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
118566574
label
01/28/1982 (case file 056767) (4)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118566574
contentType
document
title
01/28/1982 (case file 056767) (4)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
439
collections
Records of the Office of the President (Reagan Administration)
Presidential Briefing Papers
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118566574
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1988-12-31
year
1988
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
38820c7b42389991
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual
collections.
Collection: President, Office of the: Presidential
Briefing Papers: Records, 1981-1989
Folder Title: 01/28/1982 (Case File: 056767)
(4)
Box: 13
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
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection: President, Office of the: Presidential Briefing Papers:
Archivist: kdb
Records
OA/Box: CFOA 741
FOIA ID: F00-084/2, Fish
File Folder: 01/28/1982 (casefile 056767) (4)
Date: 06/17/2005
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
NO. & TYPE
1. scheduling
re meeting with Special Medical Advisory Group of Veterans
1/27/82
B6
memo
Administration (page 2, partial)
2. schedule
re private dinner, 1p
n.d.
B6
3. chart
seating chart for private dinner, 1p
n.d.
B6
RESTRICTIONS
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA].
B-2 Release could disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA].
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA].
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA].
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA].
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA].
B-7a Release could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings [(b)(7)(A) of the FOIA].
B-7b Release would deprive an individual of the right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication [(b)(7)(B) of the FOIA]
B-7c Release could reasonably be expected to cause unwarranted invasion or privacy [(b)(7)(C) of the FOIA].
B-7d Release could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source [(b)(7)(D) of the FOIA].
B-7e Release would disclose techniques or procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions or would disclose guidelines which could reasonably be
expected to risk circumvention of the law [(b)(7)(E) of the FOIA].
B-7f Release could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual [(b)(7)(F) of the FOIA].
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA].
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA].
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
E
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 27, 1982
MEETING WITH THE CABINET COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
DATE:
January 28, 1982
TIME:
2:30 p.m. (60 minutes)
LOCATION:
Cabinet Room
FROM:
CRAIG L. FULLER
I.
PURPOSE
This meeting of the Cabinet Council on Economic Affairs
has been scheduled to provide you with a briefing on
three matters that have been under discussion for the
past few weeks. Of particular interest, I believe, is
the paper from Secretary Donovan on unemployment.
II. BACKGROUND
The following three items are set for the agenda:
1. Review of the Economic Outlook.
Murray Weidenbaum will present a review of the
latest economic indicators and his views with
regard to prospects for recovery. No papers are
attached. Charts will be presented at the
meeting.
2.
Unemployment and the Unemployment Compensation
System.
Secretary Donovan has prepared a paper on
unemployment. An summary of the paper is also
attached. In separate discussions, Ray has
indicated that he would like to divert resources
into job training efforts. As we discussed with
you during lunch today, some of these programs
have been reduced. To the extent that the
Secretary has money available, diverting some
resources into training programs that would aid
people in finding employment in the private sector
is consistent with what we have been trying to
accomplish.
Ray may also mention his desire to have a task
force established to assist the defense industry
in securing people who may have been laid-off in
other "related" industries. For example, Rockwell
International is involved in a program in which
they are hiring unemployed auto workers to assist
in the production of the B-1. These types of
programs show promise. I asked Ray to present
such recommendations in a separate paper which he
has agreed to do.
3.
Financial Institution Reform.
Don Regan will provide you with a status report on
the administration's legislation in this area. A
paper is being prepared but was not available for
tonight's packet.
III. PARTICIPANTS
A list will be attached to the agenda.
IV. PRESS PLAN
White House photographer only.
V.
SEQUENCE
Once the meeting is called to order, Don Regan will
make a few opening comments and turn to Murray for the
first presentation.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
SECRETARY OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D.C.
