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
1554410
label
First Debate: Domestic Issues Briefing Book
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1554410
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
First Debate: Domestic Issues Briefing Book
citationUrl
collections
White House Special Files Unit Files
Ford - Carter Debates Files
subjects
Campaign debates
Presidential campaign, 1976
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1554410
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
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
caf392eb844d21c4
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 1, folder "First Debate: Domestic Issues Briefing
Book" of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential
Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 1 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
DEBATE BRIEFING BOOK -- DOMESTIC ISSUES
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
-
ANTTTRUST
ISSUE: ANTITRUST POLICY
The antitrust record of the Ford Adminis-
tration shows clearly that we are committed to
full and vigorous competition in the marketplace.
In fact, our accomplishments in the last
two years in the area of antitrust enforcement.
are unmatched in any similar period in this
GERALD FORD JERARY
century.
-- The resources of the Antitrust Division
in Justice and the Bureau of Competition in the
FTC have been increased by over 50 percent.
-- The Antitrust Division's crackdown on
price fixing has resulted in the indictment of
183 individuals during this period, a figure
equalled only once in the 86 years since the
enactment of the. Sherman Antitrust Act.
-- The fact that the Antitrust Division has
pending more grand jury investigations than ever
in history proves these efforts are not slackening.
-- In 1974, I called for the enactment of and
signed into law a substantial increase in civil and
criminal penalties to deter antitrust violations.
This was the first major amendment to the Sherman
Antitrust Act in a quarter of a century.
-- I have also supported and signed legis-
lation repealing the Fair Trade laws, which had
been on the books for 40 years; it will save
-2-
consumers up to $2 billion annually.
Antitrust enforcement is not the only way
to promote competition. The Ford Administration
has been the first in 40 years to recognize that
Federal regulation can and does restrict our compe-
titive economy.
I have set in motion a far reaching regula-
tory reform program -- the first by any President --
which is already producing tangible benefits for
the American consumer.
-- I proposed and signed into law this year
railroad legislation which increased competition in
that industry and reduced the power of the Inter-
state Commerce Commission for the first time since
1886.
-- I have signed a bill to promote competition
in the stock market for the first time in almsot
200 years.
-- I have sponsored unprecedented legislative
initiatives to reduce regulation in other forms of
transportation such as the airlines and trucking.
By increasing competition, we can lower costs for
consumers.
-3-
-- The Administration has also submitted
to Congress the Financial Institutions Act to enable
small savers to earn higher interest on savings
accounts and provide more diversified financial
services to all customers.
-- I have submitted the Agenda for Govern-
ment Reform Act, which would require a four-year
comprehensive review and reform of all regulations,
and compel Confress to act on proposals to restore
competition in the economy.
-- Finally, I have repeatedly expressed
to the independent regulatory commissions that they
must take all actions possible to rely on compe-
tition instead of regulations wherever possible
Many of them are responding positively.
I am proud of this record. I believe it is
unparalleled. If Congress gets moving and enacts
the proposals I have submitted, the American people
will benefit even more in the next four years.
GROWTH IN BIG GOVERNMENT
Q. Both you and Mr. Carter have expressed some
concern about the size and complexity of govern-
ment, but yet its spending and red tape just seem
to grow like Topsy. Can you give the American
people any real assurance that you will be any
better at bringing it under control than Mr. Carter?
A. I have grown increasingly concerned about the
growth of governmental bureaucracy in the last 10-15
years, and I think you see that concern reflected in
almost every one of my actions and speeches as President.
Government today dominates too much of American
society. Its spending amounts to about a third of our
total gross national product, and almost every American
now seems to be caught up in a web of confusing, com-
plex regulations -- whether you are filling out a tax
return or seeking welfare benefits.
I am totally dedicated to reducing the burdens of
Big Government and we have made encouraging progress
toward that end:
-- Since coming into office, I have requested
and signed into law a major tax reduction for the
American people. I am now pressing for an additional
tax cut of $10 billion.
-- I have submitted to the Congress a budget
which would cut the rate of growth in Federal spending
by some 50%. So far, the Congress has not shown a
- 2 -
willingness to join me in spending restraint; they
want a budget for the coming year that is about
$20 billion above my own.
