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
4525576
label
Ford Press Releases - Social Security, 1966-1971
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525576
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Social Security, 1966-1971
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Legislation
Social security
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525576
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1971-03-31
month
3
year
1971
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-07-01
month
7
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
ab429c3f70258b2a
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D9, folder "Ford Press Releases - Social
Security, 1966-1971" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at
the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D9 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE UPON RECEIPT
JULY 21, 1966
STATEMENT BY GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN
It now is clear that increases in the cost of living will gobble up half or
more of the 1965 Social Security increase by the end of this year.
With the fresh jump in the cost of living in June, revealed today by the
1 atest government consumer price index figures, it has become imperative that
Congress go to the rescue of Social Security recipients.
For that reason I have today introduced a bill tying Social Security benefit
payments to the cost of living. My bill, like that of Rep. John W. Byrnes, R-Wis.,
provides for a Social Security increase whenever quarterly readings of the
consumer price index show a cost-of-living increase of at least 3 per cent. The
increase in benefits would correspond to the increase in the cost of living. It
would not be limited to 3 per cent.
Under the Byrnes and Ford bills, there is the prospect of a Social Security
benefits increase of more than 3 per cent early next year.
The Social Security increase of 7 per cent approved by Congress in July of
last year and made retroactive to January 1, 1965, was the first benefit boost
beneficiaries had received since 1958.
President Johnson has promised Social Security recipients he will ask Congress
next year for an increase. I say the time to act is now--during this session of
Congress. Congress should make increases in Social Security benefits automatic,
in line with cost-of-living increases, so as to eliminate the use of Social
Security as a political football and to reassure our aged.
(OVER)
- 2 -
The cost of living went up 2 per cent in 1965. This year it is moving up
3 to 4 per cent on an annual basis, as indicated by the consumer price index
figures for the first half of the year.
If the monthly increases recorded over the first half of 1966 are annualized,
we come up with a cost-of-living rise of 3.4 per cent for the year. Indications
are the overall increase will be closer to 4 per cent.
The cost-of-living base period to which Social Security increases would be
tied in my bill is the July-September 1965 period. Any time that E. quarterly
reading shows at least a 3 per cent rise above average for that base period the
benefits of Social Security beneficiaries would be adjusted accordingly. On a
percentage basis, the increase over that base period now is slightly over 2.3
per cent.
There has been a relentless climb in living costs this year because of the
inflationary policies of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration. The cost-of-living
rise has hurt pensioners--those on fixed incomes--more than anyone else. They
are struggling to live on small incomes while the cost of living keeps spiraling.
President Johnson recently declared that wage increases are staying ahead
of price increases. I doubt if this is SO. But in any case it does not help the
38.9 million Americans living on fixed pensions. Johnson-Humphrey inflation is
imposing a cruel hardship on them, and they cannot live on promises.
#####
EXTRACT FROM REPUBLICAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE REPORT
"A Republican Approach to the Needs of the Aging."
COST OF LIVING INCREASES IN SOCIAL SECURITY AND RAILROAD RETIREMENT
The Republican Coordinating Committee recommends that the Social Security
Act and the Railroad Retirement Act be amended to provide an automatic cost of
living increase in the insurance benefits payable thereunder.
Congress has not been entirely unmindful of the impact of cost of living
increases on Social Security pensions and has periodically increased them.
Provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act raise benefits under that program to
correspond with Social Security increases. But between these sporadio increases
there has usually been a time lag of several years during which the pensioners
have suffered from a drop in their purchasing power. For example, from 1958
through 1964, just before the 7% increase in pensions was legislated, inflation
cost Social Security pensioners approximately $1.4 billion in loss of purchasing
power.
There is a precedent for such a provision as here recommended. Congress,
in the Federal Employees Salary Act of 1962, Sec. 1102, provides for andautomatic
increase in Civil Service retirement pension when there has been an increase of
3% or more in the consumer retail price index.
An automatic increase in Social Security and Railroad Retirement benefits
correlated to increases in the consumer price index involve no increase in costs
as a level percentage of payroll. Wage increases usually precede increases in
the other conponents comprising the consumer price index. Increases in the wage
level bring more covered workers nearer the maximum Social Security wage base
and thus result in increased tax evenues. Additionally, the benefits paid
represent a smaller proportion of an individual's wages as his wages approach
the maximum wage limit ($60,000). Because of these factors, there is no increase
in the level cost of payroll (although there is an increase flow of dollars)
involved in enacting an automatic benefit increase provision.