January 26, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CABINET COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The RAYMOND Recent J. Unemployment DONOVAN Regroad Picture I
Enclosed are copies of a report prepared by my
staff on The Recent Unemployment Picture for
consideration by the Cabinet Council at its
January 28 meeting. The paper contains a dis-
cussion of the following:
(1) the magnitude and composition of the
unemployment increase;
(2) a comparison of unemployment in this
recession with that of earlier recessions;
(3) an explanation of the workings of the
Unemployment Insurance (UI) system;
(4) the FY 1982 outlook for UI; and
(5) likely Congressional initiatives on UI.
Enclosure
The Recent Unemployment Picture: An
Executive Summary
Unemployment has risen steadily since summer when the recession
began, and last month reached 8.9 percent of the labor force.
In the last few months, job losses have been especially large
in the five major metals and metal-using industries within
manufacturing--primary and fabricated metals, machinery,
electrical equipment, and transportation equipment. There has
been a great deal of speculation about the severity of the
current decline. Since July of last year, the number of
unemployed persons has risen by somewhat more than 20 percent,
close to the increase which occurred in the comparable period
of 1980. The overall decline in payroll jobs in the current
recession has been far less than that which occurred in 1974-
75. Thus, the current recession is less severe than the 1974-
75 recession, but more serious than the recession of 1980.
Although high unemployment represents a severe national
problem, joblessness must be kept in proper perspective:
Almost half of the unemployed are under 25 have
little prior labor force attachment. Half of these
are teenagers.
Among the currently unemployed, 3 out of 5 are job
losers. The remaining 2 out of 5 comprise new
entrants and reentrants to the labor force and those
who have voluntarily quit their job.
For most individuals, unemployment is relatively
brief in duration.
While the social impact of unemployment should be
minimized, most individuals who experience unemploy-
ment have family incomes close to the average of all
families. Among individuals who experienced some
unemployment in 1980, the average annual family
income was $19,400, only $3,800 below the average for
all families. Only 18 percent of the unemployed had
family incomes below the official poverty line.
The Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program was established in 1935
to provide income support to workers over temporary periods of
unemployment. The two major components of the UI program are
the "regular" UI Program, and the Extended Benefits Program,
both of which are financed by a joint state-federal payroll
tax.
-2-
If a state does not have adequate funds for the payment of
benefits, interest-free advances are available from the Federal
Government to assure that benefits will be paid. As of
December 31, 1981, 17 states had outstanding loans totalling
over 6 billion dollars. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1981 requires that advances made to states after March 31,
1982 will bear interest not to exceed 10 percent. States which
have outstanding advances for approximately two years may
either repay the advances in full or have their federal tax
increased.
The Extended Benefit Program, enacted in 1970, provides for
extending the duration of benefits in periods of high unemploy-
ment. Under the Extended Benefit Program, a state must extend
the duration of benefits by 50 percent when its insured
unemployment rate reaches a specified level. As of this week,
the Extended Benefit Program had "triggered on" in twelve
states.
The current financial position of the Trust Fund is shaky. In
FY 1982, estimated benefit outlays for the regular UI program
will be $19.5 billion. Incoming revenues from states to
finance these benefits will be only $12.5 billion. Thus, a
revenue shortfall of 7 billion in the regular UI program is
predicted. If as expected, 46 states trigger on for Extended
Benefits in FY 1982, the shortfall for both the regular and
Extended Benefit Program will be $9.0 billion in FY 1982.
Approximately $3.6 billion of this will have to be financed
from general revenues.
Congress has passed emergency extensions of the maximum
duration of benefits in four of the seven post-World War II
recessions. This time they will probably propose to extend
benefits beyond the existing 39 weeks via a Federal Supplementary
Benefit program of either 13 weeks of 26 weeks. When such a
program was enacted during the 1974-75 recession, it resulted
in advances from general revenues, 5.7 billion dollars of which
are still unpaid. A move may also be made to reinstitute
the National Trigger for extended benefits that was eliminated
in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981.
The Recent Unemployment Picture
Unemployment has risen steadily since summer when the
recession began. Its growth is illustrated in Figure 1.
The overall unemployment rate has increased by 0.3
percentage points or more in each month since last August,
and last month reached 8.9 percent of the labor force.
