Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1554416",
    "label": "First Debate: Suggestions from Robert Hartmann",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554416"
}

{
    "id": "1554416",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554416",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "First Debate: Suggestions from Robert Hartmann",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554416",
    "collections": [
        "White House Special Files Unit Files",
        "Ford - Carter Debates Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Campaign debates",
        "Federal aid",
        "Housing",
        "Old age",
        "Presidential campaign, 1976"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/16/5544/1554416/content/library/document/0010/1554416.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/16/5544/1554416/content/library/document/0010/1554416.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/16/5544/1554416/content/library/document/0010/1554416.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1554416",
    "naId": 1554416,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-09-30",
        "month": 9,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-09-01",
        "month": 9,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/16/5544/1554416/content/library/document/0010/1554416.pdf",
    "mediaId": "443adb0c1a0d5ad4",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 1, folder \"First Debate: Suggestions from\nRobert Hartmann\" of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford\nPresidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 1 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSept. 25, 1976\nTO: Trudy Fry\nFrom Presidential\nout box.\nCristy\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SERN\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 23, 1976\nMEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nROBERT T. HARTMANN\nPSA\nSUBJECT:\nDebates\nA number of friends have sent me suggestions and\nmaterial for your use in the debates. The most sig-\nnificant of these materials are attached and are\nself-explanatory.\nBud Brown called to remind you that no conference has\nyet been called on revenue sharing extension which passed\nthe House, June 10, and the Senate, September 14. With-\nout a bill all revenue sharing will expire December 31st.\nStates like Carter's depend on it and in many instances\ntheir fiscal years have already begun and their budgets\nare based on it. Bud says Democratic leaders in the\nCongress like Phil Burton and Jack Brooks are blocking\nit, and you should challenge the new champion of the\nDemocratic party to compel his Congress to act.\nBud also said that Democrats on his committee have urged\nCarter to attack FEA for an administrative error which\npermitted oil companies to overcharge consumers. I am\nnot completely clear about this, but he says FEA proposes\nto forgive this rip-off and your position should be to\nlet the courts decide rather than FEA.\nTHE president HAS SEEN\nSeptember 22, 1976\n4:30 p.m.\nMr. Hartmann:\nCongressman Bob Wilson called with the following figures from\nRick Devins at the Department of Labor phone: 523-1944.\nJuly 1966 total employed 72,860,000\ntotal unemployed 2,876,000\nunemployment rate: 3.8%\nJuly 1976\ntotal employed 87,907,000\ntotal unemployed 7,426,000\nunemployment rate: 7.8%\nJuly 1966\ntotal active duty military and civilian: 4,355,000\nJuly 1976\ntotal active duty military and civilian: 3,126,000\nreduction in total military civilian defense department: 1,229,000\nCong. Wilson also asked about the answer to the Ford solicitation\nletter.\nGail\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN\nJOHN B. MARTIN\n7607 GLENDALE ROAD\nCHEVY CHASE, MARYLAND 20015\nA. C. 301 652-6629\nSeptember 16, 1976\nMr. Robert T. Hartmann\nCounselor to the President\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Bob:\nI am writing to you in hope that I may be able to be\nhelpful to the President in this way.\nThe Republican platform provisions regarding older\nAmericans are the best we have ever had. The platform\ncontains a number of positions which should be of real\nvalue to the President in attracting the attention and\nsupport of our older population. As you know, these\nnumber some 22 million persons 65 years of age and\nolder. They are all registered, and they all vote.\nThey are, in addition, well informed about the issues\nand policies which affect them. If these issues could\nbe alluded to in remarks which the President makes\non an informal basis in the Rose Garden or informal\npress conferences, I think they would have a great im-\npact around the country.