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
135838898
label
[JGR/Presidential Interviews and Questionnaires] (09/26/1984-10/20/1984)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135838898
contentType
document
title
[JGR/Presidential Interviews and Questionnaires] (09/26/1984-10/20/1984)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
135838898
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
84aa1d457cb4462e
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: [JGR/Presidential Interviews and
Questionnaires] (09/26/1984-10/20/1984)
Box: 38
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 28, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS oper
SUBJECT:
Questionnaire for Michigan Farmer
(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the draft response
to the above-referenced candidate questionnaire be sent
directly to Mike Baroody by close of business October 2.
The response to question four, fourth paragraph on the last
page, contains the same language that I found objectionable
in the Illinois Farm Bureau questionnaire response. You
will recall from my memorandum on that questionnaire that
the Administration is trying to downplay the significance of
the Legislature-controlled commission established by H.J.
Res. 600, while the questionnaire response states that the
commission's recommendations will be "blueprints" for
agricultural policy for the rest of the century. The
attached memorandum for Baroody reiterates our objection to
this inconsistency.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 28, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
signed
by
FFF
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
Orig.
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Questionnaire for Michigan Farmer
(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the draft response to the
above-referenced candidate questionnaire. The last sentence
in the fourth paragraph on the last page should be deleted.
The commission referred to in that paragraph, because of the
unusual manner in which its members will be appointed, will
be controlled by the Legislative Branch. There is, accordingly,
widespread concern that the commission will issue recommendations
inconsistent with Administration policy. Largely for this
reason, when the President signed H.J. Res. 600, which
established the commission, he emphasized that he was not
convinced of the need for another commission and that the
commission's recommendations would be simply one of many
sources of advice on forming farm policy. (See attached
signing statement.) The last sentence in the fourth
paragraph on the last page of the draft response is
inconsistent with the signing statement and Administration
efforts to downplay the commission, and should be deleted.
cc: Richard G. Darman
FFF: JGR:aea 9/28/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 28, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Questionnaire for Michigan Farmer
(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the draft response to the
above-referenced candidate questionnaire. The last sentence
in the fourth paragraph on the last page should be deleted.
The commission referred to in that paragraph, because of the
unusual manner in which its members will be appointed, will
be controlled by the Legislative Branch. There is, accordingly,
widespread concern that the commission will issue recommendations
inconsistent with Administration policy. Largely for this
reason, when the President signed H.J. Res. 600, which
established the commission, he emphasized that he was not
convinced of the need for another commission and that the
commission's recommendations would be simply one of many
sources of advice on forming farm policy. (See attached
signing statement.) The last sentence in the fourth
paragraph on the last page of the draft response is
inconsistent with the signing statement and Administration
efforts to downplay the commission, and should be deleted.
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 9/28/84
bcc: FFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 30, 1984
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
I have today signed H.J. Res. 600, the "Agricultural
Trade and Export Policy Commission Act."
H.J. Res. 600 would establish a National Commission on
Agricultural Trade and Export Policy to conduct studies of
agricultural trade and export policies, programs, and
practices of the United States, and to make recommendations to
the President and Congress.
The Congressional sponsors of this legislation see the
Commission's work as providing recommendations for the
agriculture community, the Administration, and the Congress to
consider as they work together in developing the 1985 farm
bill. I expect the 1985 farm bill to be an historic watershed
in laying the groundwork for assuring the continuation of a
prosperous and productive agricultural economy. While I am
not convinced that we need yet another commission to study
agricultural policy, I hope the Commission will constructively
join the debate on the future direction of American agricul-
ture, including that of agricultural trade and exports.
b Numerous other groups, including the President's
Export Council, official industry advisory groups, and the
President's Working Group on Future Food and Agriculture
Policy, are also examining the many issues that can affect the
future course of American agriculture. We hope that the free
exchange and critical review of all such views will lead to
the development of farm legislation that sets a sound course
for agricultural policy.'
In signing H.J. Res. 600, however, I must express my
concern about the membership of the Commission. Under this
resolution the Commission is to be composed of three officers
from the Executive branch, who serve in a nonvoting capacity,
and thirty-two members who are either selected by, or are
members of, Congress. Although the Commission would appear to
serve primarily legislative functions, this bill would place
the Commission partly within the Executive branch. I believe
that creation of such a commission, which is neither clearly
within the Executive branch, nor clearly within the
Legislative branch, tends to blur the functional distinction
between the governmental branches that is fundamental to the
concept of separation of powers. It would be more appropriate
for the Commission to be composed either entirely of members
selected by the Legislative branch, if it is to serve
primarily legislative functions, or entirely of members
appointed by the President, if it is to serve the Executive
branch.
Moreover, I do not consider it advisable to have the
Secretary of Agriculture or any other Executive branch
official receive private donations to assist the Commission.
The Department of Agriculture will provide such staff
resources as are needed from existing resources and make use
of Commodity Credit Corporation funds as authorized to cover
travel expenses, per diem, and other expenses as needed.
#######
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
0 - OUTGOING
H - INTERNAL
I . INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Richard Darman
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Questionnaire Por Michigan Farmer
(prepared by R-B'84)
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUHOLE
ORIGINATOR 84.09.27
/ /
-
Referral Note:
CUAT18
D 840927
5841102
Referral Note:
CQD
CMAT 17
I 84/09/27
/ /
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
-
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A - Appropriate Action
I * Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C - Comment/Recommendation
R - Direct Reply w/Copy
B- Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D - Draft Response
S For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
9 / 27/84
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
October 2
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MICHIGAN FARMER
SUBJECT:
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MURPHY
MEESE
OGLESBY
BAKER
ROGERS
DEAVER
SPEAKES
STOCKMAN
SVAHN
DARMAN
P
VERSTANDIG
FIELDING
WHITTLESEY
FULLER
TUTWILER
HERRINGTON
BAROODY
HICKEY
ELLIOTT
McFARLANE
McMANUS
REMARKS:
Please provide any comments directly to Mike Baroody, with a copy
to my office, by close of business October 2. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
1984 SEP 27 PM 7: 12
Richard G. Darman
Assistant to the President
Ext. 2702
REAGAN-BUSH'84
The President's Authorized Campaign Committee
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MARGARET TUTWILER
THROUGH:
ED ROLLINS
FROM:
JIM LAKE
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 26, 1984
RE:
MICHIGAN FARMER
Per the procedures outlined in Fred Fielding's
November 28, 1983 memo on candidate questionnaires, I am
enclosing draft responses to a set of questions from Michigan
Farmer.