In the 5 months since July, almost 800 thousand workers
have been dropped from the payrolls of the Nation's
business establishments in the important goods-producing
sector. Employment growth in the service-producing
sector of the economy, which is generally less affected
by recession than the goods-producing sector, has
weakened considerably since July and has in fact declined
in the last two months.
The decline in employment began in the interest-sensitive
construction and automobile industries and has now
spread to the entire manufacturing sector, where almost
700 thousand jobs have been lost since July. In the
last few months, job losses have been especially large
in the five major metals and metal-using industries
within manufacturing--primary and fabricated metals,
machinery, electrical equipment, and transportation
equipment. The factory workweek has been shortened, and
overtime hours in manufacturing have been curtailed.
FIGURE 1
Overall Unemployment Rate, 1969-81
Percent
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 18, 1982.
- 2 -
In summary, the growth in unemployment during the last
5 months have been swift and sizeable. At present,
the employment reductions have been largely confined
to the manufacturing sector, especially durable goods
industries. However, there are some indications that
the recession may be spreading to the service and trade
industries. The unemployment statistics for the month
of January, which will be released on February 5th,
will be particularly informative about the likely extent
and depth of the recession.
Composition of Unemployment
The number of unemployed workers in December was about
1.9 million above the July level. Two-thirds of this
increase occurred among adult men. In fact, the
December jobless rate for adult men was a full half
percentage point above the rate for adult women, a most
unusual situation. The unemployment rate for these men
has risen since July from 5.6 to 8.0 percent. This
extremely large increase in adult male unemployment
results from the fact that men are much more likely than
women to be employed in the goods-producing sector and
especially in durable manufacturing industries, where
most of the recent employment declines have taken place.
- 3 -
Another reason for the disparity in the jobless rates
for men and women, however, is the fact that women's
labor force participation has not increased since the
summer. In recent years, women have entered the labor
force in increasing numbers. The past increase in their
labor force participation rates has been strong and
continuous, but the trend has abated in recent months.
This long-term pattern of labor force growth for women
is quite likely to resume in the future. Should these
female labor force increases occur before job opportunities
begin to expand, or should recession make further inroads
into the service-sector of the economy, unemployment
among adult women can be expected to rise faster than it
has in the past few months.
Jobless rates for the black population, who always have
greater difficulty in the job market than the white
population, have remained in the 14 to 16 percent range
for most of the last year and a half. The black unemployment
rate did not recover from the deterioration experienced
during the 1980 recession to the same extent that the
white unemployment rate did. As a result, the historic
ratio of 2 to l between jobless rates for blacks and
whites has widened, and the black unemployment rate was
more than twice the rate for whites during most of 1981.
- 4 -
As one would expect in a period of economic downturn,
most of the unemployed (almost three-fifths in December)
were out of work because they had lost their last job.
Of the total increase in unemployment, over four-fifths
stemmed from loss of a job. The number of workers who
voluntarily left their jobs in search of others and the
number of new labor force entrants and reentrants
dropped.
Since increasing numbers of workers lose their jobs
during a recession, the number of newly unemployed
persons can be expected to increase. In December, about
three-quarters of the unemployed had been without jobs
for 14 weeks or less. Only about 12 percent were
jobless 27 weeks or more.
In summary, one of the most important demographic
factors in the current recession is that job loss has
been centered on adult men. The unemployment rate of
adult men is now not only higher than the rate among
women, but is at its highest level relative to women
since the second World War. Although the unemployment
rate among blacks is more than twice that of whites,
blacks appear to have suffered equally with whites in
the recession.
- 5 -
Comparison with Previous Recessions
Labor market conditions have deteriorated markedly during
the current recession, and there has been a great deal
of speculation about the severity of the decline. For
that reason, it is instructive to compare the changes
since last July, when the current recession began, with
the conditions of earlier recessions. One important
difference between the current period and earlier ones,
however, is that the unemployment rate at the start of
the current recession was about 7 percent.