\nMy comments on the part of the platform directly aimed\ntoward older Americans (which is attached) are as fol-\nlows:\n1) Inflation is unquestionably the greatest hardship\nfor older Americans. The basic necessities of life--\nfood, shelter, clothing and health care--have risen to\nastronomic heights and older persons who live on fixed\nincomes and spend a large part of their limited resources\non these items are, of course, most affected. This is\na subject which can be brought into almost any press\nconference and can be dwelt on with great effect. The\nPresident's efforts to curb inflation are, of course,\nknown but I think it is important to his comments that\nhe specifically point out the especially severe effect\nwhich inflation has on the elderly, more than three\nmillion of whom actually are living today below the\npoverty line.\n2\n2) The platform devotes attention to the fact that,\nalthough a gift to a charitable institution can be made\nwith beneficial deductions for the taxpayer, there has\nbeen little or no incentive for younger people to help\ncare for their older relatives. It would certainly be\nmost helpful to many younger people if they were able\nto obtain some income deduction or tax credit for caring\nfor their older family members. Such care may be costly\nand a heavy burden on low budget families. They would\nfind it a desirable and useful thing to do if they\ncould afford such care. This would enable many older\npeople to remain in friendly home surroundings rather\nthan be forced into a nursing home.\n3) Another matter which causes great dissatisfaction\namong many older people is the fact that they cannot\ndraw social security benefits and develop small earn-\nings without being penalized for such work. After\nearnings of $2,760 are reached, their social security\nbenefits are reduced $1 for each $2 of earnings. The\nRepublican platform is specific on this and indicates\nthat the party will work for an increase in the earned\nincome ceiling or its complete elimination so that, as\npeople live longer, there will not be the present\npenalty on work. Many older people would welcome the\nopportunity to contribute their talent and know-how\nto the economy in exchange for a small increase in\nincome which most of them badly need. There is some-\nthing morally wrong in putting obstacles in their way\nto prevent them from working and earning additional\nincome to supplement their Social Security pensions\nand, thus, maintain their standard of living.\n4) Our Associations have for some time urged the\nabolition of arbitrary mandatory retirement age\nlevels. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act\nprohibits discrimination in government and private\nemployment between ages 40 and 65. By implication,\ntherefore, it permits discrimination at and over age\n65. We have urged that the 65-year limit be removed\nand that retirement be only on a case-by-case basis,\nthe test being the ability of the individual to carry\non the job in a satisfactory manner. The federal\ngovernment has a mandatory retirement age of 70, which\nis much more realistic than the 65-year age limit\ncommon in many corporations and other organizations.\nThe study which Louis Harris has done of the elderly\nshows clearly that 85 percent of all people questioned\nfeel strongly that retirement should not be forced on\n3\nan arbitrary basis of chronological age, but should be\ndetermined by the ability and willingness to do a com-\npetent job. The present practice of forcing people\nout of the labor force at age 65 stems from passage of\nthe Social Security Act, which sought to encourage\nretirement to make more jobs for younger workers.\nMandatory retirement at 65 today recognizes neither\nmodern life expectancy nor continued ability to per-\nform adequately.\nFinally, the platform specifically refers to other\nareas of concern in connection with the elderly and\nstresses the need for increased attention to home health\ncare and outpatient care. This is a tremendously\nattractive position because all tests have shown that\nan overwhelming majority of older people want to remain\nin their own homes, if it is in any way possible for\nthem to do SO. In order to enable them to do this,\nprovision needs to be made in the states and communi-\nties to enable them to be adequately fed and to have a\nminimum of services, including doctor and nurse visits,\nand assistance in household tasks, shopping, transpor-\ntation and medical supplies and appliances. The\nPresident would be touching upon a very sensitive\nnerve in stressing his belief that home health care,\nincluding social services as well as direct health\nservices, is the direction we should be moving in for\nolder people who would otherwise have to go to a\nnursing home.