid the costly new source review process when
they install pollution control projects or undertake certain
types of routine repairs.
And, as the President indicated, "this is just a down-
payment on savings to come. " During the next 120 days, each
agency is to concentrate on implementing the regulatory reforms
identified in the reports that they submitted to the President.
The President also instructed all agencies to conduct a rigorous
assessment of the costs and benefits of all new legislation being
considered by Congress. In this way, we can help restore
accountability to the legislative process. The people ought to
know the costs of the programs their elected representatives vote
into legislation.
Another ongoing effort of the Council is to work with EPA to
develop an across-the-board package of initiatives, that would
help small businesses comply with environmental regulations.
Such initiatives would range from providing technical assistance
to small businesses, to streamlining and reducing the burdens of
numerous EPA reporting requirements.
These are some of the activities that the Council on
Competitiveness has on its agenda for the next 6 months. Again,
I thank you for the opportunity to come here and share them with
you. Before I close, let me step back and take a broader
perspective. President Bush is committed to strong and vigorous
enforcement of environmental protection. His commitment to that
policy is what led to the enactment of the Clean Air Act in 1990.
Bill Rosenberg and his staff at the Air and Radiation Division
have been charged with drafting the 50 or more major regulations
that will be required to implement this new law. At the
Competitiveness Council we have been tasked with making sure that
the review of these regulations is coordinated so that two
equally important goals can be met:
First, the environmental benefits of the Clean Air Act must
be achieved for us and for our future generations.
Second, these benefits must be achieved in a way that
minimizes the cost to the economy so that, wherever possible,
consumers will not pay higher prices, workers will keep their
10
jobs, and our economy will flourish.
I am confident that, working with the input and wise counsel
of this advisory committee, EPA can fashion the new CAA
regulations in a way that meets both of these goals. There will
be times when this process reaches an impasse and particular
issues appear to be incapable of resolution. We must overcome
these difficulties. The American people are counting on us to do
that and I am confident that, by working together, we will be
able to succeed.
11
MARK SAMUELS (VEEP cc)
6224
286
FED GOVT RE65- 1 #400 B.
HERITAGE FORNDMTION July 10,92
GEO. BU&H HIDNEN TAX:
FED. GOVT SPENDS
$11.27 BILLION ADMINSTER
185 OWN REGS.
1991 new Fed. leg 67, 716 pages
of reqs
Fed. enforcury employees. regs - 124,994
(4thousand more than Carter)
( Lujan, Buher, Riley)
The Backgrounder
Heritage Foundation
905
No.
The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-440
The Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies
jeanie M
July 10, 1992
MARK SAMUELS
VEEP 6224
GEORGE BUSH'S HIDDEN TAX:
THE EXPLOSION IN REGULATION
INTRODUCTION
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers
to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
Thomas Jefferson,
The Declaration of Independence
What Thomas Jefferson wrote of King George III might just as well have been writ-
ten of the federal government under President George Bush. The reason: America has
experienced an enormous growth in regulation over the last three years, due almost en-
tirely to legislation signed by Bush, and to the decisions of officials he has appointed.
This burgeoning red tape hinders the economy's recovery and jeopardizes future eco-
nomic progress. President Bush belatedly recognized the explosion of re-regulation on
January 28, when he declared a ninety-day moratorium on new regulations and in-
structed federal agencies to review the efficiency of old regulations. In light of the find-
ings that various government agencies indeed could streamline regulations, the Presi-
dent extended the moratorium for an additional 120 days.
A slowdown in regulation is desperately needed. Under George Bush:
The total annual length of the Federal Register, in which all new regulations
are published, has grown from 53,376 pages in 1988, President Ronald
Reagan's last year, to 67,716 in 1991-the third highest total ever.
This study is part of series focusing on the problems of government regulation of the economy, and on policies to
improve American competitiveness. Earlier studies on these topics have included: Bryan T. Johnson, "Forging
Alliances To Bust Into the Japanese Market," Backgrounder No. 876, January 31, 1992; Bryan T. Johnson, "Why Bush
Failed In Japan," Executive Memorandum No. 317, January 13, 1992; Bryan T. Johnson, "Making America More
Competitive With Foreign Investment," Backgrounder No. 864, November 6, 1991; Bryan T. Johnson, "Increasing
Competitiveness Through Strategic Alliances," Backgrounder No. 857, September 26, 1991. Future studies will focus
on America's trade policy on dumping, the regulatory process, and relate horror stories of regulatory abuse.
Note: Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt
to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
The number of federal employees devoted to issuing and enforcing regula-
tions has risen from 104,360 in Reagan's last year to a new all-time high of
124,994, surpassing the previous record of 121,706 under President Jimmy
Carter.
The amount of money that the federal government spends each year adminis-
tering its regulatory programs has increased by 18 percent under Bush, from
$9.558 billion in 1988 to $11.276 billion in 1992, measured in constant 1987
dollars.
As a result, regulation now is costing Americans somewhere between $881 billion
and $1.656 trillion annually, or between $8,388 and $17,134 per household. By way of
comparison, Americans will pay an estimated $1.053 trillion in federal taxes in 1992,
or about $10,897 per household. Thus, it is possible that the total cost of regulation
now exceeds the total cost of taxation.
This surge in red tape did not happen in the face of Administration opposition. In
fact, the White House is directly responsible for a good deal of it. For one thing, much
of the growth in regulation stems from new laws that were supported and signed by the
President, including the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Americans with Dis-
abilities Act of 1990, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the Nutrition Labeling and Edu-
cation Act of 1990. For another, many of Bush's appointees have been far more enthu-
siastic about creating and enforcing rules than their predecessors in the Reagan Admin-
istration.
Example: Just days after George Bush was sworn in as President, the Army Corps of
Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) significantly expanded the
scope of federal regulation of wetlands. As a result, thousands of landowners were told
that they could not use their own land because federal regulators now considered it to
be a wetland protected under the Clean Water Act.
Example: While receiving considerably less attention than the EPA, officials in the
civil rights and antitrust divisions of the Department of Justice, and antitrust officials
at the Federal Trade Commission, have been expanding the scope of their enforcement
activities well beyond that of their predecessors in the Reagan Administration.
Example: The Department of Justice under Attorney General Richard Thornburgh,
and the Department of Transportation under Secretary Samuel Skinner, seemed to go
out of their way to make their regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act as
onerous as possible.
This new regulatory build-up is taking an increasing toll on the economy. It is like a
hidden tax. And just like a tax, regulation:
raises the prices paid by consumers;
lowers wages and increases unemployment;
hurts the country's international competitiveness;
2
increases uncertainty for businesses and reduces investment; and
impairs innovation.
In large measure, the growth in regulation and its burden has been due to a failure on
the part of the President, Congress, and the regulatory agencies to view regulation
properly. In their desire to "do good" in a particular area, they often fail to take suffi-
cient account of the broader consequences of their actions. Even when they consider
the costs of regulation, they generally fail to focus on the burdens caused by regulation
taken as a whole. In other words, they fail to recognize that the whole is greater than
the sum of the parts. To remedy this, government officials must avoid focusing simply
on the benefits and costs (let alone on the benefits alone) of each particular regulation
viewed in isolation; instead they must weigh the expected benefits of each regulation
against its added contribution to the overall burden of all regulation.
THE PURPOSE OF REGULATION
Government regulations ostensibly are intended to protect the public. 1 Proponents of
new regulation might claim that they wish, for example, to protect workers from avoid-
able injuries on the job, or to shield the public from pollution that could endanger their
health, or to prevent harm to consumers from defective products. While these goals are
admirable, policy makers often fail to ask whether a new regulation will in fact accom-
plish its goals in the most cost-effective manner. In particular, they may overlook less
costly ways to achieve the same result, enabling the public to gain more protection for
each dollar spent. They fail to ask whether the costs in lost jobs or slower economic
growth that result from regulations are worth the amount of protection that accrues to
the public. And they do not fully consider market solutions that will serve the public in-
terest without imposing on the private sector the heavy costs associated with tradi-
tional "command-and-control" regulation. When examining regulations, policy makers
must take account of their full costs and impact if they are to determine whether the
regulations help or harm the public.
The beneficial effects of much regulation are hard to find. Economists Robert Hahn
of the American Enterprise Institute and John Hird of the University of Massachusetts
at Amherst recently conducted a survey of all existing studies on the benefits and costs
of regulation, and found only two major areas in which regulation produces total bene-
fits that probably exceed total costs-environmental regulation and highway safety
regulation. 2 Even in these two areas, there is strong evidence to suggest that equal or
greater benefits could be obtained at a substantially lower cost to society.
1
Economists normally distinguish between "economic regulation" and "social regulation." Economic regulation is the
regulation of the prices or quantities of the goods or services provided in a particular industry, or of other economic
factors such as the number of firms in an industry or the freedom of firms to enter or leave an industry. The term
social regulation normally refers to regulation affecting health, safety, or the environment, but generally can be used
to describe any regulation that is not economic. Whereas most forms of economic regulation are industry-specific,
social regulation usually applies to many different industries.
2 Robert W. Hahn and John A. Hird, "The Costs and Benefits of Regulation: Review and Synthesis," Yale Journal on
3
Uniformly Ineffective. Outside these two areas, regulation has been found to be uni-
formly ineffective. For example, numerous studies of the regulation of workplace
safety by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have found no significant
effect on accident rates, worker injuries, or illnesses. 3 Likewise, a 1973 study of the
Food and Drug Admin-istration's drug approval process, undertaken by University of
Chicago economist Sam Peltzman, found no reduction in the proportion of unsafe or
ineffective drugs reaching consumers. 4 Similarly, numerous studies have found that
the Consumer Product Safety Commission has had no significant impact on product
safety. 5 The evidence indicates that the ban on cigarette advertisements on radio and
television imposed in 1970 reduced competition between brands-especially by elimi-
nating ads containing health information-and thereby slowed the introduction of new
brands lower in tar or nicotine. 6 Similarly, there is no evidence that civil rights legisla-
tion has increased employment opportunities for minorities or women. With the in-
crease in employment-related litigation and record-keeping costs that has resulted from
the legislation, it is quite possible that civil rights laws now actually reduce employ-
ment opportunities for all people, including minorities.