Since July of last year, the number of unemployed
persons has risen by somewhat more than 20 percent,
close to the increase which occurred in the comparable
period of 1980. Although in December, employment in
manufacturing and construction were slightly below the
levels to which they had dropped in 1980, the overall
decline in payroll jobs in the current recession has
been far less than that which occurred in 1974-75. At
that time, unemployment rose slowly for several months
and then began to increase sharply after August 1974.
Between August 1974 and January 1975, factory jobs
declined at almost twice the rate of the drop during the
current recession. At that time, the level of unemployment
rose 50 percent, almost twice the percentage change of
the current recession.
- 6 -
Judging from unemployment and employment data, the current
recession is thus far less severe than the 1974-75 recession,
but more serious than the recession of 1980. Just how
deep and how long the current recession will be is at
present unclear.
Nevertheless, there is already considerable pressure for
Administration action to address the rising unemployment
problem. This pressure will become more intense since
Congress has reconvened this week, and will likely take
the form of proposed changes in the Unemployment Insurance
(UI) Program. Before we turn to a description of the
current UI program and its ability to alleviate some of
the hardship of high unemployment it will be instructive
to examine some relevant characteristics of the unemployed.
Some characteristics of the unemployed
Although high unemployment represents a severe national
problem, joblessness must be kept in proper perspective.
In a typical year most spells of unemployment are of
relatively short duration. Unfortunately, data on the
length of completed spells of unemployment are not avail-
able for 1980. The last year for which these data are
available is 1978. In that year the average spell of
- 7 -
unemployment lasted only 6 weeks. Moreover, sixty percent
of the spells lasted 4 weeks or less. Only 3.4 percent
of all spells lasted longer than 26 weeks. Even during
a year of a deep recession, unemployment spells are
relatively short. In 1975, for example, 48 percent of
all unemployment spells lasted four weeks or less and
only 6.7 percent lasted longer than 26 weeks. Although
many individuals who experience brief spells of unemploy-
ment suffer from multiple spells, the data on unemployment
duration show clearly that most unemployment is short-
lived.
The observation that spells of unemployment are of a
relatively short duration is important for public policy,
reflecting the fact that much of unemployment is a
temporary and transitional phenonemon. However, it is
easily misinterpreted. It does not mean that a majority
of currently unemployed individuals are expected to
remain unemployed for a total of less than five weeks.
While spells of long duration during the course of a
year are relatively infrequent, individuals who experience
them are more likely to be observed at any point in
time as compared to those who experience short spells.
Spells of short duration that occur during a year are
more likely to have already ended or not yet begun. Thus,
at any point in time, such as December of 1981, unemployed
- 8 -
individuals are more likely to include those who will be
unemployed for longer spells of unemployment. In fact,
based on past experience, those individuals who are
currently unemployed can expect to remain in this state
for an additional 10-12 weeks.
Family income statistics on the unemployed indicate that
most individuals who experience unemployment have family
incomes that are close to the average of all families.
Among individuals who experienced some unemployment in
1980, the average annual family income was $19,400,
while the average annual income among all families in
that year was $23,200. Among, the unemployed, 40 percent
had annual family incomes above $20,000 and only 18
percent had family incomes below the official poverty
line. Even among the long term unemployed (27 weeks or
more) family incomes averaged over $16,000 in 1980.
The income statistcs are even more striking when we
consider unemployed workers in the industries that have
borne the major brunt of the recent downturn in
employment: metals, machinery, transportation equipment
and chemicals. In 1980, a year of a mild recession,
- 9 -
unemployed workers in these industries had family
incomes that average over $21,000. Among those who were
unemployed for 27 weeks or longer in that year, family
income averaged $17,680.
In summary, before proceeding with policy recommendations
it is important to keep the unemployment statistics in
proper perspective. Most unemployment spells, even
those which occur during a year of a severe recession,
are relatively short. Most of the unemployed, even
those who experience long spells of income, have other
family members who can and do provide economic support,
and as a consequence have resources adequate to meet
their living expenses.