There is an urgent need for such a change in the law. Why should aged
pensioners continue to suffer while run-away inflation further destroys the
purchasing power of the pension dollar? Congress should provide for an
automatic offset against the hardship inflation and its resulting rise in
prices visit upon our senior citizens.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Prepared under the direction of the Republican
National Committee, 1625 Eye Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20006
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT
WEDNESDAY, OCT. 12, 1966
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN, RE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.
House Republicans have been urging for months that Social Security benefits be
increased to ease the blow inflation has dealt to older Americans. Mr. Johnson's
proposal for an increase in benefits is a belated admission that Republicans have
been right. But Mr. Johnson is still behind the times.
President Johnson is holding out to the nation's aged the hope that they will
receive an average increase of 10 per cent in benefits as of January 1, 1968. Our
old folks desperately need help now--not in 1968.
Republicans have proposed action in this session of Congress on an automatic
increase in Social Security benefits tied to the cost of living. This plan does not
involve a tax increase. The time to increase Social Security benefits is now--not
in 1968. Unfortunately, Democrats in the House Ways and Means Committee have refused
to take up the Republican Social Security cost-of-living plan.
Action now on Social Security is made imperative by Johnson inflation. The
President's Social Security proposal is an admission that the President and Democrats
in Congress have been unable to stop inflation. Further, it underscores the fact
that the President and Democrats in Congress have been feeding the fires of inflation
through excessive and unnecessary government spending.
The Social Security benefit increase of 7 per cent enacted by Congress in 1965
failed to bring the aged abreast of living costs at the time. The cost of living had
risen 8 per cent between 1958--the date of the previous Social Security increase--and
1964, when Congress began working on the benefit boost legislation. This means the
increased benefits already were lagging 3 per cent behind the cost of living pace in
1965. Johnson inflation this year is shoving them another 5 points behind. When
you crank in continuing Johnson inflation, the President's Social Security proposal
likely will be inadequate by 1968.
The President is vague about how his Social Security plan will be financed. But
he admits some increase in payroll tax will be necessary. This is the most regressive
of all taxes. Mr. Johnson is going to finance this latest political promise right
out of the hides of America's wage-earners. This will come on top of already
scheduled payroll tax increases for Medicare. It also will be piled on top of the
personal income tax increase we can expect the President to ask for after the
election.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT
WEDNESDAY, OCT. 12, 1966
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN, RE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.
House Republicans have been urging for months that Social Security benefits be
increased to ease the blow inflation has dealt to older Americans. Mr. Johnson's
proposal for an increase in benefits is a belated admission that Republicans have
been right. But Mr. Johnson is still behind the times.
President Johnson is holding out to the nation's aged the hope that they will
receive an average increase of 10 per cent in benefits as of January 1, 1968. Our
old folks desperately need help now--not in 1968.
Republicans have proposed action in this session of Congress on an automatic
increase in Social Security benefits tied to the cost of living. This plan does not
involve a tax increase. The time to increase Social Security benefits is now--not
in 1968. Unfortunately, Democrats in the House Ways and Means Committee have refused
to take up the Republican Social Security cost-of-living plan.
Action now on Social Security is made imperative by Johnson inflation. The
President's Social Security proposal is an admission that the President and Democrats
in Congress have been unable to stop inflation. Further, it underscores the fact
that the President and Democrats in Congress have been feeding the fires of inflation
through excessive and unnecessary government spending.
The Social Security benefit increase of 7 per cent enacted by Congress in 1965
failed to bring the aged abreast of living costs at the time. The cost of living had
risen 8 per cent between 1958--the date of the previous Social Security increase--and
1964, when Congress began working on the benefit boost legislation. This means the
increased benefits already were lagging 3 per cent behind the cost of living pace in
1965. Johnson inflation this year is shoving them another 5 points behind. When
you crank in continuing Johnson inflation, the President's Social Security proposal
likely will be inadequate by 1968.