Please advise me at your earliest possible
convenience of White House approval of the responses. We need
the approval notice by October 4 at the absolute latest to meet
our deadline.
440 First Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 383-1984
Paid for by Reagan-Bush '84: Paul Laxalt, Chairman: Angela M. Buchanan Jackson, Treasurer
HONORABLE RONALD REAGAN
President of the United States
Michigan Farmer Questionnaire
September 26, 1984
1. Farmers see budget deficits as causes of high interest
rates. Statistics indicate that each $50 billion in
deficit raises interest rates 1%, and each 1% costs farmers
$2 billion. What actions will you take that will attack
high interest rates? Will these actions reduce the
strength of the dollar and increase farm export potential?
A. Because our economy as a whole has recovered more quickly
than those of our major trading partners, U.S. demand for
imported products has increased while theirs has not. And
the figures show that most of the increase in our trade
deficit results from increased imports, not decreased
exports.
This increase in the purchase of foreign products will help
pull the rest of the world out of the recession and, as
they revive, markets for our products abroad will increase.
Some say U.S. exports have been hindered by the strong
value of the dollar, which those same people think results
from high U.S. budget deficits. But the capital accounts
budget does not show the huge influx of foreign capital
that this theory suggests.
Based on this misreading of the problem, some have
suggested higher U.S. taxes, which will be
counterproductive in two ways. First, the taxes will slow
U.S. economic growth and worsen, not improve the budget
deficit. Second, the taxes will make U.S. goods less
competitive on the world market and worsen, not improve,
the trade deficit.
Our economic recovery program has already reduced interest
rates by more than one-third from the over-21 percent
levels that were the legacy of the previous Administration.,
and the recent drop in the prime lending rate is another
indication that interest rates may ease even more in the
months ahead.
We will continue on this path, rejecting the failed
policies of the past that caused inflation and interest
rates to skyrocket and that gave us our world trade
problems in the first place.
2. A new Farm Law will be written in 1985. As President, what
are the broad outlines of a farm bill you'd like to sign
into law?
A. My Administration is already hard at work on the 1985 farm
bill, working with the Congress, state governments and farm
groups from around the nation. I have asked Secretary of
Agriculture John Block, who chairs the Cabinet Council on
Food and Agriculture, to solicit farmers' views on this
important measure. So far, they've accepted hundreds of
pages of written recommendations and held half a dozen
listening sessions around the country. Although we will
not be prepared to present a specific program until we have
had a chance to assess these recommendations, you can be
sure we will work hard to develop responsible farm policies
that serve both the farmers and the public. We must
continue to provide a measure of price protection from
erratic weather and natural disasters, and create an
environment for supply-and-demand forces to allocate
resources efficiently.
3. American agriculture exports of corn, soybeans and wheat
have been a major factor offsetting our huge trade
imbalance. Is it the proper role of American agriculture
to be a raw product exporter? Isn't that role normally
associated with economies of less developed nations or of
colonies?
A. Agricultural exports account for 24 percent of our total
agricultural production and contribute significantly to the
health of the American economy.
While we have been highly successful in exporting bulk
commodities such as wheat and soybeans, we will continue to
promote increased export of value-added products as well.
A recent Department of Agriculture study indicated that if
we increased by 10 percent our exports of wheat, corn and
soybeans shipped as finished products, U.S. gross national
product would rise by $165 billion, personal income would
increase by $3 billion and 300,000 new jobs would be
created in the U.S. economy.
Indeed, we have taken a number of actions to increase
exports of value-added agricultural commodities. This
spring we negotiated new import quotas that will nearly
double U.S. beef exports to Japan and raise citrus exports
by 54 percent over the next four years. We sent a signal
to the European Community last year by making a
one-million-ton sale of wheat flour to Egypt. As a result,
the European Community has joined us in serious efforts to
solve the problems caused by their subsidization of
exports. We've enacted legislation to ensure that the
sanctity of existing export contracts will be respected.
And under new provisions of law, the Secretary of
Agriculture over the past two years has made available to
needy persons in 19 foreign nations over 200,000 tons of
surplus U.S. dairy products.
Our agricultural policies have resulted in the U.S. having
regained its reputation as a reliable agricultural supplier
in the world market. My Administration remains committed
to maintaining and further enhancing that reputation.
4. Why do you think Michigan farmers should vote for you on
November 6?
A. The health of American agriculture is important not only to
Michigan farmers but to all Americans and to people of
other nations as well.
Four years ago, Michigan farmers were being hurt by a
crumbling economy. High inflation forced land values up
and increased costs for farm items almost 30 percent during
1979-80. Interest rates soared to over 20 percent and cut
into farm profits. Then came the grain embargo. Someone
who now says he opposed it in private was talking
differently then, saying, "What we've done will really
sting." He was right, but it wasn't the Soviets who got
stung, it was the American farmer. who lost 17 million tons
of grain sales to the Soviet Union. Farm prices declined,
our agricultural marketing system was disrupted, and net
farm income fell 34 percent in 1980.
Today, although our farmers are still in a difficult
situation. things are getting better -- and we are making
constant and consistent progress toward recovery in the
agricultural sector of our economy.
Inflation, interest rates, and taxes are all much lower
than in 1981. This year, net cash income for farmers is
expected to reach a near all-time high.
We ended the embargo, and signed a new five-year agreement
with the Soviets, who have bought more than 23 million
metric tons of grain since. In fact, we've just offered to
sell them an additional 10 million tons of wheat and/or
corn during the second year of this agreement. As long as
I'm President, our farmers will never be asked to bear
alone the brunt of U.S. foreign policy.
For farmers who need additional breathing room to get back
on their feet, I've just announced that we will defer for
five years as much as 25 percent of the debt of some
Farmers Home Administration borrowers up to a maximum of
$100,000. We are also extending new federal guarantees of
about $630 million in commercial loans to farmers to help
ease their debt burden.