Overview of the Unemployment Insurance Program
The Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program was established
as part of the Social Security Act of 1935. It is a
unique Federal-State partnership grounded in Federal
law, but executed through State law. The program was
created to provide income support to tide workers with a
- 10 -
reasonable labor force attachment over temporary periods
of unemployment. There are two major components of the
UI program: a "regular" UI Program and an Extended
Benefits Program.
The "regular" UI program is the primary component of the
UI program. States are responsible for determining
eligibility requirements, weekly benefit levels, the
benefit duration (usually expressed in weeks), and
program administration. Although state programs vary
considerably, they have a number of features in common.
Weekly benefit levels are usually set at one-half the
average weekly wages lost because of unemployment. In
35 states the ceiling on the amount of weekly benefits
is established as a specified percentage (ranging from
50 to 70) of the statewide average weekly wage in
covered employment during the preceeding 12-month period.
Generally, the maximum amount of time an individual can
receive benefits under the "regular" UI program is 26
weeks. However, in 9 states the maximum duration is
greater than 26 weeks and in one state it is less. But
not all claimants qualify for 26 weeks of benefits.
Most states vary the benefit duration according to the
claimant's work experience and wages during a base period.
- 11 -
All but 12 states provide that no benefits will be paid
for the first week of unemployment after a claim is
first filed. Thus, most states have a one-week waiting
period.
All states set qualifying requirements so that only
workers with a reasonably firm attachment to the labor
force qualify for benefits. Accordingly, all states
require a specified amount of wages or a specified
number of weeks of work (or both) during a 12-month
period prior to the claim for benefits.
The "regular" UI program is financed by state and
federal payroll taxes on employers¹. The Federal tax
is 0.7 percent of the first $6,000 of wages paid to an
employee. The federal tax is used to pay for the
administrative costs of the program, to provide a fund
from which states may borrow when their funds become
depleted, and to finance one-half the benefits paid
under the Extended Benefits Program. (This program is
discussed later.) The state tax rates and the level of
wages subject to the tax vary from state to state. In
1980, 20 states had taxable wage bases above $6,000.
The state tax rate applied to the employer also varies
within states, depending upon the employer's prior unemployment
experience.
1/ Alabama, Alaska, and New Jersey also levy a tax on
employees.
- 12 -
In 1980, the estimated average tax rate for all states
was 2.4 percent of taxable wages (ranging from 0.5 in
Texas to 4.2 percent in Rhode Island). State taxes
finance the full cost of regular benefits and the
state's share of extended benefits. At present,
virtually all employees are covered by the regular UI
program (97 percent of total employment of wage and
salary workers.)
If a state does not have adequate funds for the payment
of benefits, interest-free advances are available from
the Federal Government to assure that benefits will be
paid. As of December 31, 1981, 17 states had outstanding
loans totalling 6.27 billion dollars. The Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981 requires that advances made
to states after March 31, 1982 will bear interest not to
exceed 10 percent. States which have outstanding advances
for approximately two years may either repay the advances
in full or have their federal tax increased by a minimum
of 0.3 percent each year up to a maximum of 2.7 percent
until the advances are fully repaid.
The Extended Benefit Program was enacted in 1970. It
provides for extending the duration of benefits in
periods of high unemployment. Under the Extended
Benefit Program, a state must extend the duration of
- 13 -
benefits by 50 percent (up to a maximum of 13 weeks)
when its insured unemployment rate reaches a specified
level. The states insured unemployment rate is analogous
to the regular unemployment rate, except that it applies
only to workers receiving regular UI benefits and workers
in firms covered by the regular UI program. One-half
the cost of the Extended Benefit Program is financed out
of state taxes and the other one-half out of the 0.7
percent federal unemployment tax.
As of this week, the Extended Benefit Program had "triggered
on" in twelve states.
The FY 1982 Outlook for the UI Program
The continued high rates of unemployment during the
1970's have undermined the financial footing of the UI
system. The current recession is likely financially to
weaken the system further and to lead to increased
advances from general revenues.
The current financial position of the Trust Fund is
shaky. Their are 17 states whose Trust Fund balances
have been depleted and which have outstanding loans which
total $6.17 billion. The remaining states have positive
balances totaling $6.2 billion. However, two states,
- 14 -
California and Florida account for two-thirds of the
positive reserves. Many states are close to the margin.