REGULATION FROM NIXON TO REAGAN
The great explosion in federal regulation began when President Richard Nixon cre-
ated a host of new regulatory agencies, including the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Con-
sumer Product Safety Commission, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis-
tration. Nixon also signed a number of major pieces of regulatory legislation, including
the 1970 Clean Air Act and the 1973 Endangered Species Act, and imposed specific
controls on areas ranging from to noise pollution, to pension programs, to general
wages and prices. 7 The brief Presidency of Gerald Ford continued and expanded the
red tape of the Nixon years, although Ford did remove most of Nixon's wage and price
controls.
Regulation, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Winter 1991), p. 256.
3 W. Kip Viscusi, "The Impact of Occupational Safety and Health Regulation, 1973-83," Rand Journal of Economics,
Winter 1986, pp. 567-580; Daniel P. McCaffrey, "An Assessment of OSHA's Recent Effects on Injury Rates,"
Journal of Human Resources, Winter 1983, pp. 131-146; W. Kip Viscusi, "The Impact of Occupational Safety and
Health Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, 1979, pp. 117-140; Robert S. Smith, "The Impact of OSHA
Inspections on Manufacturing Injury Rates," Journal of Human Resources, Spring 1979, pp. 145-170; John
Mendeloff, Regulating Safety: An Economic and Political Analysis of Occupational Safety and Health Policy
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, 1979).
4 Sam Peltzman, "An Evaluation of Consumer Protection Legislation: The 1962 Drug Amendments," Journal of
Political Economy, September 1973, pp. 1049-1091.
5 See, e.g., W. Kip Viscusi, "Consumer Behavior and the Safety Effects of Product Safety Regulation," Journal of Law
and Economics, Vol. 28, No. 3 (October 1985), pp. 527-553; Paul H. Rubin, R. Dennis Murphy, and Greg Jarrell,
"Risky Products, Risky Stocks," Regulation, No. 1 (1988), pp. 35-39.
6 John E. Calfee, "The Ghost of Cigarette Advertising Past," Regulation, November/December 1986, pp. 35-45; Lynne
Schneider, Benjamin Klein, and Kevin Murphy, "Government Regulation of Cigarette Health Information," Journal
of Law and Economics, December 1981, pp. 572-612.
7 The core of what later became the Clean Water Act-the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
-also became law while Nixon was President, but over his veto.
4
Jimmy Carter's re-
Chart 1
cord was a mixed one.
A Mountain of Paperwork:
Carter tightened envi-
Federal Regulations Continue to Grow
ronmental regulations,
Total Pages In the Federal Register (Thousands)
created the Depart-
100
87,012
ment of Energy, and
Federal
80
tried to impose race
Register
67,716
60,221
and sex quotas on
47,418
60
businesses through
civil rights enforce-
40
ment. Yet Carter also
20,036
championed signifi-
20
cant deregulation of
air travel, railroads,
0
'36
'40
'44
'48
'52
'56
'60
'64
'68
'72
'76
'80
'84
'88
'92'
and trucking. Further,
he removed restric-
Note: 1992 figure Is unavallable.
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
hend
tions on the rate of in-
Source: Office of the Federal Register.
Heritage DataChart
terest that banks and other depository institutions could pay to their depositors, and
took the first important steps toward the eventual decontrol of oil prices.
Ronald Reagan proposed relatively little deregulatory legislation. His main legisla-
tive strategy was to try to block -usually successfully, through the use or threat of his
veto-legislation that would have increased red tape and slowed economic growth.
More important, Reagan took steps to reduce the volume of administrative rules issued
by government officials. Among the most important actions, Reagan:
X
Issued Executive Order No. 12291, requiring all Executive Branch agencies to
estimate the benefits and costs of any new regulations they wished to issue;
X
Designated the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a central office for conducting all
cost-benefit review of regulations;
Established a Task Force on Regulatory Relief, headed by then Vice President
George Bush; and
Appointed to most cabinet departments and independent agencies individuals
who favored a reduction in regulation, and significantly reduced the staffing of
most regulatory agencies.
8
OIRA was created under Carter; Reagan expanded its mission.
5
RE-REGULATION UNDER BUSH
Although George Bush projects himself as an avid foe of regulation, his Presidency
has seen an enormous resurgence of regulation.
Example: The total
Chart 2
annual length of the
Pages in the Federal Register:
Federal Register, in
Regulation and Deregulation by President
which all new regula-
Increase In Pages (Thousands)
tions are published, de-
40
25,400
29,900
Room
clined during the eight-
30
Register
year tenure of Ronald
11,700
14,300
20
NAME
Reagan by 33,636
Registr
-33,600
Register
10
Robert
pages, from an all-time
Robin
o
high of 87,012 in
- 10
Jimmy Carter's last
-20
year, 1980, down to
53,376 in 1988. 9 In
-30
less than four years,
-40
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush
the annual number of
(1969-74)
(1975-78)
(1977-80)
(1981-88)
(1989-91)
pages under the Bush
Source: Office of the Federal Register, Washington, D.C.
Administration has
Heritage DataChart
risen by 14,340 pages. Last year's total of 67,716 pages was the third highest ever, sur-
passed by only two of Carter's four years.
Example: The staffing level of federal regulatory agencies has increased sharply. The
number of federal employees devoted to issuing and enforcing regulations fell by
17,346 under Reagan, from a then record 121,706 in Carter's last year down to
104,360 in 1988.
Chart 3
Under Bush, however,
Total Federal Regulatory Employees
20,634 new bureau-
crats have been added,
Full-Time Equivalent Employees (Thousands)
140
for a new all-time
130
121,706
124,994
high of 124,994 regu-
120
101,245
latory employees.
110
100
Example: The
90
amount of money that
80
the federal govern-
70
ment spends each year
60
administering its regu-
50
latory programs also
40
has soared. Measured
'70
'72
'74
'76
'78
'80
'82
'84
'86
'88
'90
'92
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush
in constant 1987 dol-
(1970-74)
(1975-76)
(1977-80)
(1981-88)
(1989-92)
Note: Flacal years. Regulatory data prior to 1970 are unavallable.
Source: Center for the Study of American Business,
Washington University, St. Louis.
Heritage DataChart
9
All figures reported in this study for the number of pages in the Federal Register either were obtained from, or else
calculated on the basis of data provided by, the Office of the Federal Register.
6
lars, federal regu-
Chart 4
latory spending
Total Annual Cost of Administering
grew by only
Federal Regulatory Programs
$778 million over
the entire course
Billions of 1987 Dollars
$12
$11.276
of Reagan's two
terms in office, ris-
$10
$8.780
$7.650
$8.234
ing from $8.780
$8
billion in Carter's
last year to $9.558
$6
billion in
$4
Reagan's last
year. Bush, how-
$2
ever, has in-
$0
creased federal
'70
'72
'74
'76
'78
'80
'82
'84
'86
'88
'90
'92
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush
regulatory spend-
(1970-74)
(1975-76)
(1977-80)
(1981-88)
(1989-92)
holdn't
ing more than
Note: Fiscal years. Regulatory data prior to 1970 are unavailable.
twice as much as
Source: Center for the Study of American Business.
Heritage DataChart
are
Reagan, and in only half as much time. In constant dollars, regulatory spending has
10
risen by $1.718 billion under Bush, from $9.558 billion to $11.276 billion.
Some of the blame for the growth in regulation under Bush lies with the individuals
chart how has Use weak bee shans Bash
Bush has appointed. With only a handful of exceptions, these appointees are far more
prone to issue regulations and support regulatory legislation that their Reagan predeces-
sors. For example, although EPA Administrator William Reilly maintains he tries not
to impose undue regulatory burdens on businesses and households, he and his agency
have been at the forefront of the regulatory build-up during the last three years. A case
in point: Just days after George Bush had been sworn in as President, the EPA and the
Army Corps of Engineers significantly expanded the scope of federal wetlands regula-
tions. Land that had standing water for as little as seven days per year could be subject
to federal control as a "wetland," as could land that was dry at the surface but moist
This
within eighteen inches of the surface. In some cases this meant prohibiting farmers
area.
from planting crops on their own land and stopping home gardeners from planting
flowers. In one case a man was jailed for clearing away old tires and putting fill dirt on
his own land as a base for a garage. 11 Likewise, officials in charge of civil rights and
antitrust at the Department of Justice, and antitrust officials at the Federal Trade Com-
mission, have been quietly expanding the scope of their enforcement activities well be-
12
yond that of their predecessors in the Reagan Administration.
10 All figures reported in this study for federal regulatory staffing and spending either were obtained from, or else
calculated on the basis of data provided by, the Center for the Study of American Business, Washington University,
St. Louis, Missouri.
11 See William G. Laffer III, "Protecting Ecologically Valuable Wetlands without Destroying Property Rights," Heritage
Foundation Backgrounder No. 840, July 15, 1991.
12 See, e.g., Charles F. Rule, "Back to the Dark Ages of Antitrust," The Wall Street Journal, June 17, 1992, p. A17. Rule
was Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice from 1986 to 1989.
7
However, the principal driving force behind the growth in regulation over the last
three years has been legislation-legislation which in every major instance has been
signed and usually supported by President Bush. Several laws in particular have meant
a surge in new regulation.