Our trade teams from the Department of Agriculture and the
private sector having been knocking on doors all over the
world. As I mentioned in Question 3, we have negotiated
new import quotas with Japan that will nearly double U.S.
beef exports to that nation and raise citrus exports by 54
percent over the next four years. We made that
one-million-ton sale of wheat flour to Egypt, and secured
the cooperation of the European Community in serious
efforts to solve the problems caused by their export
subsidization. And we've enacted measures to ensure the
sanctity of existing export contracts. We've regained our
reputation as a reliable supplier, and must maintain it.
In addition, I've just signed legislation establishing a
national commission to make recommendations concerning the
future of agriculture-related trade policy in America. We
expect the commission to produce several reports that will
be blueprints for agricultural trade and export policy for
the remainder of this century.
American agriculture has come too far to have the careless
policies of the past take over again and crush all that our
farmers have worked so long and hard to achieve.
MORINGAN FARMER
HARVEST
3303 W Saginaw Street
Lansing. Michigan 48917
Phone: 517-321-9393
Rec'd
September 18, 1984
Ms. Caroline Heinz
Media Relations
Old Executive Office Building
Room 164
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Caroline:
Thank you for agreeing to work with US in preparing a pre-election
article for the 65,000 farm families who read Michigan Farmer.
I have prepared four questions (enclosed) to which we would like
to have written answers.
Our deadline is Thursday, Sept. 27, but that can be extended to
the following Monday if we are absolutely sure on Sept. 27 that
the material is coming.
we also would like two black and white photographs, one of
President Reagan alone and one with Vice-President Bush.
Please also send a biographical sketch on the president--
and any farm-related statements or materials you think will
be useful to us.
when preparing the answers, think in terms of 200 to 300 words
for each. But don't cut yourself short if you need more.
Again, thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Lehnert
Editor
Enclosure: 1
!ec: Roger Bolton
P.S. I have contacted Roger Bolton at Reagan-Bush Headquarters
and an sending him a COPY of this letter and of the questions.
I hope the two of you will be able to coordinate.
QUESTIONS FOR THE CANDIDATES
1. Farmers see budget deficits as causes of high interest rates.
Statistics indicate that each $50 billion in deficit raises
interest rates 1%, and each 1% costs farmers $2 billion.
what actions will you take that will attack high interest
rates? Will these actions reduce the strength of the dollar
and increase farm export potential?
2. A new Farm Law will be written in 1985. As president, what
are the broad outlines of a farm bill you'd like to sign into law?
3. American agricultural exports of corn, soybeans and wheat
have been a major factor offsetting our huge trade inbalance.
Is it the proper role of American agriculture to be a raw
product exporter? Isn't that role normally associated with
economies of less developed nations or of colonies?
4. Why do you think Michigan farmers should vote for you
November 6?
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 28, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
JR
SUBJECT:
Questionnaire for Illinois
Farm Bureau Publication
Richard Darman has asked that comments on the draft response
to the above-referenced candidate questionnaire be sent
directly to Mike Baroody by close of business today. The
draft response, prepared by Reagan-Bush '84, reviews what
the Administration has done for farmers. The fourth paragraph
on page two notes that the President has signed legislation
creating a national commission to make recommendations on
agriculture trade policy, and that we "expect the commission
to produce several reports that will be blueprints for
agricultural trade and export policy for the remainder of
this century."
The reference is to H.J. Res. 600, signed by the President
on August 30, 1984. You will recall that this bill created
a purely advisory commission, with a large majority of
members either appointed by members of Congress or being
members of Congress themselves. The imbalance between
executive and legislative members on the commission, and the
hermaphroditic character of the commission, were criticized
in a signing statement issued by the President.
Since the commission will be dominated by Congress, there
was and is concern in the Administration that it will be a
vehicle for advancing Congressional farm bill proposals in
opposition to Administration proposals. The President, in
the signing statement, attempted to minimize the commission's
significance by stating:
Numerous other groups, including the President's
Export Council, official industry advisory groups,
and the President's Working Group on Future Food
and Agriculture Policy, are also examining the
many issues that can affect the future course of
American agriculture. We hope that the free
exchange and critical review of all such views
will lead to the development of farm legislation
that sets a sound course for agricultural policy.
- 2 -
The above-quoted passage from the draft candidate questionnaire,
contending that the commission's reports will be "blueprints
for agricultural trade and export policy for the remainder
of this century," is thus inconsistent with the signing
statement and contrary to our efforts to downplay the
commission's role. I would delete the last sentence of the
fourth paragraph on page two.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 28, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Questionnaire for Illinois
Farm Bureau Publication
Counsel's Office has reviewed the draft response to the
above-referenced candidate questionnaire. The last sentence
in the fourth paragraph on page two should be deleted.
The commission referred to in that paragraph, because of the
unusual manner in which its members will be appointed, will
be controlled by the Legislative Branch. There is, accordingly,
widespread concern that the commission will issue recommendations
inconsistent with Administration policy. Largely for this
reason, when the President signed H.J. Res. 600, which
established the commission, he emphasized that he was not
convinced of the need for another commission and that the
commission's recommendations would be simply one of many
sources of advice on forming farm policy. (See attached
signing statement.) The last sentence of paragraph four on
page two of the draft response is inconsistent with the
signing statement and Administration efforts to downplay the
commission, and should be deleted.
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF:JGR:aea 9/28/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 30, 1984
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
I have today signed H.J. Res. 600, the "Agricultural
Trade and Export Policy Commission Act."
H.J. Res. 600 would establish a National Commission on
Agricultural Trade and Export Policy to conduct studies of
agricultural trade and export policies, programs, and
practices of the United States, and to make recommendations to
the President and Congress.
The Congressional sponsors of this legislation see the
Commission's work as providing recommendations for the
agriculture community, the Administration, and the Congress to
consider as they work together in developing the 1985 farm
bill. I expect the 1985 farm bill to be an historic watershed
in laying the groundwork for assuring the continuation of a
prosperous and productive agricultural economy. While I am
not convinced that we need yet another commission to study
agricultural policy, I hope the Commission will constructively
join the debate on the future direction of American agricul-
ture, including that of agricultural trade and exports.
b Numerous other groups, including the President's
Export Council, official industry advisory groups, and the
President's Working Group on Future Food and Agriculture
Policy, are also examining the many issues that can affect the
future course of American agriculture. We hope that the free
exchange and critical review of all such views will lead to
the development of farm legislation that sets a sound course
for agricultural policy.