\nAll of these matters are dealt with in the Republican\nplatform in very specific terms and would lend them-\nselves to a repetition or reiteration by the President\nwith an indication of support which, I am sure from my\nlong experience with the older people of the country,\nwould have great appeal.\nThe polls have also shown that the portion of the\npopulation over 50 years of age is inclined to lean\nin the President's direction. This is an area where\nthe President has an initial advantage but where the\nDemocrats are now preparing to exercise a great deal\nof pressure in an attempt to bring the older voter\nover to their side. It is vitally important that the\nPresident's interest in this very large group of\ncitizens be expressed in positive and specific terms.\n4\nIf I can help in any way to clarify the issues in\nthis area, Bob, please give me a call.\nSincerely,\nJahn John B. Waster Martin\nEnclosure\nLIBRARY AFD\nOLDER N BRICANS\nEP: Our tax laws permit a deducti n to the taxpayer who gives a con-\ntribution to a charitable institution that might care for an\nelderly parent but offer little or no incentive to provide care\nin the home. Incentives must be written into law to encourage\nfamilies to care for their older members.\nWe will work to make the Social Security system actuarially sound\nThe Social Security program must not be turned into a welfare\nsystem based on need rather than contributions. The cost to\nemployers for Social Security contributions must not be raised\nto the point where they will be unable to afford contributions\nto employee private pension programs.\nWe will work for an increase in the earned income ceiling or\nits elimination so that, as people live longer, there will not\nbe the present penalty on work. We will also seek to correct\nthose provisions of the system that now discriminate against\nwomen and married couples.\nWe favor the abolition of arbitrary age levels for mandatory\nretirement.\nThe Medicare program must be improved to control inflation and\nhealth care costs triggered by present regulations.\nOther areas of concern to the elderly that need increased atten-\ntion are home and out-patient care, adequate transportation,\nnutrition, day care, and homemaker care as an alternative to\ncostly institutional treatment.\nDEM:\nadequate income and health care for senior citizens are\nbasic federal government responsibilities.\nhealth costs paid by senior citizens under the present\nsystem must be reduced.\nWe believe that Medicare should be made available to Americans\nabroad who are eligible for Social Security.\nDemocrats strongly support employment programs and the\nliberalization of the allowable earnings limitation under Social\nSecurity for older Americans who wish to continue working and\nliving as productive citizens. We will put an end to delay in\nimplementation of nutrition programs for the elderly and give\nhigh priority to a transportation policy for senior citizens\nunder the Older Americans Act.\nWe pledge to enforce vigorously health and safety standards\nfor nursing homes and seek alternatives which allow senior citizens\nwhere possible to remain in their own homes.\nINFLATION\nREP:\nThe number one destroyer of jobs is inflation.\nIt is above\nall else deficit spending by the Federal Government which erodes\nthe purchasing power of the dollar.\n2\nWage and price controls.\nre always been a dismal failure.\nThe Republican Party strongl opposes any reimposition of such\ncontrols.\nThe independence of the Federal System must be preserved.\nDEM: Americans on fixed incomes, such as the elderly, are often\npushed into poverty by this cruel tax.\nA comprehensive anti-inflation policy must be established to\nassure relative price stability.\nthe Federal Reserve must be made a full partner in national\neconomic decisions and become responsive to the economic goals\nof Congress and to the President.\nEMPLOYMENT\nREP: Massive federally funded public employment programs, such as\nthe Humphrey-Hawkins Bill.\nwill cost billions and can only\nbe financed either through very large tax increases or through\never increasing levels of deficit spending. Sound job creation\ncan only be accomplished in the private sector of the economy.\nIncreased part-time and flexible-hour work should be encouraged\nwherever feasible. In keeping with our belief in family life\nwe want to expand more opportunities for men and women to com-\nbine family responsibilities and employment.\nDEM: The Democratic Party is committed to the right of all adult\nAmericans willing, able and seeking work to have opportunities\nfor useful jobs at living wages\nwe pledge ourselves to the\nsupport of legislation that will make every responsible effort\nto reduce adult unemployment to 3 percent within 4 years.