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
Environmental regulation accounts for the largest share of the recent explosion of
regulations. Bush promised during the 1988 campaign to support a new clean air bill,
and he was instrumental-in securing its passage. Estimates of the cost of the legislation
vary, but all are huge. Murray Weidenbaum, former chairman of the Council of Eco-
nomic Advisors under Reagan and now Director of the Center for the Study of Ameri-
can Business at Washington University in Saint Louis, estimates that the law "will cost
an added $25-35 billion a year, over and above the more than $100 billion [already]
spent annually on all pollution controls. ,,13 Economist Paul Portney of Resources for
the Future, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank specializing in environmental issues,
estimates that the new law will cost between $29 billion and $36 billion a year while
providing only about $14 billion a year in benefits. 14 A spokesman for the National
Federation of Independent Business, which represents about a half-million small firms,
describes the Act as "probably one of the most complex pieces of regulation ever
passed" and has predicted that the legislation "is going to be a nightmare for small-
business people. ,,15
The 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Although described as a "civil rights" bill by its supporters, including President
Bush, the ADA does much more than simply prohibit discrimination against the dis-
abled. It also requires owners of private businesses, apartment buildings, restaurants,
and stores to make-at their own expense-various physical modifications to their
premises, such as widening doorways and installing wheelchair ramps, in order to ac-
commodate the disabilities of current and potential employees, tenants, and customers.
Likewise, hotels and auto rental companies must go to the extra expense of including
wheelchair lifts on all their new pick-up vans. And similarly, public transit systems are
required to install wheelchair lifts on all new buses.
While discrimination against the disabled is contemptible, the ADA has little to do
with the prevention of discrimination. As the President's Council of Economic Advi-
sors has acknowledged, the ADA actually is a mandated benefit program. 16 Rather
than providing these benefits openly by spending tax dollars, the government taxes
17
Americans implicitly by commanding private parties to spend their own money.
13 Murray Weidenbaum, The New Wave of Business Regulation, Contemporary Issues Series No. 40 (St. Louis,
Missouri: Center for the Study of American Business, December 1990), pp. 3-4.
14 Paul R. Portney, "Economics and the Clean Air Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Fall 1990),
pp. 173-181.
15 Quoted in Jonathan Rauch, "The Regulatory President," National Journal, November 30, 1991, p. 2905.
16 Economic Report of the President (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1992), pp.
272-273.
17 See Nancy Traver, "Opening Doors for the Disabled," Time, June 4, 1990, p. 54.
8
As with many government regulations, it is questionable whether the benefits that ac-
crue to the disabled from the ADA will be worth the cost. In the case of many enter-
prises or places of employment in many parts of the country, there might be few or no
disabled customers or workers currently facing significant obstacles. In these cases,
forcing each business to spend thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to
comply with the letter of the law makes little economic sense, and in some cases may
endanger the survival of the business 17 Moreover, Bush Administration officials have
made the ADA even more costly than it had to be. In many instances, the implement-
ing regulations require particular methods of compliance even though other methods
might be far less expensive yet of greater benefit to the disabled.
Example: Airlines will be required to modify all aisle seats on one side or another of
their planes so that people in wheelchairs will have an easier time getting in and out of
the seats - even though, on average, only one passenger out of every 25 flights uses a
wheelchair. Since the required modifications are expected to cost the airlines some-
where in the neighborhood of $40 million, it would have been less expensive for the
airlines if the government simply had required them to let passengers in wheelchairs
fly free-of-charge in the first class section, whose seats already can accommodate a per-
son with a wheelchair.
Example: The Act requires all new buses purchased by public transit systems to be
equipped with wheelchair lifts. Thus will raise the price of a new bus by about
$15,000, and will raise the cost of operating and maintaining each bus in a transit
system's fleet by about $5,000 per year. Since the vast majority of riders do not use
wheelchairs, it probably would be cheaper for public transit systems to serve disabled
passengers with a special fleet of mini-vans equipped with the necessary lifts, which
could then give the disabled passengers door-to-door service.
18
While difficult to calculate, the cost of the ADA may even approach that of the 1990
Clean Air Act. Whether or not the ADA ends up surpassing the Clean Air Act in cost
will depend entirely on how it is enforced, and the statute gives the regulators enor-
mous leeway. 19 According to Chicago-based economic consultant Robert Genetski,
the required physical modifications of office buildings and hospitals alone may cost
some $65 billion. And that figure does not take into account other huge costs, such as
the costs 20 of equipping trains, buses, rental cars, restaurants, hotels, or other public facil-
ities.
In addition to the direct cost of all these modifications, the Act is certain to fos-
ter an enormous amount of costly litigation.
The 1991 Civil Rights Act
Ostensibly an attempt merely to restore civil rights law to where it stood before a se-
ries of Supreme Court decisions in 1988, this legislation radically changed federal em-
ployment discrimination law. It made it easier for employees to sue employers, harder
17 See Robert P. O'Quinn, "The Americans with Disabilities Act: Time for Amendments," Cato Institute Policy
Analysis No. 158, August 9, 1991.
18 See Nancy Traver, "Opening Doors for the Disabled," Time, June 4, 1990, p. 54.
19 See O'Quinn, op. cit., for a good discussion-with many specific examples-of how open-ended the ADA is.
20 Robert Genetski, "The True Cost of Government," The Wall Street Journal, February 19, 1992, p. A18.
9
for employers to defend themselves successfully-even when they are innocent of any
actual discrimination-and more expensive for employers when they lose cases. The
new law allows the proportion of workers of various races in an employer's work force
to be used as prima facie evidence of discrimination, and the employer 21 must prove that
he is innocent rather than the plaintiffs proving that he is guilty.
The additional costs due to litigation and fines will act like a tax on employment.
With each new job an employer creates, his record-keeping burdens and chances of
being sued will increase. 22 Even if an employer tries to avoid litigation by using quo-
tas for minorities and women, he can never completely eliminate the risk of being sued
over the racial composition of his work force. Moreover, an employer who uses quotas
risks being sued for deliberate discrimination by those whom the quota excludes. And
even if the employer is lucky enough not to be sued, his work force will be less produc-
tive because he was forced to hire by race and sex instead of merit. Thus, no matter
which way an employer turns, the cost of creating jobs and employing people will
have risen. The end result of the new "civil rights" law is unambiguous: It will cost the
economy jobs, lower wages, and make American firms less competitive.
Other Regulatory Burdens
Other legislative initiatives signed by Bush include the 1989 increase in the federal
minimum wage, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, the Pollution Pre-
vention Act of 1990, and increased authority for the Securities Exchange Commission
(SEC). When all of Bush's regulatory initiatives are added together, and combined
with the increased staffing and budgets at the various federal regulatory agencies and
the new, more vigorous and far-reaching enforcement policies that have been adopted
by so many of Bush's key appointees, it becomes clear that Bush is responsible for an
enormous increase in federal regulation. Indeed, according to a National Journal arti-
cle entitled "The Regulatory President," American business under George Bush has ex-
perienced ,,23 "the most imposing over-all extension of regulatory authority since
Nixon.
TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE
There have been several bright spots in the battle against regulation during Bush's
term. Shortly after he was inaugurated, for example, Bush created the Council on Com-
petitiveness, headed by Vice President Dan Quayle. The Council's task is to review
21 See William G. Laffer III, "Why Kennedy-Hawkins Will Mean Quotas," Heritage Foundation Issue Bulletin No. 159,
July 2, 1990; William G. Laffer III, "Why the So-Called 'Civil Rights' Bill Would Still Mean Quotas," Heritage
Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 302, June 3, 1991; William G. Laffer III, "The Danforth 'Compromise':
Another Quota Civil Rights Bill," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Update No. 168, October 7, 1991.
22 In order to be able to defend themselves in the event that they are sued, most employers now keep detailed records on
the race and sex of all job applicants. Such records became even more important for an employer to have after
Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1990, yet employers would not have to keep them at all were it not for the
civil rights laws.
23 Rauch, op. cit., p. 2905.
10
major new regulations with a view toward reducing the burden of regulation where
possible, and to act as a referee when different Executive Branch agencies disagree.
The Council's staff, however, is quite small. Thus it is able to review only a handful
of the annual flood of regulations that the Executive Branch issues. Last year, for ex-
ample, the Council was actively involved in drafting only some fifty to sixty regula-
tions, whereas the total number of regulations issued by agencies within the Executive
Branch was on the order of 2,000 to 3,000. 24 Moreover, even when the Council does
review an issue, it often must deal with agency personnel who resent having their
power to manage the economy questioned or curtailed. Lack of cooperation and some-
times outright resistance on the part of agencies make the Council's task even more dif-
ficult and limit its effectiveness.
Bad Advice. Another source of dashed expectations is OMB's Office of Informa-
tion and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the agency responsible for ensuring that new regu-
lations do not cost more than the benefits they provide. Despite the urging of his most
loyal advisors, including Vice President Quayle, White House Counsel C. Boyden
Gray, and Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors Michael Boskin, President
Bush has failed to give OIRA the support it needs to assure that regulations impose the
least burden on the economy. Instead, Bush listened to OMB Director Richard Dar-
man, the same advisor who persuaded the President to break his solemn "no new
taxes" promise to the American people, and has refused to appoint a permanent head
of OIRA. Because Bush has not given OIRA the support it needs, OIRA has been pre-
occupied with defending itself against 25 congressional attacks instead of taking the offen-
sive against onerous regulation.
Some Constructive Reforms. Recognizing the burden that regulation places on the
economy, George Bush announced this January 28 a ninety-day moratorium on most
new regulations that could hamper economic growth. As part of the moratorium, regu-
latory agencies were instructed to evaluate their existing regulations and to devise ini-
tiatives that would streamline regulation and create jobs and economic growth. A few
agencies announced constructive reforms during that period. The Food and Drug Ad-
ministration, for example, proposed to expedite somewhat its procedures for approving
new drugs, and the Securities and Exchange Commission has taken steps to make it
easier for smaller businesses to raise capital by selling stock. But as the magnitude of
the regulatory crisis became apparent, the original ninety-day moratorium was ex-
tended an additional 120 days, through the end of August.
There is only so much that a moratorium of this sort-focused mainly on new regu-
lations-can accomplish. While less new red tape is, of course, a relief for business,
the regulations put into place during the last three years continue to burden the econ-
omy. Unfortunately, since most of these new regulations have been mandated by legis-
24 Rauch, op. cit., p. 2902. In addition, many regulations are issued each year by independent agencies which are not
part of the Executive Branch and hence are not directly answerable to the President or the Council on
Competitiveness.