In signing H.J. Res. 600, however, I must express my
concern about the membership of the Commission. Under this
resolution the Commission is to be composed of three officers
from the Executive branch, who serve in a nonvoting capacity,
and thirty-two members who are either selected by, or are
members of, Congress. Although the Commission would appear to
serve primarily legislative functions, this bill would place
the Commission partly within the Executive branch. I believe
that creation of such a commission, which is neither clearly
within the Executive branch, nor clearly within the
Legislative branch, tends to blur the functional distinction
between the governmental branches that is fundamental to the
concept of separation of powers. It would be more appropriate
for the Commission to be composed either entirely of members
selected by the Legislative branch, if it is to serve
primarily legislative functions, or entirely of members
appointed by the President, if it is to serve the Executive
branch.
Moreover, I do not consider it advisable to have the
Secretary of Agriculture or any other Executive branch
official receive private donations to assist the Commission.
The Department of Agriculture will provide such staff
resources as are needed from existing resources and make use
of Commodity Credit Corporation funds as authorized to cover
travel expenses, per diem, and other expenses as needed.
#######
ID #.
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
0 . OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Richard Darman
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Publication Questionnaire for Illinois Farm Bureau
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
Cuttore
ORIGINATOR 840927
/ /
Referral Note:
CUAT 18
D 84 09 17
58409128
Referral Note:
COB
CUAT 17
I 8409,27
/
/
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
-
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A - Appropriate Action
I . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C - Comment/Recommendation
R - - Direct Reply w/Copy
B - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F - - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
9/27/84
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 9/28/84
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ILLINOIS FARM BUREAU PUBLICATION
SUBJECT:
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MURPHY
MEESE
OGLESBY
BAKER
ROGERS
DEAVER
SPEAKES
STOCKMAN
SVAHN
DARMAN
P
1158
VERSTANDIG
FIELDING
WHITTLESEY
FULLER
TUTWILER
HERRINGTON
BAROODY
ELLIOTT
HICKEY
McFARLANE
McMANUS
REMARKS:
Please provide any edits/comments directly to Mike Baroody, with
a copy to my office, by close of business tomorrow, 9/28. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
Richard G. Darman
1984 SEP 27 PM 7: 12
Assistant to the President
Ext. 2702
REAGAN-BUSH'84
THERES
The President's Authorized Campaign Committee
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MARGARET TUTWILER
THROUGH:
ED ROLLINS
FROM:
JIM LAKE
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 26, 1984
RE:
ILLINOIS FARM BUREAU PUBLICATION
Per the procedures outlined in Fred Fielding's
November 28, 1983 memo on candidate questionnaires, I am
enclosing draft responses to a set of questions for the
Illinois Farm Bureau's Voter's Handbook.
Before making any revisions, please bear in mind that
Illinois Farm Bureau has imposed a 500 word limit.
Please advise me at your earliest possible convenience
of White House approval of the responses.
440 First Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 383-1984
Paid for by Reagan-Bush '84: Paul Laxalt. Chairman; Angela M. Buchanan Jackson. Treasurer
HONORABLE RONALD REAGAN
President of the United States
ILLINOIS FARM BUREAU
"Voter's Handbook" Question for President Reagan
FarmWeek Newspaper
September 25, 1984
Question:
"What is the most important issue facing Illinois farmers
and how do you plan to deal with this issue as President of the
United States during the next four years?"
President Reagan:
The health of American agriculture is important not only to
Illinois farmers but to all Americans and people of other
nations as well.
Four years ago, Illinois farmers were being hurt by a
crumbling economy.
High inflation forced land values up and increased costs
for farm items almost 30 percent during 1979-80.
Interest rates over 20 percent cut into farm profits.
Then came the grain embargo. Someone who now says he
opposed it in private was talking differently then, saying,
"What we've done will really sting." He was right, but it
wasn't the Soviets who got stung, it was the American farmer,
who lost 17 million tons of grain sales to the Soviet Union.
Farm prices declined, our agricultural marketing system was
disrupted, and net farm income fell 34 percent in 1980.
Today, although our farmers still are having difficulties,
American agriculture is moving toward recovery.
Inflation, interest rates, and taxes are all much lower
than in 1981. This year, net cash income for farmers is
expected to reach a near all-time high.
We ended the embargo, and signed a new five-year agreement
with the Soviets, who have bought more than 23 million metric
tons of grain since. In fact, we've just offered to sell them
an additional 10 million tons of wheat and/or corn during the
second year of this agreement. As long as I'm President, our
farmers will never be asked to bear alone the brunt of U.S.
foreign policy.
For farmers who need additional breathing room to get back
on their feet, I've just announced that we will defer for five
years as much as 25 percent of the debt of some Farmers Home
Administration borrowers up to a maximum of $100,000. We are
also extending new federal guarantees to about $630 million in
commercial loans to farmers to help ease their debt burden.
Last year, we sent a signal to the European Community by
making a one-million-ton sale of wheat flour to Egypt. As a
result, the European Community has joined us in serious efforts
to solve the problems caused by their subsidization of exports.
We've enacted legislation to ensure that existing export
contracts will not be abrogated and provided export assistance
through PL-480 food aid programs and the Export-Import Bank.
In addition, I've just signed legislation -- which your
President, John White, has testified in support of --
establishing a national commission to make recommendations
concerning the future of agriculture-related trade policy in
America. We expect the commission to produce several reports
that will be <blueprints for agricultural trade and export
policy for the remainder of this century.a
We believe in the future of American agriculture and the
tremendous potential of our farmers to out-produce all others
on this earth. Indeed, American agriculture has come too far
to have the careless policies of the past take over and crush
all that our farmers have worked so long and hard to achieve.
Illinois Farm Bureau
August 30, 1984
SEP 5 1984
Mr. Ed Rollins
Reagan-Bush Headquarters
440 First St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Dear Mr. Rollins:
Illinois Farm Bureau would like to share the views of your candidate,
President Reagan, with over 100,000 of its members.