\nRaising the pay standard for overtime work, additional hiring\nof part-time persons and flexible work schedules will increase\nthe independence of workers and create additional job oppor-\ntunities, especially for women.\nHEALTH\nREP: The Republican Party opposes compulsory national health insur-\nance [which] will increase federal government spending by more\nthan $70 billion in its first full year [and] require a per-\nsonal income tax increase of approximately 20 percent.\nWe support extension of catastrophic illness protection to all\nwho cannot obtain it.\nA coordinated effort should be mounted immediately to contain\nthe rapid increase in health care costs by all available means,\nsuch as development of healthier life styles through education,\nimproved preventive care, better distribution of medical man-\npower, emphasis on out-of-hospital services and elimination\nof wasteful duplication of medical services.\nDEM: We should experiment with new forms of medical care delivery\nto mold a national health policy that will meet our needs in\na fiscally responsible manner.\nWe must shift our emphasis in both private and public health\ncare away from hospitalization and acute-care services to\npreventive medicine and the early detection of the major\ncripplers and killers of the American people.\nWe must have national health insurance with strong built-in\ncost and quality controls.\nAlternative approaches to health care delivery, based on pre-\npayment financing, should be encouraged and developed.\nCRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT\nREP: The Federal Criminal Code should include automatic and manda-\ntory minimum sentences for persons committing offenses under\nFederal jurisdiction that involve the use of a dangerous weapon.\nWe support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. We\noppose federal registration of fire arms.\nDEM: We pledge equally vigorous prosecution and punishment for cor-\nporate crime, consumer fraud and deception; programs to combat\nchild abuse and crimes against the élderly.\nestablishing adequate victim compensation programs.\nWays must be found to curtail the availability of [handguns].\nThe Democratic Party must provide the leadership for a coor-\ndinated federal and state effort to strengthen the presently\ninadequate controls over the manufacture assembly, distribu-\ntion and posession of handguns and to ban Saturday night special\nwe support mandatory sentencing for individuals convicted\nof committing a felony with a gun.\nTAX REFORM\nREP: As in 1972, we urge prompt passage of the Republican sponsored\nlegislation now pending in Congress which will increase the\nestate tax exemption to $200,000, allow valuation of farm pro-\nperty on a current use basis and provide for extension of the\ntime of payment in the case of farms and small businesses.\nThis overdue estate and gift tax legislation must be approved\nthis year. We favor a liberalized marital deduction and oppose\ncapital gains tax at death.\nWe support economic and tax policies to insure the necessary\njob-producing expansion of our economy. These include hastening\ncapital recovery through new systems of accelerated depreciation,\nremoving the tax burden on equity financing to encourage more\ncapital investment, ending the unfair double taxation of divi-\ndends, and supporting proposals to enhance the ability of our\nworking and other citizens to own 'a piece of the action' through\n4\nstock ownership. When balanced by expenditure reductions, the\npersonal exemption should be raised to $1,000.\nDEM: We pledge the Democratic Party to a complete overhaul of the\npresent tax system, which will review all special tax provisions\nto ensure that they are justified and distributed equitably\namong our citizens.\nWe will overhaul federal estate and gift taxes to provide an\neffective and equitable structure to promote tax justice and\nalleviate some of the legitimate problems faced by farmers,\nsmall business men and women and others who would otherwise\nbe forced to liquidate assets in order to pay the tax.\nthe Democratic Party's goal of redistributing the burden\nof the social security tax by raising the wage base for earnings\nsubject to the tax with effective exemptions and deductions to\nease the impact on low income workers and two-earner families.\nFurther revision in the Social Security program will be required\nso that women are treated as individuals.\nWELFARE REFORM\nREP: We oppose federalizing the welfare system.\nWe also oppose\nthe guaranteed annual income concept or any programs that\nreduce the incentive to work.