25 William G. Laffer III, "Muzzling OIRA: An Attempt to Thwart Bush's War on Regulations," Heritage Foundation
Executive Memorandum No. 304, July 15, 1991.
11
lation, which the President signed, they cannot now be repealed except with the un-
likely cooperation of Congress.
THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF GROWING REGULATION
Although the amount of money that the federal government spends each year to ad-
minister its regulatory programs-nearly $13.6 billion for 1992-is one of the costs of
regulation, it is trivial in comparison with the costs imposed on businesses, private citi-
zens, and state and local governments. For example, a ban on a particular product may
cost very little to enforce, and may even entail very little in the way of direct compli-
ance costs for the private sector, such as paperwork requirements or litigation. Yet the
full economic cost of the ban might be very heavy in terms of higher prices and re-
duced choices for consumers.
In order to gauge the true cost of regulation, as well as any increases or decreases in
that cost over time, policy makers must look at the full range of effects each regulation
has, not just at the direct enforcement and compliance costs. No regulation can be eval-
uated properly in isolation. Like two harmless chemicals that when mixed create a dan-
gerous explosive, two moderately harmful regulations can result in serious economic
damage. The existence of other regulations can make any new regulation more costly
than it otherwise would have been. Likewise, adoption of additional regulations can
make previously existing regulations more costly than they were before. Thus, the true
cost to be considered and weighed against any potential benefits is not the cost that a
new regulation would impose in isolation, but the addition that it would make to the
burden caused by all regulations taken together.
When regulations are viewed as a whole rather than in isolation, they are seen to act
as a hidden tax. This tax takes the form of such things as compliance expenditures,
time lost due to paperwork requirements, delays in the processing and issuance of per-
mits required by government, and attorney fees incurred in regulation-related litiga-
tion.
Just like any other tax, moreover, regulation imposes broad economic costs on
Americans. Among the most important economic consequences:
Regulation raises prices paid by consumers and thereby lowers living
standards.
Regulations impose substantial compliance costs which must be borne by someone.
These costs are borne in part by businesses' employees and stockholders. To some ex-
tent, however, businesses pass these costs on to their customers in the form of higher
prices. Regulatory costs can account for a substantial portion of the total price consum-
ers pay for a product or service-for example, regulation adds up to one-third of the
price 26 of a single-engine airplane and over 95 percent of the price of vaccines for chil-
dren.
26 Peter W. Huber, Liability: The Legal Revolution and Its Consequences (New York: Basic Books, 1988), p. 3.
12
Regulation lowers wages and increases unemployment.
Some regulations have a direct and immediate impact on wages and employment.
The minimum wage law, féderal labor laws, and federal civil rights laws, for example,
all tend to increase the cost of employing workers and thereby decrease the levels of
wages or employment, and sometimes both. Other regulations affect wages and em-
ployment indirectly, but just as significantly. Banking and environmental regulations,
for example, both reduce the overall level of economic activity. Each has contributed
to the current recession and helped to cause the private sector's loss of some 1.5 mil-
lion jobs since January 1990. 27
In some instances, job losses can be attributed directly to some regulation. Example:
Many studies have proven that the federal minimum wage law increases unemploy-
ment rates significantly, especially among minorities and teenagers who do not yet
have the skills to command a wage higher than the legal minimum. 28 Another exam-
ple: Efforts to protect the spotted owl under the Endangered Species Act have cost
thousands of jobs in the logging industry and many additional jobs in communities
where logging is the principal industry.
In most instances, however, it will not be apparent that regulation is responsible.
This is because regulation of one part of the economy can affect all other parts as well.
For example, a recent study in the prestigious Journal of Political Economy by econo-
mists Michael Hazilla of American University and Raymond Kopp of Resources for
the Future found that environmental regulations reduce output and productivity in the
finance, insurance, and real estate industries even though these industries produce no
pollution themselves and require no direct investment in pollution abatement equip-
ment. Hazilla and Kopp found that all sectors of the economy are affected by environ-
mental regulations. These regulations cause the costs of such inputs to the production
process as labor, raw materials, 29 and electricity to rise, and cause savings, investment
and capital formation to fall.
Regulation increases uncertainty for business and reduces investment.
Regulations reduce the rate of return on investments made in the United States and
encourage firms to move overseas. Moreover, the threat of future regulation adds to
the economic uncertainty that businesses must face, and hence discourages long-term
investment. By changing or reinterpreting the fine print of regulations, for example,
government bureaucrats, the courts, or Congress itself can destroy the value of existing
27 David Littmann, "The Cost of Regulation, Counted in Jobs," The Wall Street Journal, April 21, 1992, p. A16.
28 See, for example, Peter Linneman, "The Economic Impacts of Minimum Wage Laws: A New Look at an Old
Question," Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 90, No. 3 (June 1982), pp. 443-469; Daniel S. Hamermesh, "Minimum
Wages and the Demand for Labor," Economic Inquiry, Vol. 20 (July 1982), pp. 365-380; James F. Ragan, Jr., "Mini-
mum Wage Legislation: Goals and Realities," Nebraska Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 17 (Autumn 1978),
pp. 21-28; Robert T. Falconer, "The Minimum Wage: A Perspective," Federal Reserve Bank of New York Quarterly
Review, Autumn 1978, pp. 3-6.
29 Michael Hazilla and Raymond J. Kopp, "Social Costs of Environmental Quality Regulations: A General Equilibrium
Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98, No. 4 (1990), pp. 853-873.
13
investments. Rather than risk making large investments that regulators might make
worthless in the future, therefore, businesses have an incentive to shy away from large,
long-term investments, and to seek instead shorter-term profits.
The steel industry, for example, is especially sensitive to uncertainty because it re-
quires substantial investments in physical assets that are expected to last for fifty years
or longer. But since environmental and workplace safety regulations can have a deci-
sive impact on a steel plant's profitability, it is not surprising that investment in mod-
ern equipment by American steel producers faltered in the 1970s relative to that under-
taken by their foreign competitors.
30
An additional hidden cost associated with this uncertainty is the "political invest-
ment" many U.S. industries make in trying to influence the certainty, scale, and share
of regulation and other government activity. Estimates of the size of this political in-
vestment vary considerably, with most ranging between 3 percent and 12 percent of
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or around $170 billion to $680 billion per year. 31
Whatever the true figure is, only part of it is due to regulation, and it is impossible to
tell how much; the rest consists of efforts to obtain special favors in the tax code or a
share of government spending. However, all of this political investment represents
pure waste-nothing of value is created by it.
Regulation impairs Innovation.
Regulation discourages investment in the development of new technologies, manu-
facturing processes, and product designs. While this is true to some extent of all regula-
tions and all kinds of innovation, certain particular regulations are especially destruc-
tive of particular kinds of innovation. For example, the 1962 amendments to the fed-
eral Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act significantly complicated the FDA drug approval
process. According to several studies, this doubled the cost of developing drugs in the
United States. 32 The amendments reduced the number of new drugs approved each
year by nearly two-thirds, from an average of 46 new drugs per year before the amend-
ments to an average of only sixteen new drugs per year after the amendments. 33 Judi-
cial regulation through tort law also has hampered innovation and competitiveness in a
30 See, for example, Arthur B. Laffer and Marc A. Miles, International Economics in an Integrated World (Glenview,
Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1982), pp. 126-127.
31 Jonathan Rauch, "The Parasite Economy," National Journal, April 25, 1992, pp. 983-984.
32 See, e.g., Martin Neil Baily, "Research and Development Cost and Returns: The U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry,"
Journal of Political Economy (January/February 1972), pp. 70-85; Henry G. Grabowski, Drug Regulation and
Innovation (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1976); William Wardell, "More Regulation or Better
Therapies?" Regulation (September/October 1979), pp. 25-33.
33 Steve H. Hanke and Stephen J.K. Walters, "Social Regulation: A Report Card," Journal of Regulation and Social
Costs, Vol. 1, No. 1 (September 1990), p. 17. Although one might suppose that the 1962 amendments merely
prevented the introduction of unsafe or ineffective drugs that previously were slipping past the FDA, the evidence
does not support this view. University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman has found the proportion of ineffective
drugs to be the same after the amendments as before. Peltzman, op. cit. Under the auspices of the Council on
Competitiveness, the Bush Administration recently proposed several measures that would streamline the FDA drug
approval process. See Paul H. Rubin, "Regulatory Relief or Power Grab: Should Congress Expand FDA's
Enforcement Authority?" Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 900, June 11, 1992.
14
variety of industries, including the pharmaceutical industry and the emerging biotech-
34
nology industry.
Regulation imposes especially heavy burdens on small and medium-sized
businesses.
Large firms generally can absorb the cost of complying with regulatory programs
more easily than smaller firms. Small and medium-sized firms find it more difficult to
afford the high overhead costs of processing paperwork, paying attorney and accoun-
tant fees, and committing staff time to negotiating the federal regulatory maze. Indeed,
some well-established large corporations sometimes support regulation because, al-
though a new rule may raise costs for all businesses, small competitors will be harder
hit or even put out of business. 35 Since smaller firms tend to be more innovative and
create more new jobs than large firms, the regulation-induced bias in favor of large
firms over small firms has the effect of reducing the rate of innovation and new em-
ployment.
Regulation increases federal and state budget deficits.
By reducing overall economic growth, regulation shrinks the tax base and reduces
the amount collected by every specific tax. Although the amounts involved can be esti-
mated only roughly, as explained below, the federal and state governments would raise
more in taxes each year if the burden imposed on the economy by regulation were
lower and the economy expanding faster.
HOW REGULATION CAN REDUCE HEALTH AND SAFETY
Although much if not most social regulation is designed to promote health and
safety, many regulations actually do just the opposite. This is by far the most important
non-economic cost of regulation.
Regulation can reduce health and safety and increase mortality in a variety
of ways:
Example: Federal drug-approval laws and state tort laws reduce 36 the availability and
increase the prices of life-saving drugs and medical treatments.