During each major election, a "Voter's Handbook" is published as part of
Farm Bureau's weekly newspaper, FarmWeek. Work is underway on the
Election '84 edition of our handbook, which goes to press in October and
is received by farm people across Illinois.
We realize time is precious during a campaign. But we are asking for
the response of both Presidential contenders to this question:
"What is the most important issue facing Illinois farmers and how do
you plan to deal with this issue as President of the United States
during the next four years?"
We would like to have the responses-of up to 500 words-by September 24.
The response would give your candidate an opportunity to express his
position and our readers an equal opportunity to study his position as
election day nears.
Could you also provide us a black-and-white glossy photograph of
President Reagan for use in our publication? If you have any questions,
my phone number is (309) 557-3154. Enclosed is a separate sheet
restating the question. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Randy Bridson
Randy Bridson
Managing Editor
FarmWeek
Enclosure
RB/dko
0109B
"What 1s the most important issue facing Illinois farmers and how do you
plan to deal with this issue as President of the United States during
the next four years?"
0113B
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 9, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS JSR
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Questionnaire -- Professional
Insurance Agents' Political Action
Committee (Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced candidate
questionnaire, and finds no objection to it from a legal
perspective.
CC: Richard G. Darman
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: RICHARD DARMAN
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Proposed Questionnaire -Professional
Insurance Agents Political Action Committee
(prepared by R-B84)
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUHOLL
ORIGINATOR 84/10/09
84,10109
Referral Note:
CUAT 18
R 84,10,09
84,10,09
Referral Note:
CUAT 17
3:00 3:00pm pm
I 841009
/ /
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
I
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
-
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A - Appropriate Action
I - Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C - Comment/Recommendation
R Direct Reply w/Copy
B - . Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
10/9/84
3:00 P.M. TODAY
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
PROPOSED QUESTIONNAIRE - PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE AGENTS' POLITICAL
SUBJECT:
ACTION COMMITTEE
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MURPHY
MEESE
OGLESBY
BAKER
ROGERS
DEAVER
SPEAKES
STOCKMAN
SVAHN
DARMAN
P
VERSTANDIG
FIELDING
WHITTLESEY
FULLER
TUTWILER
HERRINGTON
BAROODY
ELLIOTT
HICKEY
McFARLANE
McMANUS
REMARKS:
Please provide any edits/comments directly to Mike Baroody, with a copy
to my office, by-3:00 p.m. TODAY. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
Richard G. Darman
Assistant to the President
1384 OCT -9 Pil 12: 40
Ext. 2702
REAGAN-BUSH'84
The President's Authorized Campaign Committee
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MARGARET TUTWILER
THROUGH:
ED ROLLINS
FROM:
JIM LAKE
DATE:
OCTOBER 8, 1984
RE:
PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE AGENTS'
POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
Per the procedures outlined in Fred Fielding's
November 28, 1983 memo on candidate questionnaires, I am
enclosing draft responses to a set of questions from PIAPAC.
Please advise me at your earliest possible convenience
of White House approval of the responses. We need the approval
notice by October 9 to meet our deadline.
11
440 First Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 383-1984
Paid for by Reagan Bush '84: Paul Laxalt, Chairman: Angela M. Buchanan Jackson. Treasurer
THE HONORABLE RONALD REAGAN
President of the United States
Professional Insurance Agents' Political Action Committee
October 8, 1984
1.
Q:
PIA has a longstanding policy to stop any further
incursion by depository institutions into
insurance sales or underwriting. We are opposed
to any further expansion of insurance powers to
these institutions beyond the Title VI provisions
of the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions
Act of 1982. What is your position in this
matter?
A:
I do support authorizing banks to provide,
through holding companies, financial services
involving insurance, real estate, mutual funds
and municipal revenue bonds. This would increase
competition in financial activities, and allow us
to streamline some of the regulatory procedures
that burden both insurance companies and banks.
By requiring the use of holding company
affiliates, our proposal would protect businesses
already offering those financial services and
provide a fair basis for competition. Under this
approach. insurance underwriting companies.
whether or not they are affiliated with bank
holding companies would be regulated identically
at the state level.
2.
Q:
There was a serious effort this year, and will no
doubt return next year. to force the insurance
industry into using a unisex (non-gender
specific) system for rating, pricing and
recordkeeping. PIA opposed the federal efforts
in this area. What is your position?
A:
Although the Supreme Court affirmed the Justice
Department's position that Title VII prohibits
determining benefit or contribution levels for
employment-based annuities on the basis of sex,
there are major uncertainties as to the costs and
benefits of extending the same rationale to other
forms of insurance. Preliminary studies indicate
that legislation to equalize premiums and
benefits for men and women could lead to large
increases in the cost of auto, health and life
insurance for women. We must continue to monitor
this situation very closely to see that we do not
impose major new insurance costs on women in the
name of "equal treatment".
3.
Q:
Considerable time was devoted to developing a
method by which employer-paid health benefit
packages would be taxable to employees when
exceeding certain caps. PIA views this as
socially unacceptable and an inequitable burden
to be borne by those most in need of these
benefits. It also places small business at a
competitive disadvantage. What are your views?
A:
Since I took office in 1981, my Administration
has been committed to assuring a basic level of
high quality health care for all Americans, as
well as reducing the inflation which has driven
up medical costs for us all. Our approach has
been to reduce the government's role and
encourage competition within health-related
private sector industries. As a result of our
initiatives, health care inflation has fallen to
6.3% for the first five months of 1984, down from
10.7% in 1981.
We have also proposed limiting tax-free
employer-paid health benefits. Such tax-free
contributions insulate both employers and
employees from the consequences of rising health
costs. Limiting this tax exclusion would
encourage employees to seek lower-cost medical
care alternatives. Unless we control cost
increases, health care may be placed out of reach
for many Americans. We cannot allow that to
happen. and will continue to focus on reducing
government intervention and stimulating private
sector innovation, so that all Americans have
access to high quality health care.