The President is vague about how his Social Security plan will be financed. But
he admits some increase in payroll tax will be necessary. This is the most regressive
of all taxes. Mr. Johnson is going to finance this latest political promise right
out of the hides of America's wage-earners. This will come on top of already
scheduled payroll tax increases for Medicare. It also will be piled on top of the
personal income tax increase we can expect the President to ask for after the
election.
###
Office Copy
1967
IIIII
IIIIIII
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN I. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON THE SOCIAL SECURITY
AMENDMENTS OF 1967 - H.R. 12080
The House Republican Policy Committee supports H.R. 12080. This bill provides
an across-the-board increase of 12 1/2 percent, increases the amount an individual
may earn and still get full benefits, strengthens the benefit formula, improves the
health insurance benefits, and requires the development of programs under Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) that would insure that individuals receiving
aid would be trained to enter the labor force as soon as possible.
During the 89th Congress and again in the January Republican State of the Union
Message, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives called for an imme-
diate increase in social security benefits. Due to the Great Society inflation, many
of our elderly citizens have been faced with a serious situation. Last year alone,
the cost of living rose 3.3 percent. Cash benefits had fallen 7 percentage points
behind the consumer price index. Under the circumstances, it is unfortunate that the
Administration delayed action on this bill for so long. The 12 1/2 percent increase
in Social Security benefits is needed now to help many of our senior citizens cope
with the inflation that has resulted from the fiscal policies of the Johnson-Humphrey
Administration.
We believe that the present earnings ceiling is inadequate. The increase that
is contemplated by this bill would, in some measure, reflect the financial realities
of the present inflationary period. Under the provisions of this bill, the amount
that a person may earn and still get his benefits would be increased from $1,500 to
$1,680 and the amount to which the $1 for $2 reduction would apply, would range from
$1,680 to $2,880 a year. Also, the amount a person may earn in one month would be
LIBRARY
increased from $125 to $140.
(over)
Experience has proven that a number of major changes in the present health
insurance provisions are required. As a result, under H.R. 12080, the number of days
of hospitalization would be increased from 90 to 120 days. A patient would be per-
mitted to submit his itemized bill directly to the insurance carrier for payment.
And a physician no longer would be required to certify that a patient requires hospi-
talization at the time he enters or that a patient requires hospital out-patient
services.
One of the most perplexing problems in the welfare area is centered in the
program that provides Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). In the last 10
years, this program has grown from 646,000 families that included 2.4 million recip-
ients to 1.2 million families and nearly 5 million recipients. It is estimated that
the amount of Federal funds allocated to this program will increase from $1.46 billion
to $1.84 billion over the next five years unless constructive and concerted action is
taken. In order to reduce the AFDC rolls by restoring more families to employment
and self reliance, H.R. 12080 would make a number of changes in the present program.
For example, States would be required to:
(1) Establish a program for each AFDC adult or older child not attending
school which would equip them for work and place them in a job. Those
who refuse such training without good cause would be cut from the rolls.
(2) Establish community work and training programs throughout the State by
July 1, 1969.
(3) Provide that protective payments and vendor payments be made where appro-
priate to protect the welfare of children.
(4) Furnish day-care services and other services to make it possible for adult
members of the family to take training and employment.
(5) Have an earnings exemption to provide incentives for work by AFDC
recipients.
There is no provision in the present Social Security Act under which States
may permit an employed parent or other relative to retain some of his earnings. This
has proven to be a serious defect. The number of assistance recipients who take work
or enter into a training program can be increased if the proper incentive exists. We
support the adoption of a work incentive provision.
At the present time, there are a number of other federal programs that make
provision for work incentives to welfare recipients. This proliferation of work
incentive provisions has proven confusing to welfare personnel and recipients. In an
effort to end this confusion, the proposed provision in H.R. 12080 would, in effect,
supersede the provisions relating to earnings exemptions now contained in the Economic
Opportunity Act and The Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We support this
attempt to establish a uniform rule. We urge prompt action to bring the provisions
of other legislation into conformity with this provision.