34 See, e.g., Peter W. Huber, "Biotechnology and the Regulation Hydra," Technology Review, Vol. 90, No. 8
(November/December 1987), pp. 57-65.
35 See Ann P. Bartel and Lacy Glenn Thomas, "Direct and Indirect Effects of Regulation: A New Look at OSHA's
Impact," Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 28, No. 1 (April 1985), pp. 1-25; Ann P. Bartel and Lacy Glenn
Thomas, "Predation Through Regulation: The Wage and Profit Effects of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency," Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 30, No. 2 (October
1987), pp. 239-264; B. Peter Pashigian, "The Effects of Regulation on Optimal Plant Size and Factor Shares,"
Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 27, No. 1 (April 1984), pp. 1-28; B. Peter Pashigian, "Environmental
Regulation: Whose Self Interests Are Being Protected?" Economic Inquiry, Vol. 23, No. 4 (October 1985), pp.
551-584.
15
Example: In order to comply with federal fuel economy standards, automobile manu-
facturers have been forced to reduce the weight of their cars. But lighter cars tend to be
less safe than heavier ones. Further, manufacturers are penalized for introducing safety
features that might add to the weight of a car. With the fuel economy standard for auto-
mobiles at its current level of 27.5 miles per gallon, Robert Crandall of the Brookings
Institution and John Graham of the Harvard School of Public Health calculate that be-
tween 2,200 and 3,900 more highway deaths and some 11,000 to 19,500 more serious
injuries occur over the lifetime of each model year's cars than would have occurred
without the standards. 37
Example: A proposed law requiring a parent traveling by airline with an infant to pur-
chase a separate seat for the child would make air travel prohibitively expensive for
many families and induce families to drive instead of fly. Since flying is far safer than
driving, the result would be more infant travel deaths, not fewer.
In these, as in many other cases of well-meaning regulation that imposes costs on a
family, it is mainly the poor who suffer the unintended side effects, because poorer
families cannot afford to pay the extra money for such things as larger, heavier cars or
another airline seat.
Regulation can
also reduce health
Chart 5
and safety indi-
Average Annual Change in Federal
rectly. Many studies
Regulatory Spending by President
have documented
Millions of 1987 Dollars
that mortality rates
$595
decline in wealthier
$700
societies, because
$600
$457
$430
these societies have
$500
more to spend on
$400
$281
healthier and safer
$300
products, and on
$97
$200
better medical care.
Since regulation
$100
slows economic
$0
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush
growth, it tends to
(1970-74)
(1975-76)
(1977-80)
(1981-88)
(1989-92)
reduce such life-
Note: Fiscal Years. Regulatory date prior to 1970 are unavallable.
Source: Calculated by Heritage based on data provided by
style improvements.
the Center for the Study of American Business,
Heritage DataChart
36 See, for example, Peltzman, op. cit.; Rubin, op. cit., pp. 8-9; Sam Kazman, "Deadly Overcaution: FDA's Drug
Approval Process," Journal of Regulation and Social Costs, Vol. 1, No. 1 (September 1990), pp. 35-54; Louis
Lasagna, "The Chilling Effect of Product Liability on New Drug Development," in Peter W. Huber and Robert E.
Litan, eds., The Liability Maze (Washington, D.C., The Brookings Institution, 1991), pp. 334-359.
37 Robert W. Crandall and John D. Graham, "The Effect of Fuel Economy Standards on Automobile Safety," Journal of
Law and Economics, Vol. XXXII (April 1989), pp. 111-116. A federal appeals court recently ordered the Department
of Transportation to reconsider its 1989 decision not to lower the standard from its current level of 27.5 miles per
gallon to 26.5 miles per gallon, but the current standard will still remain in effect until the Department sets a new
standard. Competitive Enterprise Institute V. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 956 F.2d 321 (D.C.
Cir. 1992).
16
In the early 1970s, for instance, when the U.S. economy slowed and unemployment
rates rose, mortality rates rose as well. While the relationship between regulatory costs
and increased mortality is difficult to quantify precisely, two office of Management
and Budget (OMB) economists recently surveyed the relevant literature and estimated
that one additional premature death occurs for every $1.8 million to $7.25 million of
additional regulatory costs imposed on the economy. 38 Wealthier truly is healthier.
THE TOTAL COST OF REGULATION
The overall cost of social regulation, which purports to protect health and safety, has
risen since the Nixon years. Limited deregulation that took place between 1978 and
1988 in the areas of transportation, energy, telecommunications, and banking, 39 did
cause the cost of economic regulation to fall for about a decade. Because the decline in
the cost of economic regulation outweighed the growth in the cost of social regulation
during this period, estimates by Thomas D. Hopkins, former Deputy Administrator of
the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
and now a professor of economics at the Rochester Institute of Technology, suggest
that the total cost of federal regulation fell by between 15 and 22 percent from 1977 to
40
1988.
However, because there was almost no major deregulation after 1988, the cost of
economic regulation no longer is falling. Meanwhile, the cost of social regulation, par-
ticularly in the area of the environment, has continued rising, especially since Bush
took office. Taking economic and social regulation together, the total cost of federal
regulation has climbed by some 10 percent to 12 percent since 1988, according to
Hopkins's numbers. 41 Moreover, if current trends continue, the total cost of federal
regulation can be expected to rise by at least another 24 percent by the year 2000. 42 In
fact, the total cost of federal regulation will have returned to its 1977 level by 1997 at
the latest. It may even reach this level by the end of this year, depending mainly on
how soon and how severely the regulatory costs of the Clean Air Act Amendments
and the Americans with Disabilities Act are felt.
38 The existing literature on this point has been summarized in the Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 114 (June 12, 1992),
pp. 26005-26009. See also Aaron Wildavsky, Searching for Safety (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books,
1988) (especially Chapter 3, "Richer Is Sicker V. Richer Is Safer"); Daniel J. Mitchell, "The Deadly Impact of
Federal Regulations," Journal of Regulation and Social Costs, Vol. 2, No. 2 (June 1992) (forthcoming), pp. 45-56.
39 Although banks by and large have not been deregulated, the federal government did remove its restrictions on the
interest rates that banks pay to their depositors.
40 These percentages were calculated based on figures provided by Thomas D. Hopkins in "Cost of Regulation,"
Rochester Institute of Technology Working Paper, December 1991, Tables 5A and 5B. An abridged version of this
paper, which does not contain the various tables, appears in the Journal of Regulation and Social Costs, Vol. 2, No. 1
(March 1992), pp. 5-31.
41 Ibid.
42 Percentages for the year 2000 were calculated based on the figures provided by Hopkins, ibid., supplemented by
Murray Weidenbaum's estimate of the cost of implementing the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, provided in
Weidenbaum, op. cit., p. 3.
17
Enormous Cost. To be sure, the precise cost of regulation is extremely difficult to
determine. Nonetheless, combining the estimates of different scholars suggests that the
direct costs of regulation on the economy currently amount to at least some $635 bil-
lion to $857 billion per year, or between $6,565 and $8,869 annually per household.
Even after subtracting the applicable benefits of regulation, using the most generous es-
timates available, the net direct cost of regulation is some $364 billion to $538 billion
per year, or between $3,762 and $5,561 annually per household. These figures include
the costs to businesses and consumers of complying with environmental and other so-
cial regulations, the total cost to consumers in the form of higher prices and reduced
choices due to economic regulations, the costs imposed by government paperwork re-
quirements, administrative costs due to federal regulation of health care, and the direct
costs imposed by state tort law. These figures even include cost estimates for two types
of economic regulation which past studies have omitted due to a lack of data-bank-
ing regulation, and regulation of electric utilities, although the estimates 43 for banking
regulation still omit some important kinds of banking regulation.
These figures also include a range of estimates for the cost of the Clean Air Act
Amendments and the Americans with Disabilities Act. They do not, however, take ac-
count of the 1989 increase in the federal minimum wage, the 1991 Civil Rights Act,
the 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, the 1990 Pollution Prevention Act, or
the increase in antitrust enforcement activity by the Justice Department and the Federal
Trade Commission. 44 Nor do they include the cost of federal government mandates
on state and local governments, or of most forms of state or local regulation.
Most important, the cost estimates given do not include any of the indirect, dynamic
effects of regulation. In particular, the figures do not include any estimate of the reduc-
tion in productivity and output caused by the direct costs, or of the impact of regula-
tion on technological innovation. While the productivity effects are difficult to quan-
tify and the effect on innovation is impossible to quantify, a number of studies suggest
that, taken together, the indirect costs due to reduced 45 productivity and innovation prob-
ably are greater than the direct costs counted above.
43 In particular, the cost estimates for banking regulation still do not account for the costs of geographic restrictions,
restrictions on banks' products, services and investments, or minimum capital requirements.
44 In fact, these figures do not include any estimate at all of the costs or benefits of antitrust or civil rights laws, even
aside from recent statutory or enforcement policy changes.
45 See, e.g., Hazilla and Kopp, op. cit.; Dale W. Jorgenson and Peter J. Wilcoxen, "Environmental Regulation and U.S.
Economic Growth," Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Summer 1990), pp. 314-340. Both studies show that
reductions in labor supply, savings and investment, growth in the capital stock, and output tend to accumulate over
time. As a result, under each study the total costs imposed by environmental regulation end up being more than twice
as large as the direct compliance costs alone. Indirect support for the notion that total costs are probably at least twice
as large as direct costs, conventionally measured, is also provided by a number of studies cited by Hahn and Hird, op.
cit., pp. 255-258, dealing with economic regulation in the transportation sector. As the comparison shows, estimates
of the costs of transportation regulation made before the partial deregulation that occurred in the late 1970s and early
1980s were consistently and substantially below the levels of benefits that were observed in the aftermath of
deregulation.