555105
PIA
Z
PIAPAC
URANCE
AGE
Professional Insurance Agents
Political Action Committee
400 N. Washington St.
Alexandria JA 22314
(703) 836-9540
September 24, 1984
Reagan/Bush 1984 General Election Compliance Fund
440 First Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Good morning!
PIA is a national trade association of over 40,000 small business
owners who operate independent property/casualty insurance
agencies. These operations are generally a five person shop,
serving urban, suburban and rural communities in every state of
the Union, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. Our membership is very active in local, state and
national politics from expressing their views in grass roots
campaigns to personal involvement in time and cash donation to
candidates campaigns. Part of this effort is manifested in PIA's
Political Action Committee, PIAPAC. On behalf of PIA, I am
pleased to make this donation of $5,000 to the Reagan Bush 1984
Campaign. It shows a strong support for the overall goals of
your effort.
As part of PIA's voter awareness program, we will be conducting
a straw poll for the Presidential Elections 1984. To better
inform our members, we would like you to complete the attached
questionnaire and return it by October 9 to our National office.
Your responses will be posted by our mock election booth. We
will provide our members with straw ballots and an opportunity
to comment if they. wish.
If you have any questions, our staff Patricia Borowski,
703-836-9340 or Charles Wegner, 202-544-8713, will be happy to
assist you.
We thank you for your cooperation and efforts to listen to our
views. We look forward to your complete and timely response.
Sincerely,
Knox Hillman
J. Knox Hillman, Jr., FMS
Chairman
enclosures:
Check #1394 ($5,000)
form
Paid for by the Professional Insurance Agents Political Action Committee.
an independent, voluntary, non-partisan political action organization of individuals from the property and casualty insurance industry whose pur-
pose is TO assist candidates for Congress who have demonstrated support of the private insurance industry in general and the American Agency
System in particular
Our report $ on 100 and may DE purchased from the Federal Eie Washington DC
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 15, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL E. BAROODY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
026
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Questionnaire: Army Times
(Prepared by Reagan-Bush '84)
Counsel's Office has reviewed the proposed responses to the
above-referenced questionnaire. The response to question
six is misleading. The IRS has not, in fact, taken a final
position with respect to this issue, and after review by
Secretaries Regan and Weinberger it has been decided that
there will be no change in the current rules before Janu-
ary 1, 1986. That will give Congress and the Administration
more time to review the question. It is our understanding
that the Office of Policy Development will submit a revised
response along these lines.
The response to question eight is inartfully phrased. Not
permitting avowed homosexuals to serve in the military
cannot be considered as conferring "special status" on them
as the phrase is used in this sentence. The response should
also note that the Defense policy was recently upheld by the
courts. We recommend the following: "Although I have long
been opposed to discrimination against any segment of our
population, we see no reason to change the current Department
of Defense policy. That policy was in fact upheld in a
recent ruling by a Federal Court of Appeals.'
CC: Richard G. Darman
ID #
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o . OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
JGR
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Richard Darman
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Questionnaire: Army Times
(Prepared by R-B'84)
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
Cuttore
ORIGINATOR 84,10,15
/
/
Referral Note:
CUAT 18
reply tomile Baroody
R 84,10,15
$84,10,15
Referral Note:
COB
CURT 17
I 84,10115
/
/
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
I
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A - Appropriate Action
I - Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R . Direct Reply w/Copy
B~ Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D - Draft Response
S For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X - Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
10/15/84
DATE:
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: C.O.B. TODAY, 10/15
QUESTIONNAIRE: ARMY TIMES
SUBJECT:
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MURPHY
MEESE
OGLESBY
BAKER
ROGERS
DEAVER
SPEAKES
STOCKMAN
SVAHN
DARMAN
P
SS
VERSTANDIG
FIELDING
WHITTLESEY
FULLER
ELLIOTT
HERRINGTON
BAROODY
HICKEY
McFARLANE
McMANUS
REMARKS:
Please provide any edits directly to Mike Baroody, by c.o.b. today,
October 15th.
Thank you.
RESPONSE:
Richard G. Darman
Assistant to the President
Ext. 2702
1984 OCT 15 III 9: 48
REAGAN-BUSH'84
COMOCTIVE 8 8:25
The President's Authorized Campaign Committee
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MARGARET TUTWILER
THROUGH:
ED ROLLINS
FROM:
JIM LAKE
DATE:
OCTOBER 12, 1984
RE:
ARMY TIMES QUESTIONNAIRE
Per the procedures outlined in Fred Fielding's
November 28, 1983 memo on candidate questionnaires, I am
enclosing draft responses to a set of questions from Army Times.
Please advise me at your earliest possible convenience
of White House approval of the responses.
440 First Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 383-1984
Paid for by Reagan-Bush '84: Paul Laxalt, Chairman: Angela M. Buchanan Jackson, Treasurer
THE HONORABLE RONALD REAGAN
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Questionnaire for Army Times
October 11, 1984
1. How important are reductions in federal entitlement
programs, like military retirement, in your plans for
reducing the federal budget deficit over the next four
years?
A. My Administration believes that those Americans who have
served this nation should not become victims of the failed
policies that caused the federal deficits in the first
place.
In fact, about half of the current federal budget deficit
is due to the lingering effects of the recession the
economy was pushed into in 1981 by the double-digit
inflation and record interest rates which were the legacy
of the previous Administration.
When people are thrown out of work, they no longer pay
taxes because they have no earned income. At the same
time, they become eligible for federal benefit programs.
So, government revenue goes down and government spending
goes up.
But, as we have put six million Americans back to work,
that portion of the deficit is being reduced. Continued
economic recovery and expansion will reduce the deficit
still further, but it will not eliminate the entire problem.
The remaining portion of the deficit is easy to explain:
Government simply is spending more money than it raises in
taxes.
The answer is equally simple: We must either spend less or
tax more.
While our opponents want to raise taxes, we believe that
taxes are high enough. It's wasteful spending that must be
trimmed. This year, we have worked with Republicans and
responsible Democrats in Congress to pass a deficit
reduction plan that puts a $150 billion downpayment on the
deficit through a balanced program of budget restraint,
slower growth in defense and new revenue.
But a downpayment alone is not enough to break us out of
the deficit problem. It will start us on the right path.
Yet we must do more.
I have asked Congress to approve a constitutional amendment
giving the President line-item veto power over
congressional appropriations. It would allow the President
to veto individual sections of omnibus spending bills.