\nDEM: We should move toward replacement of our existing inadequate\nand wasteful system with a simplified system of income main-\ntenance, substantially financed by the federal government, which\nincludes a requirement that those able to work be provided\nwith appropriate available jobs or job training opportunities.\nENERGY\nREP: We must immediately eliminate price controls on oil and newly\ndiscovered natural gas in order to increase supply.\nWe support accelerated use of nuclear energy through processes\nthat have been proven safe. Government research should be ex-\npanded 'to perfect a long-term solution to the problems of nu-\nclear waste.\nWe vigorously oppose.\ndivestiture of oil companies -- a move\nwhich would surely result in higher energy costs, inefficiency\nand under-capitalization of the industry.\nDEM: We should narrow the gap between oil and natural gas prices with\nnew natural gas ceiling prices that maximize production and in-\nvestment while protecting the economy and the consumer. Any\nreforms in the pricing of new natural gas should not be at the\ncost of severe economic dislocations that would accelerate in-\nflation and increase unemployment.\nWe will provide new incentives for aiding individual homeowners,\nparticularly average income families and the poor in under-\ntaking conservation investments. We will support the reform of\nutility rate structures and egulatory rules to encourage con-\nservation and ease the utility rate burden on residential users,\nfarmers and other consumers who can least afford it; make more\nefficient use of electrical generating capacity; and we will\naggressively pursue implementation of automobile efficiency\nstandards and appliance labeling programs already established\nby Democratic initiative in the Energy Policy and Conservation Ac\nENVIRONMENT\nREP: A clean and healthy natural environment is the rightful heritage\nof every American. In order to preserve this heritage, we will\nprovide for proper development of resources, safeguards for\nclean air and water, and protection and enhancement of our re-\ncreation and scenic areas.\nEmphasis on environmental concerns must be brought into balance\nwith the needs for industrial and economic growth.\nDEM:\nthe Democratic Party believes that a concern for the en-\nvironment need not and must not stand in the way of a much-\nneeded policy of high economic growth.\nWe pledge to continue to work for additional laws to protec\nrestore and preserve the environment while providing still more\njobs.\nHOUSING\nREP: All of our citizens should be given the opportunity to live in\ndecent, affordable housing.\nTo meet the housing needs of this country there must be a con-\ntinuous, stable and adequate flow of funds for the purpose of\nreal estate mortgages at realistic interest rates.\nTo continue to encourage home ownership, we support the de-\nductibility of interest on home mortgages and property taxes.\nWe favor the concept of federal revenue sharing and block grant:\nto reduce the excessive burden of the property tax in financing\nlocal government.\nWe are concerned with the excessive reliance of financing welfar\nand public school costs primarily with the property tax.\nDEM: We support the expansion of the highly successful programs of\ndirect federal subsidies to provide housing for the elderly.\nTo assist further in relieving both the fiscal and service de-\nlivery problems of states and local governments, the Democratic\nParty reaffirms its support for general revenue sharing as a\nbase for the fiscal health of all levels of government, acknowl-\nedging that the civil rights and citizens' participation pro-\nvisions must be strengthened.\nWomen, the elderly, single persons and minorities are still ex-\ncluded from exercising their right to select shelter in the\n6\nareas of their choice, and many \"high risk\" communities are\nsystematically denied access to the capital they require.\nThe Democratic Party pledges itself to the aggressive\nenforcement of the Fair Housing Act; to the promotion and\nenforcement of equal opportunity in housing; and to the pur-\nsuit of new regulatory and incentive policies aimed at pro-\nviding minority groups and women with equal access to mortgage\ncredit.\nTRANSPORTATION\nREP:\nWe support the concept of a surface transportation block grant\nwhich would include the various highway and mass transit pro-\ngrams now in existence. This will provide local elected of-\nficials maximum flexibility in selecting and implementing the\nbalanced tranportation systems best suited to each locality.\nIt will encompass both capital and operating subsidies for\nurban mass transit. It will eliminate red tape and over-\nregulation.