18
Assuming instead that the indirect costs only amount to somewhere between 50 per-
cent and 100 percent of the direct costs, it appears that the total cost of regulation, ex-
cluding those categories already noted, and net of all benefits, could be anywhere be-
tween $811 billion and $1.656 trillion per year, or between $8,388 and $17,134 annu-
46
ally per household.
The additional cost of between $447 billion and $1.118 trillion per year represents
the amount by which Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would exceed its current level
($5.672 trillion in 1991) in the absence of all unnecessary costs due to state and federal
regulation. 47 Some 20 percent of this additional GDP, or approximately $83 billion to
$216 billion, would go to the federal government as increased tax revenue, thus reduc-
ing the federal budget deficit.
As noted previously, the cost figures just presented were net of all applicable bene-
fits. It is important to realize that economists count transfers from one group to another
as benefits as well as costs. Thus, for example, if import restrictions on sugar cost con-
sumers $10 billion per year but enrich American sugar growers by $8 billion per year,
economists treat the $8 billion as a benefit and subtract it from the $10 billion gross
cost to obtain a net cost of $2 billion. If transfers are not subtracted as benefits, then
the total cost of regulation works out to somewhere between $1.056 trillion and $1.969
trillion per year, or between $10,922 and $20,376 per household. By way of compari-
son, Americans will pay an estimated $1.053 trillion in federal taxes in 1992, 48 or
about $10,897 per household. Although these estimates are subject to considerable un-
certainty, it 49 is quite possible that the total cost of regulation now exceeds the total cost
of taxation.
46 Although a regulatory cost estimate ranging between 14.3 percent and 29.2 percent of total Gross Domestic Product
may seem high at first blush, it is actually quite plausible. Between one-half and two-thirds of whatever figure one
uses represents an estimate of the amount by which GDP would have been greater, in the absence of all unnecessary
costs of regulation, than it actually will be, and a considerable portion of the remainder represents losses that are not
currently counted in GDP because they do not involve market transactions, such as the time spent preparing one's
own tax return, or in an airplane waiting to take off or land because federal regulations do not allow airports to
charge market-based takeoff and landing fees. Thus, the percentage of currently recorded GDP that is attributable to
regulatory costs is much smaller than these estimates might at first appear to suggest.
47 Insofar as some types of regulation-environmental regulation in particular-produce benefits as well as costs, one
may not simply assume that all of the costs of regulation can be eliminated. However, even where existing
regulations may produce benefits that exceed costs, it often appears that the same or even greater benefits could be
obtained at a significantly lower cost by using better-designed, more efficient forms of regulation. Consequently, in
calculating the foregoing figures, wherever a regulation appeared to produce net benefits, no cost was counted except
the difference (if any) between the actual cost imposed by the regulation in question and the lower cost that would be
incurred under a more efficient regulatory scheme. Because the necessary costs of benefit-justified regulation were
omitted in calculating net costs, so were the benefits. By definition, the benefits of the regulations in question could
have been obtained without incurring the costs that were counted here. Under this approach, the only benefits that
need to be subtracted from costs are the benefits of regulations whose benefits are less than costs.
48 This figure represents total estimated federal tax receipts for 1992, net of refunds, income from trust funds, earnings
of the Federal Reserve System, and other miscellaneous receipts. See Budget of the United States Government:
Fiscal Year 1993, Supplement (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1992), Part Five,
Tables 2.1 and 2.5.
49 Even if one subtracts transfers and only compares efficiency losses, counting the burden of tax-related paperwork
19
CONCLUSION
The U.S. economy is being strangled by new regulation, much of which has come
into being during George Bush's term of office. As a result, the total cost to the econ-
omy of state and federal regulation actually may now exceed the total cost of taxation.
In large measure, the growth in regulation and its burden has been due to a failure on
the part of the President, Congress, and the regulatory agencies to consider the full cost
of regulation. In their desire to do good in a particular area, policy makers often fail to
take sufficient account of the broader consequences. Even when they consider the
costs of regulation, generally they fail to focus on the burdens caused by regulation
taken as a whole.
Much More Needed. Although President Bush often complains about the burden
placed on the economy by excessive regulation, only Richard Nixon in the last two de-
cades has done more to add to this burden. Bush, however, is to be congratulated on
his moratorium on new Executive Branch regulations. This is a necessary first step in
coming to grips with the regulatory crisis. But much more needs to be done. Bush
should seek more resources for Vice President Quayle's Competitiveness Council. And
he should appoint a dynamic, activist deregulator to head the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs. Finally, he should highlight the many ways that the public
health and safety can be protected without the heavy hand of government.
As the world becomes more economically integrated, and as countries in Latin
America and in the former communist bloc join the ranks of the world's free market
economies, American businesses will face ever increasing competition. The U.S. no
longer can afford to cripple its enterprises with costly and unnecessary regulations.
William G. Laffer III
McKenna Fellow in Regulatory and Business Affairs
Nancy A. Bord
Adjunct Scholar
under taxation rather than regulation, it still turns out that regulation may now be more costly than taxation.
20
420
WESTERN OKLAHOMA
Oklahomans did not have domestic electric power," according to
the National Historic Register. The museum contains artifacts and
exhibits on settling the Cherokee Outlet, including furniture,
10:00 am.
clothing, and farm implements.
A farm town settled during the Cherokee Outlet land run of
INTRO
1893, Medford is the site of the Grant County Museum (Cherokee
and Main streets, 405-395-2888), which features antique furni-
ture, clothing, and farm equipment.
ENID
The Chisholm Trail ran through the future site of Enid, where
there were good springs, and so the area was well known before
the 1893 Cherokee Outlet land run. Advance surveys laid out town
lots in preparation for the galloping hordes-15,000 men and
women in the first six hours of the run. Although the Rock Island
I OKLAND. RUSH 1893 STRep ACT 1862
line crammed settlers into cattle cars to haul them to the site, the
railroad refused to stop in the new town after settlement. A freight
train was wrecked after persons unknown sawed through a trestle.
A federal act was quickly passed, requiring trains to make certain
stops: Enid was one of them. As a wheat center and oil refinery,
Enid was able to attract the Santa Fe and Frisco lines.
The Geronimo, an early automobile, was manufactured in
DIECTOR Pubric
Enid. The Museum of the Cherokee Strip (507 South 4th Street,
405-237-1907) exhibits materials from settlement days, including
Cheyenne beadwork and a furnished tepee. Also on the site is a
barn displaying horse-drawn farm equipment and a Model T Ford.
HOWELL
ENID,OK 73701
KINGFISHER
Near what is now the town of Kingfisher, ruts made by cattle herds
commission RUNS 1800
moving north on the Chisholm Trail remained hidden by grass,
wrecking some settlers' wagons during the land run of 1889. The
10t3 SPEN CAND By MAJM LODERY AND OR REG TRATION
town was once a contender to be the territorial capital. When local
judge Abraham Seay became governor in 1892, he built the brick
Seay Mansion (11th Street and Zellers Avenue, 405-375-5176), in
a modified Queen Anne style with a domed tower, in the hope that
Kingfisher would become the capital and his house the executive
mansion. (His strategy failed.) The house is furnished in period
style. Across the street the Chisholm Trail Museum (605 Zellers
Avenue, 405-375-5176) contains a Sioux ceremonial dress, Sitting
330
HOMESICKNESS-HOMESTEAD MOVEMENT
HOMESICKNESS is an intense emotional state,
characterized by fear and depression, typically
farmland HOMESTEAD MOVEMENT, the quest for
experienced by young children on their first visits
away from home. It is an extension of the in-
making free grants of land to The policy of
in the United States. free
fant's fear that a loved one has ceased to exist
every time he disappears from view. This fear
can seem extremely threatening to children, who
fairly high price a a
ern pioneers of
American U.S. colonies was THE
government
are accustomed to having their needs fulfilled by
their own parents in their own home. Many chil-
dren play out, in fantasies, scenes in which their
Consequently, to land they argued that Congress ought
no value until it was improved by their labor.
making in the wilderness claimed that land farm had
parents desert them. The homesick youngster
may have fits of crying, express longing for his
they played in the making of America.
give to settlers as a reward for the part
parents, and isolate himself for a time.
If a young child does not learn to cope with
Free lands early became the ultimate goal
homesickness, the problem may persist into ado-
lescence and cause a painful crisis when, for ex-
able immediately, the West pressed for other
Westerners, but because this goal was unobtain- of
ample, he goes away to college. Psychologists
cessions such as reduction in the price from $2.00 con-
have pointed out ways in which parents can help
to $1.25 an acre (in 1820), or even to 121/2
young children learn to handle their fears of
cents for land long on the market (in 1854). West-
separation from home. The first visits away from
erners also demanded "preemption" the right
home should be short, and the child should know
how long he will be away. He should be told
buying it-and wanted limitations placed on the
settle upon and improve land for a time before to
clearly where he is going, who will be taking
quantity of land individuals might purchase.
care of him, where he will sleep, and other de-
All but the last of these objectives were
tails. Sometimes parents go with the child on his
by 1854, by which time the demand for won free
first visit. Children often find comfort in taking
along with them a concrete object (possibly a
the powerful New York Tribune, and the
land was being supported by organized labor,
photograph) that will symbolically represent
Republican party. But Southerners, fearing new that
their missing parents.
free land would accelerate the development of the
Care should be taken to allow the child suf-
nonslave states and territories of the upper Mis-
ficient time to work out the problems confront-
sissippi Valley, opposed adoption of a homestead
ing him. Failure to do this will probably extend
law. Responsive to their wishes, President Bu-
the period during which homesickness continues
chanan vetoed a weak homestead bill in 1860,
as an unresolved crisis.