In my State of the Union message, I also proposed passage
of a constitutional amendment to require a balanced
budget. Unfortunately, Congress so far has refused to move
on these essential reforms and they are not supported by
our opponents in this election.
Above all, we cannot afford to take a step back to the
failed policies that got us into such an economic mess in
the first place.
2. In light of relatively large pay raises given to service
members in 1980 and 1981, which brought military pay to
levels considered comparable with private industry,
proponents for changing the military retirement system,
including J. Peter Grace, Chairman of the President's
Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, claims the military
no longer needs so generous a retirement plan. Do adequate
military pay levels justify changes in military retirement?
A. No. When we came into office, we established a number of
long-term defense objectives to reverse the decline in U.S.
influence and military strength, and to rebuild America's
critical margin of safety. First among them was to improve
significantly the salaries and living standards of military
personnel, many of whom were actually on food stamps
because of the meager salaries they earned.
At the time we began our task, we found that morale in the
armed forces was dangerously low, the result of a failure
to give our men and women in uniform the compensation and
respect they needed and deserved. The quality of new
recruits had declined while experienced personnel were
leaving the military in record numbers. Less than 10 years
after establishment of the all-volunteer armed forces, some
critics were claiming it had failed and calling for a
return to conscription.
Today, people are our biggest success story. Retention and
recruiting are up dramatically. The Navy and Air Force
attained record reenlistment rates last year, and all the
services are meeting their recruitment targets. Ninety-one
percent of the new recruits are high school graduates, up
from 68 percent in 1980. These retention and recruiting
successes are coming at a time when the economy is
improving, a time when skeptics said young Americans would
turn their backs on the military.
As long as I am President, neither America's active and
reserve military personnel nor our retirees will ever again
be neglected as they were in the period prior to our taking
office.
3. One condition of service life is frequent reassignment for
members and families. While the moves are made for the
convenience of the government, the government refuses to
reimburse service families for the full cost. Frequently,
members pay several thousand dollars fo their own money to
cover the expense of moving to new assignments. If
reelected, what additional actions, if any. would you take
to eliminate this inequitable situation for service
families?
A. We realize that the financial burden of relocation on
members of our armed forces and their families is often
great. For FY 1985, we originally requested service
families be reimbursed for full moving costs. Although the
formula for reimbursement has since been revised, you can
be sure that all efforts will be made to ensure that this
situation is made as equitable as possible for our military
personnel and their families.
4. Nine major studies over the past 35 years have recommended
changes to the current military retirement system. Last
year you ordered the "Pentagon to take a look at the
military retirement system. The Fifth Quadrennial Review
of Military Compensation developed four alternatives for
changing the current system, but your Administration balked
at endorsing any of them. If reelected, would you send
legislation to Congress recommending changes to the current
retirement system, either as a lone proposal or as part of
an overall package to revise federal retirement programs?
A. Since taking office, my Administration has been striving to
develop workable solutions to the issue of military
retirement pay. The FY 1985 defense authorization bill I
just signed into law provides for a new military trust fund
beginning next year, out of which will be paid the cash
benefits for America's many deserving military retirees.
I've indicated my commitment to maintaining a fair and
equitable system that does not do a disservice to those
many Americans who have so bravely worn the uniform. In a
second term, you can be sure that our work will continue.
5. In the 1980 Presidential campaign, Republicans criticized
President Carter for allowing military pay to decline
significantly in relation to pay available in the private
sector. This pay "gap" was blamed on pay caps recommended
by President Carter as an example of pay restraint for the
private sector. Military leaders eventually criticized the
pay caps, blaming them for a large exodus of quality
careerists from the services.
Though the Administration pushed for a large military pay
raise in October 1981, the next year you supported a
congressional cap on military and federal civilian pay and
recommended a federal pay freeze in 1983 as a way to curb
federal budget deficits. Congress eventually voted a four
percent raise but delayed the effective date until last
January. That year you recommended a three-month delay in
the federal pay raise.
Aren't you approaching military pay raises in the same way
that your predecessor did? Will you continue to recommend
delays or caps on military pay through a second term in
office?
A. In our FY 1985 budget, we proposed a military pay raise of
5.5 percent, effective in January 1985. Unfortunately,
Congress only voted a four percent raise.
As I said earlier, increases in military compensation and
improvements in the quality of service life have helped us
considerably in attracting and retaining qualified
personnel. Over the past four yers, there have been
significant improvements in the manning of our armed
forces. In terms of recruiting and retention, last year
was one of the best in the past decade. Test scores and
educational levels of recruits now exceed those of the
civilian youth population. Continued improvements in
retention, made possible in large part by better military
pay, have resulted in a career force that is growing in
size, experience and quality and an esprit de corps that
just won't stop. If we are entrusted with a second term,
we intend to continue on this path and solidify these long
overdue improvements in our nation's military forces.
6. A recent IRS ruling indicates that military personnel
should not receive tax-free housing allowances and still be
able to qualify for tax deductions on mortgage interest and
real estate taxes from their principal residences. Do you
think the IRS' position is valid? If not, what actions
would you take, if reelected, to see that military families
do not lose the current tax advantage on their military
housing allowances?
A. Again, we must take every step to ensure that our military
families are afforded treatment on a level equal to what
they are entitled. We question whether the position taken
by the IRS is a valid one as it applies to military
7
personnel. In the absence of other compelling evidence, we
will continue to abide by the long-established position
that housing assistance should be non-taxable to present
members of our military services.
7. Your so-called Grace Commission criticized military
commissaries and suggested that special stores for military
families in the United States no longer are justified,
given current pay levels and members' accessibility to
commercial supermarkets. Since then you have endorsed the
work of the commission in general. Do you think stateside
commissaries should be closed or their operations
contracted out to private firms?
A. We are currently in the process of reviewing the 2,478
recommendations of the Grace Commission, which has done an
excellent job in developing suggestions on how to improve
the management of the federal government. Although there
has been a recent move in the Congress that would have the
effect of directing the Defense Department to test
privately operated commissaries in selected areas of the
U.S., no such legislation has passed Congress.
8. The Democratic Party platform calls for a change in DoD
policy to allow avowed homosexuals to serve in the
military. Would you support such a change?