Based on the official administration economic assumptions
for FY 1982*, estimated benefit outlays for the regular
UI program will be $19.5 billion. Incoming revenues
from states to finance these benefits will be only $12.5
billion. Thus, a revenue shortfall of 7 billion in the
regular UI program is predicted.
In addition, it is predicted that as many as 46 states
may be triggered on for Extended Benefits in FY 1982.
FY 1982 Revenues for the Extended Benefit Program are
estimated to be $1.16 billion while estimated outlays
are $3.2 billion.
Thus, projected outlays are expected to exceed projected
revenues for both the regular and Extended Benefit Program
by $9.0 billion in FY 1982. Some of this difference
will be financed by positive balance states that will
draw down their balances. Approximately $3.8 billion,
however, will have to be financed by advances from
general revenues.
*January 11, 1982 assumptions. Confidential until
released by the President.
CODES
6/33/05
- 15 -
Likely Congressional Responses to High Unemployment
There have been emergency extensions of the maximum
duration of benefits in four of the seven post-World War
II recessions. There was no such extension in the first
two of these recessions in 1949 and 1954. Emergency
programs were passed in 1958, 1961, 1969 and 1974, but
not for the 1980 recession. Each emergency program was
enacted to deal with the large proportion of claimants
exhausting regular benefits and as a countercyclical
fiscal tool.
1) The most likely response this time will be a
proposal to extend benefits beyond the existing
39 weeks via a Federal Supplementary Benefit
program of either 13 weeks or 26 weeks. Such
a national program was enacted during the
1974-75 recession. It resulted in advances
from general revenues. 5.7 billion dollars of
these advances have yet to be repaid.
2)
A move will be made to reinstitute the National
Trigger for extended benefits. This trigger
was eliminated in the Omnibus Reconciliation
Act of 1981.
- 16 -
While the above in no way represents the only actions
that Congress may take in response to rising unemployment,
they do appear to be the most likely legislative
initiatives in light of past Congressional activity.
H
0194
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 27, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
WILLIAM P. CLARK Remor
SUBJECT:
Your Meeting with Israeli Ambassador
Ephraim Evron, Thursday, January 28, 1982
3:45-4:00 p.m., in the Oval Office
Purpose
Ambassador Evron departs Washington on Friday, January 29, 1982,
and he wishes to make a farewell call on you.
Background
Evron has served as Israel's Ambassador for over 3 years. He
participated in the Camp David Summit. He has been a resourceful
and thoroughly reliable envoy in countless diplomatic exchanges.
For example, Evron played a major role in White House meetings
to defuse crises concerning Syria's missiles in Lebanon and
Israel's destruction of Iraq's nuclear facility.
Objectives
To express appreciation for Evron's personal contribution
to US-Israel relations.
To reiterate the U.S. commitment to Israel's security and
to reemphasize the view of Israel as a strategic ally in
spite of differences over Israel's application of its laws
to the Golan Heights.
To reinforce Israel's commitment for its scheduled with-
drawal from Sinai in April and for its attempt to reach
an autonomy agreement with Egypt.
Talking Points
Mr. Ambassador, your personal contribution to US-Israel
relations has been outstanding.
America's commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable
despite differences of the moment.
We appreciate your Government's adhering to its Sinai
withdrawal schedule and for the attempt to reach an
autonomy agreement with Egypt.
UNCLASSIFIED
G
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 27, 1982
MEETING WITH THE NATIONAL
CONFERENCE OF REPUBLICAN MAYORS
DATE: THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 1982
TIME: 4:00 - 5:15 p.m.
(You will attend at 5:00 - 5:15)
LOCATION: Roosevelt Room
FROM:
RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON RSW/eb
I. PURPOSE
This is an opportunity for you to call upon Republican
Mayors to mobilize support for your federalism
initiative.