-- I have made forceful use of the veto power --
a power mandated by the Constitution to allow a
President to hold the Congress in check -- so that some
$9 billion in tax savings have been achieved.
-- In the past year, we have reduced the Federal
paperwork and Federal forms by 12%.
-- We have cut the Federal bureaucracy by 11,000
employees, and we have made sizable reductions in the
size of the White House staff.
-- We have launched a concerted attack on Federal
regulations in areas of railroads, air transportation,
and trucking -- an attack that will eventually mean
big savings for consumers.
-- And we are seeking through revenue sharing, the
consolidation of programs and in many other ways to
return power from Washington to local communities and
States.
This is progress -- genuine progress -- and you'll
see much more of it in the next four years.
As for my adversary, I would say that with all due
respect for the rhetoric he has used on the campaign
- 3 -
trail, the record hardly suggests that he will
lead this country toward smaller government. To
the contrary:
-- When he was governor of Georgia, the number
of State employees increased by almost 25 percent and
the amount of State spending increased by almost 50
percent.
-- His own spending programs for the future will
add anywhere from $100 to $200 billion to the Federal
budget.
-- He said himself this past weekend that his
Administration would mean higher taxes for half of
America's families. Just to pay for his programs,
according to my calculations, could cost every man,
woman and child an additional $500 to $1,000 a year.
So there are very fundamental differences between
us. One of us speaks out strongly against Big Govern-
ment and is putting a program into place that will
achieve that end. The other speaks out strongly too.
I leave it to the American people to decide which one
of us they can trust.
BUDGET
ZERO BASED BUDGETING
Q. Should the Federal government adopt zero-based
budgeting, as Mr. Carter recommends.
A. What is overlooked in many of the discussions of
zero-based budgeting for the Federal budget is that in
the last two years, I have personally undertaken the
most intensive, most systematic review of Federal
spending of any President since Harry Truman. Last
Fall, I went over the budget line by line, spending
hundreds upon hundreds of hours, and based upon that,
I submitted to the Congress a budget that would reduce
projected Federal spending by $28 billion -- and would
return those savings to the American taxpayer.
As for zero-based budgeting that was practiced in
the State of Georgia, I am not extremely familiar with
it but those who have examined it carefully say that
it involves so much paperwork that it would bring
Washington to a dead halt. Papers and charts would pour
out of office buildings and be floating down the Potomac
River within a matter of weeks. And, they add, zero-
based budgeting did not exactly reduce spending in
Georgia: from 1970 through 1974, it increased by
over 50 percent.
So the short answer to your question is that I am
very satisfied with the approach that we are already
taking to the Federal budget. It is an approach
designed to save money -- taxpayers' money -- and
we're going to succeed at it.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BALANCE THE BUDGET
Q. Do you favor a Constitutional Amendment to require
a balanced budget?
A. No. I believe it would be very difficult to design
language of such an amendment that would still provide
the appropriate authority if we were to have a sudden
National emergency that required a deficit for a short
period of time. In my judgment, the Constitution pro-
vides all the language we need to achieve a balanced
budget. All we need to do is elect representatives
and Senators who are as frugal with the taxpayers
money as they are with their own money -- people who
understand that ultimately the taxpayer pays through
higher taxes or inflation or both for every spending
vote they cast.
NOTE: There is some sentiment within the Cabinet,
especially Secretary Simon, toward accepting a Consti-
tutional amendment and many conservatives on the Hill
are for it.
CRIME
CRIME
Question: When are you ever going to get
crime under control?
FORD ANSWER:
Control of local crime -- the kind that is
likely to affect most directly the life of the
average family -- has always been primarily a
state and local reponsibility in the United States.
We neither need nor want a national police force.
There are, however, several ways in which
the Federal government can provide positive leader-
ship in the war against crime. The most important
of these are:
First, to develop a model system of laws
dealing with Federal crimes, and we're doing that.
In that last two years, I have:
-- Proposed enactment of a comprehensive
Federal criminal code to replace the scattered
set of overlapping and confusing laws now on the
books.
-- Called for enactment of a much stiffer
anti-drug law, which would put hundreds of drug
pushers where they, belong: in prison.
-- Proposed mandatory sentencing of criminals
convicted of kidnapping, hijacking, or Federal
-2-
crimes involving the use of a handgun.