Homestead Act of 1862. The secession of the
MICHAEL G. ROTHENBERG
South enabled the Republicans to pass the
The City College, New York
Homestead Act in 1862. Under the act, a free
quarter section (160 acres, or 65 hectares) of
HOMESTEAD, hõm'sted, a city in southern
land in the West was offered to any citizen or in-
Florida, is in Dade county, 30 miles (64 km)
tended citizen 21 years of age who would settle
south of Miami. It is a shipping point for vege-
the land, beginning Jan. 1, 1863. The act did
tables and fruit produced in the area. Industries
not limit the amount of land that could be sold
include the manufacture and maintenance of air-
to individuals, and an area eight times the size
craft and the making of solid-propellant rocket
of Kansas was made unavailable because of
fuels and pharmaceuticals. Homestead Air Force
grants to railroads and states, the allotment of
Base is nearby, and the city is the site of the
Indian land, and subsequent sale to settlers and
subtropical experiment station of the University
speculators. others, and the continued sale of public land to
of Florida. Everglades National Park is 10 miles
(16 km) south of the city.
Before they secured title, homesteaders were
The city of Homestead was incorporated in
required to live on the land for five years, during
1913. Government is by council and manager.
which improvements were to be made and mod-
Population: 20,668.
est fees paid. If they wanted to gain a mort-
gagable title on which to borrow for additional
HOMESTEAD, hõm'sted, an industrial borough in
improvements, they could acquire their land by
southwestern Pennsylvania, in Allegheny county,
cash purchase after six months of residence.
is on the Monongahela River opposite south-
This clause was extensively abused in later years
eastern Pittsburgh. It is an iron and steel center.
by speculators seeking to acquire great acreages
In 1892, a famous steel strike occurred here.
through the use of dummy entrymen.
The Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and
Extensively advertised by the land-grant rail-
Tin Workers sought an agreement with the Car-
roads, the states, and real estate groups and by
negie Steel Company. When negotiations failed,
letters from earlier immigrants, the free home-
the union called a strike. After months of grow-
steads drew immigrants to the West in great
ing hostility, hundreds of private detectives were
numbers. Land offices in the Great Plains and
directed by the company to disperse the picket
Pacific Coast states and later in the Interior
lines. On July 6, 1892, 10 persons were killed
Basin were besieged with heterogeneous crowds
in an armed clash. The national guard was
of people clamoring to file declaratory statements
called, and under its protection nonunion work-
that would hold their claims to land against later
ers manned the mills. The strike was broken,
comers. Not again until the Social Security Act
and the unions were unable thereafter to organize
was adopted in 1935 did the government do so
the steel industry until 1937. The bitterness
much to create hope for a better life for so many.
caused by the struggle remained a dark element
From 1863 to 1868, Minnesota attracted the
in U.S. capital-labor relations for many years.
most land seekers. Kansas and Nebraska led
Homestead was incorporated in 1880. Gov-
from 1869 to 1879. In the 1880's, Dakota Terri-
ernment 5,092. is by mayor and council. Population:
tory surpassed all others. The peak years for
filing homestead applications were 1871
(33,972 filings), 1880 (47,293 filings) and
HOMESTEAD NATIONAL MONUMENT OF AMERICA-HOMICIDE
331
MOVEMENT,
the
quest
the
United
for
States.
In
1902 people filed. This was the greatest
(98,829 filings) Between 1863 and 1890,
HOMEWOOD, a city in central Alabama, is in
colonies was not continued The policy the
grants
of
land
to
$56.922 farm making in American history, and
Jefferson county, 2 miles (3 km) southwest of
Birmingham. It is primarily a residential com-
period rate of success on the farms established was
munity. The city was incorporated in 1921 as
price
after the
the highest.
Edgewood and was renamed in 1926. It has a
1890. After 1890 the free
the wilderness claimed that land farm
undergoing the hardships of
mayor and council form of government. Popula-
was semiarid, requiring dif-
tion: 21,271.
cultivation and larger farm
they it was argued improved that by their labor
Congress
ferent than farther east. Yet the West would not
HOMEWOOD, a village in northeastern Illinois, is
settlers
as
a
for
the ne
units the hope of developing farms on these
to
in Cook county, 23 miles (37 km) south of
reward
in the making of America.
Dan
lands, despite the high proportion
Chicago, of which it is a residential suburb. Its
early became the ultimate goal
failures. Congress, in its effort to adapt home-
principal industry is book publishing. The
but because this goal was unobtain
stead policy to the semiarid region, listened to
Washington Park race track, a horse-racing center,
Western boosters, eager for growth, immigration,
is nearby.
the West pressed for other
as reduction in the price from CODE
and development, instead of to agricultural
The village was laid out in 1852 and was in-
acre (in 1820), or even to
experts who thought the public ranges should be
corporated in 1893. Government is by council
long on the market (in 1854). West
retained in grass cover for livestock. Home-
and manager. Population: 19,724.
demanded "preemption"-the right
steads of 640 acres were allowed in the sandhills
and improve land for a time
of western Nebraska by the Kinkaid Act of 1904,
HOMICIDE, hom'e-sid, is the killing of one hu-
and wanted limitations placed on
120-acre dryland homesteads were permitted in
man being by another. In the United States and
land individuals might purchase.
1909 on most of the remaining semiarid lands,
England, justifiable homicide occurs when a
the last of these objectives were
and finally 640-acre stock-raising grants were
person kills (1) in self-defense, (2) to protect
which time the demand for WIR free
made available in 1916.
close members of his family from grave bodily
On the whole the results were bad. Home-
injury or death, or (3) to prevent a felony; or
New York Tribune, and the
supported by organized labor
steaders taking advantage of the Stock-Raising
(4) when he is officially employed in a public
party. But Southerners, fearing new that
Homestead Act often lacked the capital to buy
execution; or (5) when he kills an enemy in
ould accelerate the development of
cattle and instead tried to raise wheat on the un-
wartime. Excusable homicide, usually provided
and territories of the upper Mh the
suitable dry lands. The natural range was broken
for by statute, includes killing by accident or
opposed adoption of a homestead
up into small tracts on which farmers could
misadventure. Felonious homicide has two cate-
make a living only in abnormally wet years. The
gories: murder and manslaughter. A murder
to their wishes, President B₃
grass cover was killed, the remaining public
charge in the United States specifies first- or
a weak homestead bill in 1860
ands were overgrazed, considerable erosion of
second-degree murder.
Act of 1862. The secession of the
the Republicans to pass the
topsoil took place, and the dust storms of the
Basic Proofs. A primary issue in establishing
Act in 1862. Under the act, a fro
1930's followed.
any act as homicide is whether a living human
By the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and its
being has been killed. In cases of infanticide,
(160 acres, or 65 hectares)
later amendments Congress virtually halted
for example, most states of the United States
West was offered to any citizen or in.
further homesteading except in Alaska, where
require proof that the infant was born alive.
21 years of age who would settle
free lands continued to be available. Henceforth
Generally the proof of a living existence rests on
eginning Jan. 1, 1863. The act did
the Grazing Service (later the Bureau of Land
amount of land that could be
whether the infant has breathed. (Although
Management) was to administer and lease to
and an area eight times the size
homicide cannot be committed on a dead person,
stockmen the remaining public lands.
was made unavailable because
it can be committed on one who is dying.)
All in all, between 1863 and 1967, 2,992,058
ailroads and states, the allotment of
Another issue of proof is whether the act
homestead entries were made, of which 1,623,691
and subsequent sale to settlers and
committed was the direct cause of death,
were successfully carried to patent (title).
the continued sale of public land to
especially when death was not immediate. The
Though in later years many filings were recorded
usual rule holds that the victim must die within
not for farm making but to acquire valuable
secured title, homesteaders were
a year and a day after the act; otherwise no
claims, the overall effect of homestead legislation
on the land for five years, during
provable relationship exists to support a homicide.
was to contribute to independent farm ownership
Two elements are essential in order to estab-
vements were to be made and mod-
on a massive scale, the goal of land reformers
If they wanted to gain a mort.
lish the basis for a criminal charge of homicide:
since the days of Thomas Jefferson.
on which to borrow for additional
(1) proof that a human being died (the dead
PAUL W. GATES
they could acquire their land by
body need not be found); and (2) proof that
Cornell University
se after six months of residence
the death was caused by a criminal agency (the
was extensively abused in later years
death weapon need not be produced). An indi-
HOMESTEAD NATIONAL MONUMENT OF
rs seeking to acquire great acreages
vidual may be found guilty of criminal homicide
AMERICA, in southeastern Nebraska, near the
use of dummy entrymen.
on circumstantial evidence alone. Reasonable in-
city of Beatrice, is the site of one of the first
ly advertised by the land-grant rail-
ferences may be drawn from the facts proved; a
land claims under the Homestead Act of 1862.
ates, and real estate groups and by
killer can be convicted without eye-witness
Daniel Freeman, a Union soldier from Illinois,
evidence.
earlier immigrants, the free home-
then stationed at Brownville, Nebraska Territory,
immigrants to the West in great
Question of Mental State. Establishing a killer's
filed a claim to this quarter section a few min-
and offices in the Great Plains and
identity is generally less difficult than establish-
utes after midnight on Jan. 1, 1863. He settled
states and later in the Interior
ing his mental state at the time of the killing.
on it after his military discharge. Later he won
besieged with heterogeneous crowds
His mental state distinguishes whether the act is
the right to be considered the nation's first
moring to file declaratory statements
murder, manslaughter, or accidental homicide.
homesteader and was granted homestead patent
their claims to land against later
Proof of murder generally requires evidence of
No. 1.
again until the Social Security Act
"malice." Malice, in law, connotes wickedness,
A log cabin built on a neighboring farm in
in 1935 did the government do so
cruelty, a reckless disregard of consequences,
1867 survives on the site. Its authentic furnish-
hope for a better life for so many
and a rejection of social duty or responsibility.
ings were the kind used by prairie homesteaders.
to 1868, Minnesota attracted the
The graves of Freeman and his wife are also
The element of malice, either express or implied,
eekers. Kansas and Nebraska led
located here.
is proved by the intentional killing of another
1879. In the 1880's, Dakota Terri-
person without excuse or justification.