II. BACKGROUND
Gaining support from the Executive Committee of the
National Conference of Republican Mayors and Local
Elected Officials (NCRM) for your federalism
initiative is vital to the success of this proposal.
NCRM is in Washington, D.C. for the mid-winter
meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM).
While non-partisan, USCM is largely represented
by the big-city Democrat Mayors who will be
critical of your proposal. NCRM can play a
valuable role in tempering that criticism.
III. PARTICIPANTS
The Executive Committee of the National Conference of
Republican Mayors and Local Elected Officials (See
Attachment I)
Richard S. Williamson
IV. PRESS PLAN
White House Photographer
2
V.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
4:00
Rich Williamson will welcome
the group, explain in detail the
federalism initiative, and open
the meeting for a general discussion.
5:00
Prior to your arriving in the Roosevelt
Room, you will have your photo taken
with Mayor James Inhofe (R-Tulsa)
who is up for re-election in April,
1982. Mayor Inhofe has been one of
your strongest supporters among the
Mayors. You will proceed to the
Roosevelt Room, make brief remarks
(5 minutes) and open to Q&A.
5:15
You may leave.
Meeting adjourned.
ATTACHMENT I
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF REPUBLICAN MAYORS
AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
PRESIDENT
Mayor Margaret Hance, Phoenix, AZ
VICE PRESIDENT
Councilwoman Donna Owens, Toldeo, OH
Mayor William Hudnut, Indianapolis, IN
Mayor James Inhofe, Tulsa, OK
Mayor Jayne Plank, Kensington, MD
Councilwoman Joan Specter, Philadelphia, PA
SECRETARY
Mayor James Ryan, Arlington Heights, IL
TREASURER
Mayor Richard Berkley, Kansas City, MO
AT-LARGE MEMBERS
Mayor Hernan Padilla, San Juan, PR
Mayor George Voinovich, Cleveland, OH
Councilwoman Geraldine Sylvester, Dover, NH
Councilmember John Mercer, Sunnvale, CA
Councilmember Rudy Barnes, Columbia, SC
Councilmember Aaron Johnson, Fayetteville, NC
ADVISORY COUNCIL
Mayor Richard Carver, Peoria, IL
Mayor Lawrence Kramer, Paterson, NJ
Mayor Thomas Ryan, Kankakee, IL
Mayor Vincent Cianci, Providence, RI
Mayor Vincent Thomas, Norfolk, VA
Mayor Frank Duci, Schnectady, NY
ATTACHMENT II
SUGGESTED TALKING POINTS AT MEETING WITH THE NATIONAL
CONFERENCE OF REPUBLICAN MAYORS
January 28, 1982
-- I am pleased all of you could be here today. I
understand that you have been discussing in some
detail my federalism initiative for a new partnership
in our governmental system.
-- As you know, what I announced Tuesday night is a
conceptual framework and there are many details
which we need to work out. Washington, D.C. does
not have a corner on wisdom in this country. We
are looking to you for suggestions on how we can
best design this proposal to ensure that government
programs are more responsive to the people.
-- I hope all of you will play an active role in the
consultation process over the next eight weeks.
-- I am encouraged by the initial response from state
and local officials like yourselves. As leaders
of the National Conference of Republican Mayors,
your support of this proposal is essential to its
success.
-2-
-- I know there are those that do not support the
philosophy of returning responsibilities and resources
to state and local governments. But it is my belief
that you can more effectively, more efficiently, and
more responsively meet the needs of our citizens.
-- I would like to now turn the meeting over to Mayor
Hance. (MAYOR HANCE WILL BE SITTING TO YOUR IMMEDIATE
LEFT.)
H
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 27, 1982
MEETING DATE WITH SPECIAL MEDICAL ADVISORY GROUP
OF THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
DATE:
January 28, 1982
LOCATION:
Blue Room
TIME:
5:30 p.m.
FROM:
Dr. Daniel Ruge
1.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this meeting is a reception honoring the
Special Medical Advisory Group of the Veterans Adminis-
tration.
II.
BACKGROUND
The Veterans Administration's Special Medical Advisory
Group (SMAG) meets in Washington several times each year
to advise the Chief Medical Director and Administrator.