-- Pushed for enactment of a program to
provide compensation to victims of Federal
crimes who have suffered personal injuries.
Seemd
At the Federal level, we must also step
up enforcement of Federal laws against crime, and
we have done that by seeking:
-- More Federal judges;
-- An increase in the number of U.S. attor-
neys and U.S. Marshals;
-- Construction of four new Federal prisons
to overcome the overcrowing and inadequacy of
existing facilities.
Finally, the Federal government must provide
ample assistance to state and local law enforce-
ment authorities, and we're doing that, too. In
the last two years, I have:
-- Recommended that Congress authorize almost
$7 billion over a five year period to aid state
and local agencies.
-- Provided funds to major city law enforcement
agencies for a "career criminal" program, through
which habitual criminals charged with new crimes
are identified and quickly prosecuted.
-3-
Beyond that, the most important step that
a national administration or a President can take
against crime is to set a moral tone that stresses
sound values of honesty, integrity, hard work,
and personal honor. Enactment of my entire "quality
of life" program will also relieve some of the under-
lying causes of crime.
But
must face that fact that we have not yet
found a way to eliminate crime completely. But we
are making definite progress. Two years ago when
I came into office, crime was increasing at the
rate of 18% a year. In 1975, the growth rate was
cut to 10%. It's still going up, but we're definitely
moving an the right direction.
EDUCATION
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
Question: Can you tell us what your policy is on
elementary and secondary education?
FORD ANSWER
I want the education of American children to
reflect the values and needs of the local community
in which the children are growing up. I believe that
some bureaucrat sitting behind a desk in Washington
can't teach Johnny how to read or write any better.
This means that we need more local control of
education and less bureaucratic interference with the role
of the classroom teacher.
To achieve this goal I have proposed a $3.5 billion
program to return authority over education to local
schools while continuing federal aid to education.
Here are the highlights of my proposals:
-- We will consolidate 24 federal grant programs
for elementary and high school education into a single
grant program -- leaving most decisions to local officials,
the local school boards, and to parents and taxpayers.
-- Three-fourths of federal funds in the program
will be used to educate handicapped and disadvantaged
children.
-- Vocational education will be targeted for special
-2-
federal support -- we still are not doing enough to
provide vocational training that fits young people
for jobs actually available in American industry.
Let me also underscore my support for non-public
schools -- schools that make an essential contribution
to our nation's total education effort. My Administration
is now providing aid to students at non-public schools
for such services as compensatory education in reading
and mathematics, child nutrition programs, and training
of children with learning disabilities -- all services
that go directly to students rather than to institutions,
as allowed by the Constitution.
We are also seeking ways through the tax system to
ease the financial burden on families who choose to send
their children to non-public schools.
To deal with the busing problem, which has caused
unnecessary confusion and disruption in some school
districts, I have called on Congress to enact legislation
which will limit the courts to using busing only where
racial segregation of school children is the result of
unlawful discrimination. This legislation will also set
up a multi-racial National Community and Education
Committee to help any school community requesting
assistance in solving its desegregation problem.
One of our basic needs in education at the present
-3-
time is to take a hard look at the techniques and
methods being used in classrooms. We must find out
why instruction in some of the fundamental subjects,
such as reading and mathematics, is not producing the
results we need. I have therefore asked Congress for
a 28 percent increase in federal support for the National
Institute of Education, to support intensified research
on educational achievement and performance -- research that
will be invaluable to local school systems in the future.
###
Carter's Vulnerability on Education
Carter's proposal for a separate Department
of Education seems to contradict his overall pro-
posal for consolidation of government departments.
We are entitled to tie Carter to the NEA's
demand that the federal government finance one-
third the cost of education (in contrast with
about one-tenth now), in light of NEA's endorse-
ment of his candidacy. Does he agree with the
NEA position, and if so where is the money coming
from? It is suggested, however, that we not
make NEA a target for our attack.
Carter has implied that his education pro-
posals will add $10 billion or more to spending
but he refuses to be pinned down.
ENERGY
ENERGY
Question: Mr. Carter has charged that two years
after you have taken office, the nation
is still lacking in an energy policy.
Can you respond to that?
FORD ANSWER:
How we deal with our energy position says
a lot about our national character now -- and will
determine what kind of country we will become.
We must face up to this tough complex of problems
SO that our children will have the basic tools that
we have SO long taken for granted.