\nDEM:\nwe will work to expand substantially the discretion avail-\nable to states and cities in the use of federal transportation\nmoney, for either operating expenses or capital programs, on\nthe modes of transportation which they choose.\nWe will change further the current restrictive limits on the\nuse of mass transit funds by urban and rural localities SO\nthat greater amounts can be used as operating subsidies.\nCONSUMER PROTECTION\nREP: We continue to support farmer cooperatives, including rural\nelectric and telephone cooperatives, in their efforts to\nimprove services to their members.\nWe need a comprehensive approach to plan, develop and imple-\nment a variety of programs which take into account the many\ndiverse needs of each neighborhood. The establishment of a\nNational Neighborhood Policy will signal a commitment in\nthe improvement of the quality of life in our neighborhoods.\nDEM: We shall encourage consumer groups to establish and operate\nconsumer cooperatives that will enable consumers to provide\nthemselves market-place alternatives and to provide a competi-\ntive spur to profit-oriented enterprises.\nWe support\nfederal standards for state no-fault insurance\nprograms.\nWe\nsupport\nfull funding of neighborhood legal services\nfor the poor.\nThe Democratic Party is committed to\nstrengthening the\nknowledge and bargaining power of consumers through government-\nsupported systems for developing objective product performance\nstandards; advertising and Tal eling requirements for the dis-\nclosure of essential consumer information; and efficient and\nlow-cost redress of consumer complaints including strengthened\nsmall claims courts, informal dispute settlement mechanisms,\nand consumer class actions.\nEDUCATION\nREP: We propose consolidating federal categorical grant programs\ninto block grants and turning the money over to the states\nto use in accordance with their own needs and priorities and\nwith minimum bureaucratic controls.\nDEM: The Party commits itself to support of adult education and\ntraining which will provide skills upgrading.\nIn higher education, our Party is strongly committed to ex-\ntending postsecondary opportunities for students from low-\nand middle-income families, including older students and student\nwho can attend only part-time.\nCIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS\nREP:\nMajor changes\nare needed to maintain the confidentiality\nof tax returns and Social Security records.\nThere must be vigorous enforcement of laws to assure equal\ntreatment in job recruitment, hiring, promotion, pay, credit,\nmortgage access and housing.\nWomen, who comprise a numerical majority of the population,\nhave been denied a just portion of our nation's rights and\nopportunities. We reaffirm our pledge to work to eliminate\ndiscrimination in all areas for reason of race, color, national\norigin, age, creed or sex and to enforce vigorously laws guar-\nanteeing women equal rights.\nDEM:\nWe must insure that all citizens are treated equally be-\nfore the law and given the opportunity regardless of race, color\nsex, religion, age, language or national origin, to participate\nfully in the economic, social and political processes and to\nvindicate their legal and constitutional rights.\nWe are committed to full implementation and enforcement of\nthe Equal Credit Opportunity Act.\nRURAL AMERICA\nREP: Rural America must be maintained as a rewarding place to live.\nTo accomplish this, our rural areas are entitled to services\ncomparable to their urban neighbors, such as water and sewage\nsystems, improved electricity and telephone service, adequate\ntransportation, available and adequate financial credit, and\nemployment opportunities which will allow small farmers to\nsupplement their incomes.\nDEM: - While it is bad enough to be I or, or old, or alone in the\ncity, it is worse in the count cy. We are therefore committed\nto overcome the problems of rural as well as urban isolation\nand poverty by insuring the existence of adequate educational\nopportunity and needed transportation throughout rural America.\nWe believe that transportation dollars should be available\nin a manner to permit their flexible use. In rural areas this\nmeans they could be used for such needs as secondary road im-\nprovement, taxi systems, buses, or other systems to overcome\nthe problems of widely dispersed populations, to facilitate\nprovisions of social services and to assure access of citizens\nto meet human needs.\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN\nDEPARTMENT\n%\nDEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT\nU.S.