I have never attended, so I cannot comment on the
content of the meeting.
All members are quite prominent and represent a broad
area. Your friend, Dr. Longmire, was a member until
about a year ago. He has moved to the VA's distinguished
physician group and receives remuneration for being more
available than SMAG. He may visit hospitals as needed,
etc
The Veteran's Administration is divided into three
divisions:
Veterans Benefits (Pensions, Compensation)
Medicine and Surgery (Hospitals, Clinics)
Memorial Affairs (Cemeteries)
You are not expected to know the guests, but below are
a few comments about several of them:
John A. D. Cooper - Student of Dr. Loyal Davis at North-
western; President of the Association of American
Page 2
II.
BACKGROUND (Continued)
Medical Colleges. He asked you to address the
annual meeting in October, 1981. He is quite
active politically; well-known on the Hill.
Norman Cousins - You may know him; he is from California.
Richard M. Ryan, Jr. - He is related to Tip O'Neill. I
believe there was some pressure to make him
Administrator of VA at one time.
Frank Stinchfield - Student and resident of Dr. Davis at
Northwestern. He has known Nancy for many years
and he has met you at least once.
b(6)
He is my main New York
contact in my job.
Donald Custis - Chief Medical Director (Head of Medicine
and Surgery). He was a student of Dr, Davis at
Northwestern. He was also former Surgeon General
of the Navy (three-star Admiral) appointed by
John Warner when he was Secretary of the Navy. Dr.
Davis visited him when he was here for your
inauguration and spoke to you about him.
I think he is the best Chief Medical Director since
Paul Hawley. (Nancy knew him.) Incidentally,
Paul Magnuson (whom Nancy also knew) was Chief
Medical Director in the mid-1940's.
Robert Nimmo - Administrator of VA appointed by you. I
am sure you have seen him a number of times.
Page 3
III.
GUESTS ATTENDING NOT LISTED IN SECTION II
James A. Baker
John F. Beary, III (Dr.)
Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs (Ex Officio)
Ernest M. Burgess (Dr.)
Prosthetics Research Study
Vice President Bush
Ewald W. Busse (Dr.)
Associate Provost and Dean, Duke University School
of Medicine
William T. Butler (Dr.)
President, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas
Medical Center
Theodore H. Clarke (Dr.)
President, American Podiatry Association
Michael K. Deaver
Jere E. Goyan (Dr.)
University of California School of Pharmacy
Charles T. Hagel
Deputy Administrator of Veterans Affairs
John R. Hogness (Dr.)
President, Association for Academic Health Centers
Lucie S. Kelly (Dr.)
Professor of Public Health and Nursing, Columbia
University
John A. McMahon (Dr.)
President, American Hospital Association
Matthew F. McNulty, Jr. (Dr.)
Chancellor, The Medical Center, Georgetown University
Edwin Meese, III
Fred E. Mondragon
President, Nuc-Med, Inc.
Page 4
III.
GUESTS ATTENDING NOT LISTED IN SECTION II (Continued)
Tom E. Nesbitt (Dr.)
Barbara J. Pryor
Executive Secretary to SMAG
Malcom Randall
Director, VA Medical Center
Mrs. Reagan
President Reagan
Uwe E. Reinhardt (Dr.)
Associate Professor of Economics and Public Affairs,
Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University
Alfred A. Rosenbloom (Dr.)
President, Illinois College of Optometry
Daniel Ruge, M.D.
Melvin Sabshin (Dr.)
Medical Director, American Psychiatric Association
I
RONALD W. REAGAN LIBRARY
THIS FORM MARKS THE FILE LOCATION OF ITEM NUMBER 2 LISTED ON THE
WITHDRAWAL SHEET AT THE FRONT OF THIS FOLDER.
RONALD W. REAGAN LIBRARY
THIS FORM MARKS THE FILE LOCATION OF ITEM NUMBER 3 LISTED ON THE
WITHDRAWAL SHEET AT THE FRONT OF THIS FOLDER.