The energy policy of my Administration is
based on three principles:
First, we must recognize that the problem
is as real today as it was during the oil embargo.
To run our businesses, cool, heat and light our
homes, and move our cars, takes energy. But today,
most of that energy comes from non-renewable natural
resources -- coal, oil and natural gas. In addition,
more and more of energy comes from overseas. The
trends toward energy dependance are intolerable; we
continue at our peril.
Second, therefore, we must move agressively
forward to increase our domestic supplies and to
be more efficient in our use of energy. I want to
-2-
end our energy dependence and vulnerability no
later than 1985, and I have developed a compre-
hensive national plan to achieve that goal. Since
there is no substitute in the next four years to
using our natural resources, I have pressed for
greater mining of our most abundant domestic
resource -- coal. I have ordered accelerated
development of the vast oil and gas reserves that
lie off our shores. And I have proposed fair
market pricing for new natural gas and oil to
provide the incentives needed for all-out develop-
ment by our private sector. We now have about
one-half of the national program I proposed in
January of 1975.
Third, we must plan and begin to implement
now our reliance on new energy sources for years
ahead -- sources that are renewable and non-
polluting. We must have more nuclear power, solar
energy, perhaps even wind and ocean tides. To
bring these dreams to reality, I have increased
our federal research and development budget 30%
and proposed a federal financing authority to
bring these new technologies to the marketplace.
-3-
That's my plan and my promise:
-- Recognize our problems;
-- Increase production and improve con-
servation in the near term;
-- Full commitment of our technology to
new sources of energy for the future.
With the cooperation of the Congress and the
commitment of our people, we will turn these prob-
lems into an opportunity for America to point the
way for mankind into the next century.
Carter's Vulnerability on Energy
Carter's opposition to deregulation of oil
prices in effect prolongs the danger of shortages.
Carter has been all over the block on oil
company divestiture -- his position is considerably
more moderate than that of the other liberal Demo-
cratic candidates, but he still seems to favor
divestiture of the retail portion of the industry --
politically, the part most vulnerable for a
breakup.
ENERGY
Question: It seems to me your Administration
has been defending big oil companies
and higher prices. Why?
FORD ANSWER:
That is not correct. There are those who
would demagogue the issue of petroleum industry
organization without in any way examining the
real causes or needed solutions to our energy
difficulties. Those same people would try
to convince the American people that there is a
cheap and easy way our of our energy difficulties.
My Administration has simply attempted to lay
the hard, cold facts on the table SO that we could
get on with a realistic solution.
We have not only dealt with all of the issues
related to the conservation and production-of
American energy -- we have spend a considerable
amount of time working internationally so as to
create a climate in the Mideast which has reduced
the possibility of a political embargo and encour-
aged responsible attitudes on the part of those
in oil producing countries which have resisted
price increases by OPEC in the last year.
FORD
ENVIRONMENT
Question: According to environmental groups, you
have one of the worst records on supporting
environmental causes of any President of
modern times. What have you done to protect
our environment?
FORD ANSWER:
I don't for a minute accept the premise of your
question. I am proud of the record of my Administration
in improving the quality of our environment.
Measured in terms of the Federal effort alone over
the past two years, our record is impressive. For
example, look at some of the statistics:
-- I proposed a 60% increase in what we spend for
waste water treatment facilities in order to clean up
our Nation's riverways.
-- I put 38% more money in my budget to implement
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
-- All in all, we have spent $
billion over the
last two years to clean up the Nation's water and air. This
comes out to per taxpaying family per year.
More important than the numbers and statistics is the
fact that we are making progress. For example, the fish
and the fishermen are coming back to Lake Erie. The air
-2-
in our Nation's big cities is a little bit cleaner
to breathe because of progress we're making on auto
pollution.
As President, I have had to make the hard choices
and strike a balance between what we want to do as a
Nation and can reasonably afford to do. After dealing
with these environmental programs over the last decade, I
know that they involve enormous costs and high-risk
technology. I have put as many resources into the
environment as I though was necessary and appropriate, and
while it was not always as much as some would like, it was
enough to make good headway.