\n*\nHOUSING\nTHE SECRETARY\nAND\nSeptember 21, 1976\nwww.n\nRobert Hartman\nTO\n:\nCounselor to the President\nFROM: Carla A. Hills\nAttached are two additional questions\nand answers which concern allegations\nrecently made by Mr. Carter.\nThey may be useful to the President\nin preparing for the upcoming debate.\nLICRARY\nQ.\nIsn't the home ownership proposal you made at Ann Arbor,\nMichigan, similar to the bill you vetoed last year to provide\nsubsidies for homeowners?\nBackground. Carter has charged the proposal offered by \"Candidate\"\nFord is like the one vetoed earlier by \"President\" Ford. The\nlead editorial in the Sunday New York Times picked up the charge\nas follows:\nThe President's most specific proposal was for legislation\nto aid \"every American family that wants to own a home and\nis willing to work and save for it.\" To that end, Mr. Ford\ncalled for subsidies that would substantially reduce the\nrequired down payments on homes. But as was the case with\nhis earlier promise to expand the nation's public parkland,\nthe new proposal by candidate Ford seemed to ignore President\nFord's negative action in the very area in which he now\npromised positive movement. Specifically, the President last\nyear vetoed a measure to reduce home-buyers' mortgage rates,\nsubsequently giving his approval only after Congress came\nback with a less generous subsidy.\n1.\nMy homeownership proposal does not call for new subsidies.\nIt lowers the FHA downpayment and permits graduated mortgage\npayments which would allow lower monthly payments in the\nearly mortgage years when the earnings of homebuyers,\nparticularly the young, are not as great as can be expected\nlater. When statutory changes are obtained, these proposals\nshould expand opportunities for home ownership.\n2.\nThe Emergency Housing bill which I vetoed in 1975 would have\nrequired taxpayers to subsidize mortgage interest payments\nabove 6%.\nFORD LIBRARY is\n3.\nThat bill, which Mr. Carter now says I should have signed,\nwas labeled \"a turkey that won't fly\" by Lud Ashley, the\nDemocratic Congressman who subsequently was named by his\ncolleagues as Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee of the\nHouse Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing. He voted\nto sustain the veto. That veto was also supported by the\nmost distinguished member of the Subcommittee, Bob Stephens,\nfrom Mr. Carter's home State of Georgia, and it was supported\nby many other Democrats including Congressman Tom Rees of\nCalifornia, another member of the Housing Subcommittee.\n4.\nIf the bill which Mr. Carter now says I should have signed,\nhad become law, families who bought a home prior to its\nenactment of that bill at a higher interest rate, say 9%,\nwould now be subsidizing their neighbor's montly payment\neven though their neighbor's income was identical or even\nhigher.\n5.\nWhat happened after that veto was sustained? Within 24 hours\na new bill incorporating my suggestions for expanding the\nGinnie Mae Tandem program was introduced and passed before\nthe week was over. It had the added benefit of avoiding the\ncertain delays inherent in developing and implementing new\nregulations, and adding yet another layer of bureaucracy.\n6.\nWhat has happened since? The rate of inflation has been\nhalved for which at least some credit must be given to\nvetoing that \"turkey that wouldn't fly,\" and the rate of\nnew home starts has risen dramatically.\nQ.\nCarter, both in his Housing Issues Paper and in a prepared\nspeech given in Brooklyn in early September, charged that\nmore than 200 officials of HUD have been convicted for\nbribing or corruption. Is this true?\nA.\nThere have been a total of 57 convictions of HUD employees\nsince HUD's formation ten years ago, and only one was for\nan infraction that occurred after August 9, 1974, the date\nI took office.\nI am not happy with one conviction, and I have demanded\nintegrity of our Federal employees.\nI believe that the vast majority have responded with earnest\nhard work.\nIt is unfair to them to use false statistics and gross\nexaggerations.\nUNIVERSITY\nor\nMOUSING\n*\nDEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT\n!\nOFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20410\nSeptember 21, 1976\nPHONE\nFROM: Sm Sol Mosher\n755-7380\nTO:\nBob Hartmann\nBob,\nThe attached is being furnished by the\nSecretary's Office through usual White House\nchannels for Debate use. I hope you can take\ntime to read it, because I believe it can be\nused in discussions of vetoes even if this\nparticular question is never asked. It should\nafford Mr. Carter a great deal of embarrassment.\nAttachment\n\"The Turkey That Won't Fly\"\nQ. Isn't the home ownership proposal you made at Ann Arbor, Michigan,\nsimilar to the bill you vetoed last year to provide subsidies for\nhomeowners?