The monument, which is currently adminis-
all others. The peak years for
Murder. The law recognizes two classes of
tered by the National Park Service, was estab-
applications were 1871
lished in 1939. Its area is approximately 163
murder: first-degree and second-degree. - First-
1880 (47,293 filings) and
degree murder includes not only malice but also
acres (66 hectares).
premeditation-thought before willful and delib-
Homestead Movement 104
became landowners. The monument, which
an offender know of the danger he might
occupies 163 ac (66 ha), also includes a home-
cause, thus ruling out reckless acts that are
stead log cabin that was built in a neighbour-
rectly influenced the re-election of Pres. Gro-
the result of ignorance. But other jurisdictions
ing township in 1867 and later moved to the
ver Cleveland over Benjamin Harrison in
are less clear on this point. Many states of the
site and furnished in the manner of the period.
1892, and it retarded the unionization of steel-
U.S. distinguish between murder of the first
The graves of Freeman and his wife are situat-
workers for more than 40 years. With the steel
and of the second degree, with capital punish-
ed on a hill overlooking the monument.
mills now chiefly located in adjacent com-
ment limited to crimes of clear intent.
munities, the economic mainstay is the manu-
Homewood, city, Jefferson County, south-
European codes place a greater emphasis
facture of heavy mill machinery, tools, cement
eastern residential suburb of Birmingham,
than do English systems on the dangerousness
blocks, and bricks. Inc. 1880. Pop. (1970)
north central Alabama, U.S. In 1927 the com-
of the actor's conduct and the circumstances
6,309; (1980) 5,092.
munities of Rosedale and Edgewood merged
surrounding his act. Thus, bodily injury re-
40°24' N, 79°54' W
and were incorporated as Homewood, which
sulting in death and death that is a result of
was expanded in 1929 to include Hollywood.
negligence rather than recklessness are more
Homestead Movement, promoted the free
It is the site of Samford University (1964), for-
heavily penalized in European than in Anglo-
ownership of land, mostly in the 18th- and
merly Howard College (1842), which includes
American systems. Whereas in England mur-
19th-century U.S., culminating in the Home-
the Cumberland Law School. Oak Mountain
der that is the result of felony is limited to
stead Act of 1862. The movement was based
State Park is nearby. Pop. (1980) 21,271.
only a few serious crimes, European codes of-
on the philosophy that the public domain be-
33°29' N, 86°48' W
ten punish any killer as a murderer if he has
longed to the people and that each head of a
family was entitled to a home or farm, the
Homewood, village, Cook County,
employed a deadly weapon. The European
northeastern Illinois, U.S., just south of
codes, on the other hand, acquit a man for a
possession of which should be protected
Chicago. It was settled about 1834 by Ger-
"mercy killing," whereas the Anglo-American
against seizure for debt. This theory devel-
codes do not.
oped gradually for half a century after 1785.
mans and Dutch. As an Illinois Central Rail-
Earlier laws were intended primarily to pro-
road stop, it became known as Thornton Sta-
crime rate and victims 5:270g
cure revenue for the federal government, but
tion, and was renamed Homewood in 1869.
Draco's laws 8:341b
Although primarily residential, it has some
primitive legal control and
the main result was encouragement of sales of
public land in large blocks for the benefit of
light industries, notably publishing and wood-
punishment 14:1038a
speculators. By 1835 the sales had extin-
working. Inc. 1893. Pop. (1980) 19,724.
homily, an edifying discourse or a religious
guished the public debt, and thereafter an in-
41°34' N, 87°40' W
address, applied chiefly to sermons that ex-
creasing clamour arose for legislation to re-
homework system (labour): see domestic
pound a biblical passage. Homilies by, or said
lieve the condition of tenant farmers and
to be by, the Fathers of the Church were col-
system.
hard-pressed city labourers through the adop-
lected and arranged according to the church
tion of a general homestead law. Up to 1856
homicide, the killing of one human being by
year for regular redelivery in times when origi-
the contest was essentially between Western
another. Homicide is a general term: it may
nal preaching was not encouraged through
farmers seeking easy expansion and Eastern
refer to a killing that is not criminal.
fear of heresy or lack of educated clergy. The
landlords or industrialists eager to preserve
Some homicides are considered justifiable.
reading of such homilies became part of the
high rents and cheap labour. But in 1856 the
Thus, in most cases a man may kill to prevent
liturgical worship in the Roman Catholic and
Eastern Republicans, in a move to cement re-
the commission of a serious-felony or to aid a
Eastern Orthodox churches. The two books
lations with Western Republicans, gave up
representative of the law. Other homicides are
of homilies issued for the Church of England
opposition to a homestead law and combined
said to be excusable, as when a man kills in
in the 16th century contained sermons by con-
free farms with the issue of banning the expan-
self-defense (q.v.).
temporary clergy.
sion of slavery. Thus the contest became one
A criminal homicide is one that is not regard-
Byzantine dramatization 4:519g
between North and South.
ed by the applicable criminal code as justifi-
English literature of the 17th century 10:1148h
The Homestead Act of May 20, 1862, passed
able or excusable. All legal systems make im-
Free Church characteristics 7:711e
by Congress (after the secession of the South)
portant distinctions between different types of
Islãmic congregational observances 9:918h
dominated by free-soil advocates, provided
homicides. Punishments vary greatly accord-
Matthew Gospel sectional organization 2:953c
for 160 acres (65 hectares) to any person will-
ing to the intent of the killer, the dangerous-
parable origins and didactic function 7:135h
ing to occupy and cultivate the land for five
ness of his conduct, or the circumstances in
Philo of Alexandria's works 14:246a
which he acted.
Protestant emphasis on word of God 15:109f
years. This act failed to relieve labour pres-
sure in the cities. Most of the fertile land was
Anglo-American codes classify homicides in
religious nonfiction prose
two or more separate crimes, each crime car-
development 10:1081h
already in private hands and no longer part of
rying its own penalty, which can be varied
Saint John Chrysostom's writings 4:583d
the public domain. Many tracts were remotely
located, and there were no provisions for
within limits by the sentencing authority.
satire's literary forms 16:269h
training in even elementary farm techniques.
Thus, murder is a homicide committed inten-
16th-century British popularity 14:804d
Furthermore, farmers found it difficult to ac-
tionally or as a result of the commission of
homing, the ability of certain animals to re-
quire the necessary capital for a successful be-
another serious offense. The crime of man-
turn to a given place when displaced from it,
ginning and usually failed the five-year resi-
slaughter includes killings that are the result
often over great distances. The major naviga-
of recklessness or a violent emotional out-
dency requirement to gain full title. By 1890
tional clues used by homing animals seem to
only one out of three homesteaders had
burst, as when the killer is provoked by the
be the same as those used in migration (sun
managed to remain long enough to obtain
victim. The penalty for murder may be death
angle, star patterns, etc.), but homing may oc-
deeds to their land. Modifications in the
or confinement for life, whereas the penalty
for manslaughter is usually a maximum num-
cur in any compass direction and at any sea-
Homestead Act over the next 40 years includ-
ber of years in confinement.
son. The best known examples of strong hom-
ed exemption laws forbidding seizure of a
ing ability are among birds, particularly rac-
homestead for debts incurred prior to patent-
European codes and their derivatives group
all unjustified killings under the single crime of
ing, or homing, pigeons; many other birds,
ing.
especially seabirds such as albatrosses, shear-
Homestead laws of lesser importance were
homicide but specify different penalties de-
pending on the circumstances of the act. Some
waters, frigatebirds, and terns, and also swal-
enacted throughout the 20th century, and by
the 1950s the government had patented about
countries provide for unique situations in ac-
lows, are known to have equal or better hom-
cordance with special social needs. Thus, Ja-
ing abilities. A Manx shearwater (Puffinus
250,000,000 acres (101,000,000 hectares),
puffinus), transported in a closed container to
much of which had fallen into the hands of
pan reserves its harshest penalties for the mur-
a point about 5,500 kilometres (3,400 miles)
large estate owners. Similar laws were passed
der of one's own lineal descendents, and Italy
allows for mitigation of punishment if the kill-
from its nest, returned to the nest in 12½ days.
in Canada.
er acted from a sudden intense passion to
Antarctic birds' navigational ability 1:959b
Alaskan termination results 1:412c
avenge his honour. European codes, like the
biological clock as navigational aid 14:69e
Alberta's dwelling patterns 1:424f
fish and bird studies 10:741c
Anglo-American, distinguish between inten-
closure's effects on Alaskan
navigational abilities of animals 12:182f
development 1:412c
tional and felony murders, on the one hand,
land distribution provisions of 1862
and reckless, negligent, and provoked mur-
salmoniform migration and spawning 16:188g
act 18:919g
ders, on the other. In all systems the most im-
Hominidae 8:1023, the taxonomic family of
Montana's settlement pattern 12:397e
portant dividing line in terms of sentencing
the order Primates, of which modern man
North Dakota wheat farming boom 13:234d
falls between conduct that is socially danger-
(Homo sapiens) is the only surviving represen-
Oklahoma population makeup role 13:543g
ous and that which is merely reckless, be-
tative.
The text article summarizes fossil evidence of
Homestead National Monument of
tween acts of passion and acts of intent.
Anglo-American systems require an element
extinct genera of this family. Inferences con-
America, in southeastern Nebraska, U.S.,
of intent, or malice aforethought, in the act of
cerning the age and behaviour of fossil homi-
just west of Beatrice, was established in 1936
murder. This has a technical meaning. It in-
nids are offered. The article notes evidence of
as a memorial emblematic of the hardships of
cludes "transferred intent," as when one who
planned, systematic toolmaking found with
pioneer life. It is the site of the first claim un-
intends to kill another kills a third person by
hominid remains, indicating the quality of
der the Homestead Act of 1862, entered by a
mistake. Malice aforethought also includes
symbolic communication and potential for
Dan Freeman. The visitor centre has exhibits
acts of such extreme recklessness and danger-
culture that characterizes modern man.
tracing the development of the movement, un-
ousness that criminality or disregard may be
der which more than 1,000,000 citizens
REFERENCES in other text articles:
inferred. The Indian penal code requires that
African evidence of evolution 1:281h