To illustrate some of the funding problems, I even
had to delay until just a few weeks ago my own pet
project, which is to make a major investment in our
parks. My proposal -- to double the size of the
park system and upgrade the maintenance of the parks
over the next 10 years -- reflects my deep national
love for this country's environment. I fully understand
my obligation, not only to protect and enhance the
environment that each one of us can enjoy, but to perserve
that environment, the land, the water, the air, for the
benefit of those who will follow us in our Third Century
and beyond.
It's also important for us to recognize that pollution
-3-
does not recognize political and geographic
boundaries. Just as we cannot pollute half a
lake, nor can we just clean up half the world.
That is why we have moved aggressively in the
international arene on environmental matters.
In addition to environmental agreements with
Japan, the Federal Republic of Germany, Poland and
Russia, the United States has cooperative bilateral
programs with more than fifty nations. Recently,
the United States has joined with other nations in
adopting a Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by the Dumping of Waste. We also called
for a ten-year moratorium on all whaling to permit
depleted stocks to recover.
These and other endeavors are intended to help
all citizens of the world -- not just Americans.
FARM POLICY
ISSUE: FARM POLICY
This Administration's national farm policy
is and will continue to be one of full production.
It is a policy of fair prices for consumers and
good income for farmers.
For nearly 40 years American agriculture has
been dominated by government production controls --
cutbacks and curtailment of growth in the agri-
cultural plant -- all in the name of stability.
The farmer was "stabilized" with an income only
about two-thirds of the income level of his urban
neighbors. And most of the help from government
price-support and acreage diversion went to those
whose incomes were already above the average,
rather than to the smaller farmer.
But now we have a policy that offers maximum
incentive to those who produce food. The American
farmer has not been freed from dependence on Federal
Treasury payments not to produce.
And in the past few years, the American farmer
has shown what he can do without government controls.
He produces enough to feed more than 215 million
Americans, plus millions more overseas. Sixty
million acres, previously held idle, have been
-2-
released, and 38 million acres have been brought
back into production. Total acreage for major
crops has climbed from about 291 million acreas in
1969 to 335 million acres planned by farmers for
1976 -- indicating an additional increase of 6
million acres going into production this year. And
farm exports are three times what they were in 1970 --
rising to $22 billion a year.
What we are really talking about is food
security, both here and abroad. The best food
security arises from a policy which encourages
profits in agriculture; a policy that gives farmers
the economic incentive to maintain and increase pro-
duction at a lower unit cost; and a policy that
permits farmers and the trade -- instead of govern-
ment -- to carry food reserves.
Another trend that has been virtually halted
is the decline in U.S. farm population. The mass
exodus of nearly 30 million people from farms has
been called the greatest migration of its kind
in history. It seems to be nearly over. The
business of farming has again become economically
attractive.
-3-
I want to remind those who would minimize
our national strength that over one-half of the
grain moving across international boundaries
throughout the world is grown by the American
their
their
farmer, and we are proud of your efforts and your
their ability
results
and to find customers wherever you they
can. Strong agricultural exports are basic to
America's farm policy and the freedom of every
farmer to manage his own farm.
In short, farmers must export to keep farming
profitable in America. Farmers must export if
we are to keep a favorable balance of United
States international trade. Farmers must export
if they are to prosper and the world is to eat.
This is the farm policy that is bringing new life
to our rural countryside.
ISSUE: GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION
(The suggested response assumes that Governor
Carter essentially restates his proposals to
consolidate some "1900 Federal agencies into
200 agencies" and establish a zero-base budgeting
program.)
***
Let me say first, that I have no quarrel with
Governor Carter on the need for greater government
efficiency. And certainly there are government agencies
which should be eliminated or consolidated and program
budgets which should be justified, on a selective
basis, from top to bottom.
Indeed, I have made many specific proposals in this
regard. I have asked Congress time and again to
consolidate 59 categorical programs in the areas of
health, education, child nutrition and social services.
I urged Congress to consolidate human services grant
programs.
Governor Carter's proposal fall into the same
pattern followed by the Democratic Congress over the
years. Congress is fascinated with "moving the boxes"
on the government organization chart, or other procedural
approaches to tough, substantive problems. The time has
come for an end to these shopworn, band-aid solutions of the
past.
-2-
I say the American people are entitled to more
from their leaders. They are fed up with overlapping,
duplicative, and contradicting government regulations
they cannot understand.