19 September 1967
U. S. HOUSE
OF
REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN I. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON THE PARTNERSHIP FOR HEALTH
10
AMENDMENTS OF 1967 - H.R. 6418
Late in the 89th Congress, a one year Comprehensive Health Act was enacted
into law with Republican support. This Act rejected the standard Great Society
formula of categorical grants. It consolidated 16 separately administered public
health programs and permitted States to develop plans, establish priorities, and
coordinate local activities. Under this approach, the priority health problems in
each State and community whether they stem from communicable disease, narcotics or
rat infestation, can be identified and programs designed to combat the problems
established and properly funded.
At the time the Comprehensive Health Act was introduced, President Johnson
stated:
"At present, the Federal Government offers the States formula grants
for categorical programs dealing with specific diseases. This leads
to an unnecessarily rigid and compartmentalized approach to health
problems.
Our purpose must be to help redirect and reform fragmented programs
which encourage inefficiency and confusion and fail to meet the
total health needs of our citizens."
We believe this statement is as true today as it was a year ago. Wei continue
to support a comprehensive health program that encourages maximum coordination and
permits the States and localities to establish priorities. We believe this concept
should be expanded and employed in additional fields.
In one important instance, despite the earlier overwhelming bipartisan
support for the Comprehensive Health Act, the Administration has absindoned this
forward looking concept of block grants and has retreated to the old philosophy of
categorical grants that impedes the development of an overall program and binds the
hands of State and city officials. It has proposed a Rat Extermination Act under a
(over)
new federal administrator that would compete with the provisions of the Comprehensive
Health Act and make even more difficult a coordinated attack on this very serious
problem. Moreover, in proposing this new Act, the Administration ignored the fact
that in addition to the Comprehensive Health Act, the Community Action portion of the
Poverty Law provides substantial funds which can be used at the option of the State
and local governments for rat eradication. Chicago alone has received $2.9 million
of Federal Poverty money for rat eradication in the past three years.
Representative Henry Reuss (D-Wis.), who serves on the subcommittee that
handled the Rat Extermination bill, made the following observation in support of
the block grant approach in the Comprehensive Health Act as opposed to the restric-
tive provisions of the Rat Extermination bill.
"I am all for exterminating rats, but just last year the Congress was
at great pains to take some 10 or a dozen public health programs,
including programs in the environmental field, and to put them together
into one program so as to move toward greater flexibility in Federal-
State-local relations. It was a remarkable piece of legislation in the
Public Health Service. The President signed it last October. Under the
Act, which gives localities freedom to choose the things they want to
concentrate on, at least seven states are now coming in with excellent
vector rat control programs. But here, having done all that, what do we
do but come in with another tiny specific program, very costly to admin-
ister. It gets HUD into the health business, it confuses the local health
departments who have been dealing uniformly with the Public Health Service
of HEW, it is going to result in shopping around, whether you get rat-
control money from HEW or whether you get it from HUD."
The House Republican Policy Committee supports the extension and expansion
of the Comprehensive Health Act as provided in H.R. 6418. Under this bill, $892
million in comprehensive health grants will be made to the States during the next
three years. With these funds, each State and locality will be able to zero in on
its most serious public health problem whether it is due to rat infestation or some
other cause. For example, Governor Rockefeller of New York and Governor Volpe of
Massachusetts have announced the formulation of state rat-control plans that can
be assisted by these funds.
We urge the elimination of section 12 of this bill. This provision was not
the subject of hearings and is in no way related to the stated purposes of this act.
Section 12 completely short circuits the formula system that has been successfully
employed for 20 years under the Hill-Burton Act to grant money to the various States
for hospital construction. It would authorize the Secretary of HEW to select and
then make direct grants to a few hospitals. The money required for this hastily
conceived program did not receive Bureau of the Budget approval nor was it provided
for in the Administration Budget. A provision of this type demands, at the very
minimum, full hearings and careful committee consideration before it is brought to
the House Floor for final action.
01111
-
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
92nd Congress
June 22, 1971
First Session
Statement Number 4
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON H.R. 1,
THE SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS OF 1971.
"We will strengthen the Social Security system and
provide automatic cost-of-living adjustments
.....
Welfare and poverty programs will be drastically
revised to liberate the poor from the debilitating
dependence which erodes self-respect and discourages
family unity and responsibility."
Republican Platform, 1968
The House Republican Policy Committee supports the passage of H.R. 1, the
Social Security Amendments of 1971.