A. Although I have long been opposed to discrimination against
any segment of our population. I am likewise opposed to the
.N
conferring of special status upon segments of our
population, when that occasion may or may not be
justifiable. As such, we see no reason to change our
current policy.
9. Did you or your advisors give sufficient consideration to
the role U.S. Marines would play in Lebanon before sending
them there to serve in a peacekeeping force among elements
hostile to the United States? Knowing the result today.
would you still have sent them to Lebanon?
A. When we were asked by the Lebanese government to join the
multinational peacekeeping force, we did so believing that
our efforts would be instrumental in helping stabilize the
fractured government there and, ultimately, in achieving
peace in the region. The importance of this mission, and
the Marine presence in Lebanon, was underscored by the
ferocity of the attempts to undermine our forces there.
Of course, we deplore the tragic terrorist attacks on our
personnel that occured in Lebanon. Our outrage at the
perpetrators remains as bitter as our sorrow for the
victims and their families is deep.
Despite the cowardly attack on the brave men we sent to aid
this embattled nation, however, we must not, cannot. and
will not apologize for, nor retreat from, what was and
still remains our ultimate goal in the region: promoting
the peace.
10. If your Administration believes that U.S. allies are losing
ground to Cuban- and Soviet-backed regimes in Central
America during the next four years, will you commit
American forces to a combat role in the region? Under what
circumstances would you involve American forces in combat
there?
A. We have no plans to engage American military personnel in
combat in Central America. In fact, El Salvador's
President Duarte has assured the Congress that he "will
never" ask American troops to fight in his country, and we
have taken him at his word.
Our policy in Central America is based on four basic
tenets. We will continue seeking to bolster democratic
systems there where they already exist and help countries
in the process to reach democratic goals quickly. We will
support economic development, through direct economic aid
and by way of trade and investment incentives and U.S.
technical assistance. We will support the security of the
region's threatened countries. And finally we will support
dialogue and negotiations among the countries of the region
and within each country and work towards diplomatic
solutions in this-troubled region that will serve the
interests of the democratic process.
Above all, we are committed to peace in Central America as
we are the world over.
PUBUSHINGCOMPANY
Rec'd
SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22159-0150
(703) 750-2000
9/28
September 27, 1984
Mr. James H. Lake
Director of Communications
Reagan-Bush 1984
440 First Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Dear Jim,
Following are ten questions that are the basis for an
article comparing Reagan and Mondale positions, mostly on
personnel issues concerning the armed services.
We are still hoping that you will see fit either to
schedule a visit by the President or vice president or to
allow a first person interview between one or more of our
reporters and the President.
But, given the press of time, I thought I should get
these questions to you now in case nothing else works out.
We will be publishing this article in two weeks (closing
October 12).
1. How important are reductions in federal entitlement
programs, like military retirement, in your plans for re-
ducing the federal budget deficit over the next four years?
2. In light of relatively large pay raises given to
service members in 1980 and 1981, which brought military pay
to levels considered comparable with private industry,
proponents for changing the military retirement system,
including J. Peter Grace, Chairman of the President's Private
Sector Survey on Cost Control, claim the military no longer
needs so generous a retirement plan.
Do adequate military pay levels justify changes in
military retirement?
3. One condition of service life is frequent reassignment
for members and families. While the moves are made for the
convenience of the government, the government refuses to
reimburse service families for the full cost. Frequently,
members pay several thousand dollars of their own money to
cover the expense of moving to new assignments.
If reelected what additional actions, if any, would
you take to eliminate this inequitable situation for service
families?
1981.
- 2 -
4. Nine major studies over the past 35 years have recom-
mended changes to the current military retirement system.
Last year, you ordered the Pentagon to take another look
at the military retirement system. The Fifth Quadrennial
Review of Military Compensation developed four alternatives
for changing the current system, but your administration
balked at endorsing any of them.
If reelected, would you send legislation to Congress
recommending changes to the current retirement system, either
as a lone proposal or as part of an overall package to revise
federal entitlement programs?
5. In the 1980 Presidential campaign, Republicans criti-
cized President Carter for allowing military pay to decline
significantly in relation to pay available in the private
sector. This pay "gap" was blamed on pay caps recommended
by President Carter as an example of pay restraint for the
private sector. Military leaders eventually criticized the
pay caps, blaming them for a large exodus of quality careerists
from the services.
Though the administration pushed for a large military
pay raise in October 1981, the next year you supported a
congressional cap on military and federal civilian pay and
recommended a federal pay freeze in 1983 as a way to curb
federal budget deficits. Congress eventually voted a four
percent raise but delayed the effective date until last Jan-
uary. This year you recommended a three-month delay in the
federal pay raise.
Aren't you approaching military pay raises in the
same way that your predecessor did? Will you continue to
recommend delays or caps on military pay through a second
term in office?
6. A recent IRS ruling indicates that military personnel
should not receive tax-free housing allowances and still be
able to qualify for tax deductions on mortgage interest and
real estate taxes from their principle residences. Do you
think the IRS's position is valid?
If not, what actions would you take, if reelected,
to see that military families do not lose the current tax
advantage on their military housing allowances?
7. Your so-called Grace Commission criticized military
commissaries and suggested that special stores for military
families in the United States no longer are justified, given
current pay levels and members' accessibility to commercial
supermarkets. Since then you have endorsed the work of the
commission in general.
- 3 -
Do you think stateside commissaries should be closed
or their operations contracted out to private firms?
8. The Democratic Party platform calls for a change in
DoD policy to allow avowed homosexuals to serve in the mili-
tary. Would you support such a change?
9. Did you or your advisors give sufficient consideration
to the role U.S. Marines would play in Lebanon before sending
them there to serve in a peacekeeping force among elements
hostile to the United States? Knowing the result today,
would you still have sent them to Lebanon?
10. If your administration perceives that U.S. allies
are losing ground to Cuban and Soviet-backed regimes in Cen-
tral America during the next four years, will you commit Ameri-
can forces to a combat role in the region? Under what circum-
stances would you involve American forces in combat there?
Thanks in advance for your prompt attention to this, Jim.
Assistant & James Sincerely, Editorial S. Doyle Dayle Director
JSD:mr