Every President since Harry Truman has recognized
the need for real government reform -- but very little
real change had occurred until my Administration. We have
been the first in the history of this country to take
action on a tough, hard-hitting government reform program
that makes sense.
Last May, I sent to the Congress the Agenda for
Government Reform Act which authorizes the most com-
prehensive, fundamental reform of government regulation
ever attempted. Let there be no doubt we will make
government more responsive to the needs of our citizens
-- make it more understandable -- make it better able to
assist those in need.
The legislation sets up a four-year time table
for action. Congress will be required to get its act
together. Congress must subject the proposals I will submit
each year to an up or down vote on the floor of each
House under the scrutiny of the American people. They
will no longer be bottled up.
In addition to my program for the next four years,
-3-
my Administration is pushing forward on a variety of
fronts to make government more responsive. The record
is there for all to see. In the past two years, we have
achieved the most significant progress in the last
three decades:
-- We have cut red tape, reducing the amount of
Federal paperwork and forms by 12%. Next year,
the citizens' burden of completing forms will
be reduced by 7,000,000 hours annually.
-- We have repealed the trade laws that were
costing consumers up to $2 billion each year.
-- We have reduced railroad regulation for the
first time in 90 years.
-- We have substantially increased civil and
criminal penalties for antitrust violations.
-- We have proposed major legislative reforms
for the airline, motor carrier, banking, and
natural gas industries.
-- I have established short term task forces to
rewrite and streamline OSHA and FEA regulations
so that consumers and businessmen will find it
easier to deal with government requirements.
This is a record of achievement. The American people
have every right to greater progress toward better govern-
ment. I intend to see that they get it.
1. Carter Vulnerabilities
-- Carter prides himself on his reorganization of
the Georgia government. He did consolidate many depart-
ments and agencies, but during his four-year term as
governor, the number of state employees increased by 24%
- 4 -
more
Then
and state spending increased by almost 50%. His
successor, Governor Busbee, publicly called one
of Carter's most controversial creations, the
Department of Human Resources, a "nightmare."
-- Carter has almost mistakenly said that the
Federal government has "1900 agencies." In fact,
there are 11 Cabinet departments, 60 major agencies,
boards and commissions, and 41 government-sponsored
corporations. The balance of Carter's figure
apparently is made up of 1200 part-time special
advisory committees, groups of consultants and the
like that are really not a part of the problem.
Thus, Carter is grossly exaggerating.
HEALTH CARE
QUALITY HEALTH CARE
Question: Do you believe every American has
the right to health care regardless
of income?
FORD ANSWER:
I think we crossed that bridge ten years
ago. The answer is yes. The real question now
is how we achieve our goal.
Ten years ago we enacted the Medicare program
to help the aged and disabled and the Medicaid
program to help low income people get health care.
Overall, I believe Medicare -- for the aged
and disabled -- has been a real success. But as
I have visited with people who rely on the program --
and with their families -- some of them have told
me about the big bills they have had to pay. And
others have told me of the fear they have that
their savings could be wiped out by a prolonged
illness.
Last January I proposed a change in the law
to solve those problems. Under my proposal, no
aged or disabled person would ever have to pay
more that $500 in a year for hospital care or
more than $240 for physicians' services.
Medicaid is a different story. The program
-2-
has helped low income people but it has also been
riddled with fraud. Last January I proposed that
we solve the problems of Medicaid through legis-
lative action that would combine the money from
Medicaid with the money from 15 other categorical
health programs.
Under my proposal the money would go where
the low income people are and the responsibility
for protecting against fraud would be squarely
fixed on the people in each State who would be
expected to design and monitor the program.
With the enactment of the reforms I have
proposed we will be well on our way to achieving
our objective. These are the things we should do.
#
#
#
1. Other Ford Initiatives:
-- Swine flu program
-- Proposed 7% ceiling on increase in Federal
reimbursements for medicine;
-- Strengthening of nursing home program;
-- Proposed expansion of National Health
Services Corps.
-3-
Carter's Vulnerability on Health
Carter can be nailed with the Democratic
platform's apparent endorsement of Kennedy-Corman
national health insurance -- emphasizing the
cost of at least $70 billion in the first year.