President Nixon has described H.R. 1 as "an important landmark in the
history of both social security and public welfare reform", and "the single most
significant piece of social legislation to be considered by the Congress in
decades."
H.R. 1 contains significant improvements in the Old Age, Survivors and
Disability Insurance Programs and in the Medicare, Medicaid, and Maternal and
Child Health Programs. Major provisions include: 1) automatic increases of
future Social Security benefits commensurate with increases in the cost-of-living,
2) a liberalized retirement work-income standard, 3) greatly improved benefits
for widows and widowers, 4) increased benefits for those working after age 65,
(over)
-2-
and 5) extended Medicare, Medicaid and Maternal and Child Health programs, more
efficient, more effective and more equitable.
The "core" of the bill, however, is fundamental reform of our present
public welfare system, and provides requirements and incentives to individuals
to work and earn.
The present welfare system has failed tragically; it does not provide
adequately for those truly in need; it encourages family disintegration; it
discourages self-sufficiency, capturing the poor in an unbreakable cycle of depen-
dency -- and all at a skyrocketing cost to the taxpayer.
The principle goal of H.R. 1 is to provide the vehicle by which every
family in which there is an employable adult may become economically self-sufficient.
The Opportunities for Families Program would, 1) require every employable adult to
accept employment or training leading thereto, 2) expand federal support for train-
ing, placement, public service employment, child day care and other supportive
programs, 3) encourage family unity by removing the incentives for parental deser-
tion, and 4) provide financial incentives for recipients enrolled in work training.
H.R. 1 will further provide basic assistance to families headed by unemployable or
incapacitated adults under a Family Assistance Program, and a new and improved
assistance program for needy, aged, blind and disabled persons.
Passage of H.R. 1 has been given the highest of priorities by the
Republican Administration. The House Republican Policy Committee urges support of
this "momentous step" in social security improvement and welfare reform.
11111
-
U. S. HOUSE
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
92nd Congress
June 22, 1971
First Session
Statement Number 4
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON H.R. 1,
THE SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS OF 1971.
"We will strengthen the Social Security system and
provide automatic cost-of-living adjustments
Welfare and poverty programs will be drastically
revised to liberate the poor from the debilitating
dependence which erodes self-respect and discourages
family unity and responsibility."
Republican Platform, 1968
The House Republican Policy Committee supports the passage of H.R. 1, the
Social Security Amendments of 1971.
President Nixon has described H.R. 1 as "an important landmark in the
history of both social security and public welfare reform", and "the single most
significant piece of social legislation to be considered by the Congress in
decades."
H.R. 1 contains significant improvements in the Old Age, Survivors and
Disability Insurance Programs and in the Medicare, Medicaid, and Maternal and
Child Health Programs. Major provisions include: 1) automatic increases of
future Social Security benefits commensurate with increases in the cost-of-living,
2) a liberalized retirement work-income standard, 3) greatly improved benefits
for widows and widowers, 4) increased benefits for those working after age 65,
(over)
-2-
and 5) extended Medicare, Medicaid and Maternal and Child Health programs, more
efficient, more effective and more equitable.
The "core" of the bill, however, is fundamental reform of our present
public welfare system, and provides requirements and incentives to individuals
to work and earn.
The present welfare system has failed tragically; it does not provide
adequately for those truly in need; it encourages family disintegration; it
discourages self-sufficiency, capturing the poor in an unbreakable cycle of depen-
dency -- and all at a skyrocketing cost to the taxpayer.
The principle goal of H.R. 1 is to provide the vehicle by which every
family in which there is an employable adult may become economically self-sufficient.
The Opportunities for Families Program would, 1) require every employable adult to
accept employment or training leading thereto, 2) expand federal support for train-
ing, placement, public service employment, child day care and other supportive
programs, 3) encourage family unity by removing the incentives for parental deser-
tion, and 4) provide financial incentives for recipients enrolled in work training.
H.R. 1 will further provide basic assistance to families headed by unemployable or
incapacitated adults under a Family Assistance Program, and a new and improved
assistance program for needy, aged, blind and disabled persons.
Passage of H.R. 1 has been given the highest of priorities by the
Republican Administration. The House Republican Policy Committee urges support of
this "momentous step" in social security improvement and welfare reform.