\nBackground. Carter has charged the proposal offered by \"Candidate\" Ford\nis like the one vetoed earlier by \"President\" Ford. The lead editorial\nin the Sunday New York Times picked up the charge as follows:\nThe President's most specific proposal was for legislation\nto aid \"every American family that wants to own a home and\nis willing to work and save for it.\" To that end, Mr. Ford\ncalled for subsidies that would substantially reduce the\nrequired down payments on homes. But as was the case with\nhis earlier promise to expand the nation's public parkland,\nthe new proposal by candidate Ford seemed to ignore President\nFord's negative action in the very area in which he now\npromised positive movement. Specifically, the President last\nyear vetoed a measure to reduce home-buyers' mortgage rates,\nsubsequently giving his approval only after Congress came\nback with a less generous subsidy.\n1. Homeownership proposal does not call for new subsidies as portrayed by\nCarter. Provides lowering of FHA downpayment, and graduated mortgage\npayments which would permit lower monthly payments in first years of\nyoung homebuyers when their earnings are not as great as can be\nexpected later. When statutory changes are obtained these proposals\nshould give a boost to both the goal of home ownership and annual housing\nstarts which are already trending upwards in dramatic fashion.\n2. The Emergency Housing bill which I vetoed in 1975 would have required\ntaxpayers to subsidize mortgage interest payments above 6%, a rate\nbelow the rate at which some of our strongest homebuilding years occurred.\n- 2 -\n3. The bill which Mr. Carter now says I should have signed in 1975 was\nLud Ashley\nlabeled \"a turkey that won't fly\" by the Democratic Congressman who\nsubsequently was named by his colleagues as Chairman of the Housing\nSubcommittee of the House Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing.\nHe voted to sustain the veto. That veto was also supported by the\nmost distinguished member of the Subcommittee, Bob Stephens, from\nMr. Carter's home State of Georgia, and indeed by many members of the\nGeorgia delegation. It was supported by many other Democrats includ-\ning Congressman Tom Rees of California, another member of the Housing\nSubcommittee. I think it took great courage on the part of these\nmembers and others to vote their convictions on a bad bill and not\nfollow the advice of their party leadership in seeking out a needless\nconfrontation.\n4. If the bill which Mr. Carter now says I should have signed, had become\nlaw, you would have a situation today where families who bought a home\nprior to enactment of that bill at a higher interest rate, say 7%, would\nbe subsidizing his neighbor's monthly payment even though their income\nwas identical. He might even be earning more money than his neighbor\nwho was getting no subsidy.\n5. Now what happened after that veto was sustained? Within 24 hours\na new bill incorporating my suggestions for expanding the Ginnie Mae\nTandem program was introduced and passed before the week was over.\n- 3 -\nIt had the added benefit of avoiding the certain delays inherent in\ndeveloping and implementing new regulations, and adding yet another\nlayer of bureaucracy.\n6. What has happened since? The rate of inflation has been halved for\nwhich at least some credit must be given to vetoing that \"turkey that\nwouldn't fly,\" and the rate of new home starts has risen dramatically.\n7. Perhaps when this debate is over, Mr. Carter ought to consider\ndebating some of the members of his party who supported the veto and\nlearn from them why it was bad legislation.\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SKEN\nJOHN REAGAN McCRARY\n161 EAST 61st STREET\nNEW YORK 21, NEW YORK\nN McCRARY\nDear Bob\nhastily.\nnobody but you seems to understand how\nimportant words are in this boob-tube age. As I once explained\nto Bill Safire, \"the only time Nixon ever got a quote in a banner\nline was when be said, 'I am not a crook'.\"\nAnd Nixon is the only President who never made \"Bartlett's\nFamilian Quotations\".\nYour guy has scored with \"Truth is the glue\" - but he's\nhad to use it three times, and each time it sounds better.\nbut\nhow about using this one in the wake of Jimmy Carter wallowing\nin FOR's Warm Springs:\n\"The only thing we have to fear.\nis\nthe\nRean.\nof being\nfooled. again.\"\nThat takes care of Carten, and Nixan, and underscored their\nsimilarities.\nOne more suggestion: How dong since you Read Lillian\nHellman's Little Foxes\"? Read it again. you'll recognize Jimmy\nCarten in Ben Hubband.\nSend all your Media friends, and foes, copies.\nAnd stay well, stay winner.\nTex"
}