Carter tries to suggest that this is not quite what
he has in mind, but his broad description sounds
like Kennedy-Corman. If he favors something else,
what is it? The argument that Kennedy-Corman would
cost very little, because we are now paying almost
that much in the private sector is of course
patently false -- unless Carter is prepared to raise
taxes by $70 billion to soak up the funds that
are now being used for doctors' bills.
On Medicaid reform -- Carter's record of
administration of Medicaid in Georgia was abominable.
Democrats in Congress are holding up the President's
proposal that state medicaid programs be subjected
to regular independent audit. Medicaid was passed
in a Democratic administration, in a form that
fosters corruption, which Democrats in Congress
now refuse to change. Carter's recent emphasis
on preventive health care is right. We can get
out in front on this.
HOUSING
EXPANDED HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
Question: What can be done about the problems
encountered by the average family
which would like to own a home?
FORD ANSWER:
From my own experience and from talking to
people around the country as I have over the last
few years, I think there are a number of problems
that we need to be concerned about -- that we
need to work on.
-- First, there is a concern that is shared
by families that already own homes and those who
would like to buy a home. That is the concern of
inflation. Families who already own a home are
concerned about inflation because when prices go
up, it makes it harder to have enough money left
each month to pay the monthly payments; to fix
the water heater when it goes out or to buy the
things they want to have in their home. And, of
course, when inflation goes up, property taxes
tend to go up, and that gets added to the monthly
payments. Inflation is a concern for families who
are thinking about buying a home too, because
they worry about being able to meet the monthly
-2-
payments if the prices they pay for other
things are going to keep going up. My economic
policies have had a major impact on inflation,
and I intend to persist until inflation is wiped
out. There are two other problems facing families
who would like to buy their first home, especially
young families who are just starting out. I know
from my own experience saving money for a down
payment is hard to do. There always seems to be
some unexpected expense. The other problem is
finding a house you like with a monthly payment
you can afford right now. You know your income is
going to go up as you get more experience in your
job, but that doesn't help right now.
I belive we can help to solve the down payment
problem by reducing the size of the required down
payment for families who have proved they can hold
a job and pay their bills on time. Last week I
proposed such a program to the Congress. For those
who have enough of a down payment, we can help
with the monthly payment problem by reducing the
payments in the early years when a family is just
getting started. I am also taking action to achieve
this goal.
-3-
My goal -- a goal we can achieve -- is
to ensure that every American who wants decent
housing and is willing to work for it can find
good housing that he or she can afford.
Carter's Vulnerability on Housing
Carter appears to favor a form of credit
allocation for housing -- one of the devices that
allegedly has helped beat Italy to its economic
knees. (The Vice President also favors a form
of credit allocation in this area.)
Carter has also totally failed to say how
much his housing proposals will cost.
One of Carter's most tender areas is his
home mortgage plan. He got into deep trouble
in the Massachusetts primary by suggesting
that he would do away with the home owner's tax
deduction, and he has yet to explain how his
home OWARDS program will work.
TAX POLICY
FORD TAX CHANGES
Q. You say you are for further tax reduction, but
at the same time you have advocated higher social
security and unemployment insurance taxes. Wouldn't
the effect of your recommendations be to place a
heavier tax burden on low and middle income people
while making the load lighter for higher income people?
A. No. I have advocated a further cut in taxes of
$10 billion because many people have been hit twice
by inflation -- first, by having to pay higher prices
and second, by having to pay higher taxes. This has
happened because as people have gotten some wage
increases to try to keep pace with inflation, they
have been pushed into higher tax brackets and there-
fore have to pay more taxes. This is why I have
advocated a further tax cut of $10 billion -- to be
matched by major cuts in spending.
At the same time I have proposed that we restore
the integrity of the Social Security fund by raising
contribution rates somewhat. The maximum increase for
anyone, and that means someone making $16,500 a year
or more, would be less than $1 per week. I believe
most people understand that we have to pay for what
we want and I believe most people include in that a
strong Social Security system. My proposal is intended
to protect the financial integrity of the Social
Security trust fund SO that people can plan securely
and safely for the future.
URBAN PROBLEMS
Question:
The Democrats say you don't care about
the cities. What is your urban program?
FORD ANSWER:
The first and most important way for the
federal government to help the cities is to assure
the growth of a strong national economy, which
benefits cities and suburbs as well as rural areas.
This has been the first objective of my adminis-
tration.
In addition, the federal government can
provide three kinds of help to the cities:
-- Leadership in solution of national pro-
blems that particularly affect the cities.
-- Sharing federal revenues with city and
state governments.
-- Helping state and local governments deal
with urban problems in education, housing, trans-
portation, health, and other problem areas.
My administration has been active in all
these areas:
-- Under this Administration we have also
established the Housing and Community Development
Program, which gives aid for housing and community
projects directly to cities and suburban communities.
-2-
-- We have set up an administration task
force to find the most effective ways for the
federal government, working with local government and
the private sector, to promote neighborhood revital-
ization.
-- I have called for a $3.8 billion education
program, which would give cities as well as other
school districts freedom to put funds to the uses
where they are most needed.
-- And I have asked Congress for a five-
year extension of federal aid to state and local
law enforcement agencies, and for enactment of an
-- I have been in the forefront of the fight
to re-enact General Revenue Sharing SO that our
cities and States will have some $30 billion
of additional funds to spend in a way that best
suits their own needs over the next five years.
Revenue sharing has been one of the most impor-
tant innovations for cities in this century. It
provides more money for police, fireman, and many
other essential services. I was proud to be one
of the leaders in the Congress in gettng revenue
sharing passed, and now I am very anxious that
it be extended.
-3-
anti-drug program that would provide tough new
legal weapons against drug pushers.
These are only a few of the ways in which
my administration is moving to help our cities help
themselves.
Carter's Vulnerability on Cities:
Carter would direct revenue sharing only
to cities, not to states -- undermining states'
role in coordinating action between cities and
suburbs on regional problems. This is a reverse
of the argument, incidentally, that Carter used
last fall when urging that Federal aid for New
York City go to the state, not directly to the city.
Carter favors "counter-cyclical" aid to
cities -- viewed by many economists as an infla-
tionary bog.
Carter would relieve the cities -- but not
the states -- of paying part of the cost of wel-
fare. In only seven states, including New York,
do the cities now pay part of the cost of welfare.
In these states, the remainder of the state's
aid program to the cities has been premised on
the fact that the cities pay for welfare. For the
federal government to upset this arrangement now
would distort the financial relationship between
state and city governments in these states.
Carter also has a flip-flop problem with
revenue sharing. On January 12, 1973, as governor,
he was quoted by the Atlanta Constitution as saying,
"I think revenue sharing is a big hoax and mistake.
He has since reversed himself.
WELFARE REFORM
WELFARE REFORM
Q. Mr. President, you have been in office for two
years. Why haven't you cleaned up the welfare system?
A. The answer to that question is that Congress has
blocked every major reform that my Administration has
attempted by legislation and by executive action.
My policy follows exactly what I believe: We
should, within the limits of our resourcs, help those
who are truly in need.
But we should not use $1 of the taxpayers money to
support those who are not in need.
For example, a few months after I came into office,
I directed the Secretary of Agriculture to make certain
administrative reforms in the food stamp program. Those
reforms would mean more benefits for the truly needy;
they would mean an end to food stamps for the greedy;
and they would mean a savings of some one billion
dollars for the taxpayer. But both houses of the Congress
passed a law blocking that action. Last October I
submitted to the Congress formal legislation to reform
this program. But Congress has not yet taken action.
Last February I again directed the Secretary of
Agriculture to make reforms. This time the courts have
blocked action.
2
In my last State of the Union address, I asked
Congress to work with me to clean up the nation's
welfare programs. But Congress has refused and refused
to reform welfare programs that are outdated and
inadequate, programs which are unfair and invite
abuse.
The problems with welfare today rest in the halls
of the United States Congress. If I have a strong
mandate from the American people, I believe we can
break the logjam and move more successfully and
aggressively in helping those who need help while also
putting an end to welfare waste and abuse.
Carter's Vulnerability on Welfare
Carter simply has not addressed the complexities of
the problem of welfare. The things he has said on the
issue -- work requirement, etc. -- are popular, but he
has not explained how the system he has in mind would
work. More importantly, he has not said how much his
welfare plan and guaranteed annual income plan will cost
Unfortunately, the subject is SO complex that it can
probably not be developed effectively within the confines
of a TV debate. We should of course be against chisellers
and for help to the genuinely needy -- but SO will Carter.