-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/3c842727a42210292932188ba95e6aaa.pdf
c0815d529fd3d98915a31f77a16e40d8
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number: 2006-0462-F
FOIA
MAR
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Terry Edmonds
Subseries:
10984
OA/ID Number:
FolderlD:
Folder Title:
4-27-96 Natl Assoc. ofRealtors Washington, D.C.[2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
s
0
0
0
0
�U.S. Department of 1Hoi.aslng and Urban Development
wasninglon,
\
o.c. 20410-4000
.
.
. OFI'lCE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOA
~BliC: A~~ AIR$
M E M 0 R. A 'N' D. tr M
TO:
Terry Edmonds, Speechwriter
The White·House
FROM:
Alex sachs, HUD PUblic Affairs
202/7·08- 0685
·Jim Park, HUD Office Of Housing/FHA
202/708-3600
our adv~ce for the.President'S speech.is that he emphasize 1
three basic points on horneownership
the National Horneownership
Strategy and how the challenge he laid out in his 1994 ,speech is
being met; the important role that the ··Real tors have played ·in
increasing homeqwnership and promoting the President's Strategy;
and finally,· the anno:uncernent of the. Administration's new effort
to help mi~lions more American families become homeowners~
·
In his speech be·fore the Realtors convention, we are hoping
that President Clinton will announce a new national effort
{through HUD and FHA} to help millions of American families '
become first-time horneo'W'Il.ers. The Department hopes that the new
outreach will help t:he U.S. achieve .the President's goal of 8
million new:horneowriers by the end of the year 2000 ~- reaching an
historic high in homeownership.
·
·
· . · This is a new FHA (Federal Housing Administration) consUmer
education and outreach campaign which is formally kicked off on
May 1st. The FHA'S comprehensive effort will reach out to working
families unable to buy a horne with a special focus on minority
and immigrant families, lower-income buyers, young·people and
female-:tieaded households.
·
At the center of the effort is a new·toll-free number for
FHA and-~ new advertising campaign to show families that -- with
.the. help of FHA -- horneownership can be within their reach. Last
year, FHA helped 360,000.first-tirne homebuyers become homeowners.
In addition, a new slogan has been created: "FHA - We'll Get You
_Horne."
ELEMENTS of the comprehensive, consumer-oriented FHA
strategy include:
*
The ne~ toll-:-,free number
l/888-444-4FHA. Persons
dialing this number will .be able to.receive information about the
wide variety of programs and homebuying help offered by HUD .
. - more 'C:00d
9S17'0N
I
�- ---------~--~----~-----~----~-----~----:-----~------,------------c--
,
-
Pag~ Two
_.
Memorandum to Terry Edmonds
~resi~ent's Spee~h to the Realtors
-•
Television: and-print advertising promoting
homeownership and how FHA can dpen,that door· to homeownership for
-folks· who thought they. could never become homeowners. The . · adve;-tising.emi:)hasizes~the benefits of homeownership' and its
accessibility ,..- downpayments are often as low as a•few months
·rent, for example.
*
Public Service-Announcements aimed at providing housing
counseling information. These PSAs· ta,:z::get lower- income and .
minority potential homebuyers in select cities across the
country. HUD's Hous;i_ng Counseling Clearinghouse, which maintainsa list of agencies ~ble to help nationwide, may be reached at 1--·8_00/569,. 4287.
' '
.
* _ HUD. is sponsoring Homebuying Schools and Semin~rs_ being
held in ·approximately 30 communities across the country. These
forums, drawing from a few hundred to more than 10,000participants, .bring together real estate professionals,_ lenders,
gov~rnmental and non-profit organizations to help potential
first-:tirne homebuyers.gai:t!an understanding of the homebuying
process.
The Realtors are an important partner in the National
Partnership fQr Homeownership~ a group ass~mbled to achieve_ the
President's goal- of an all-time record number of homeowners.- The
, Homeownership Strategy_ is a ;I. ready _results._ ~ - more than 1. 4 _
million American families became new homeowners.last year~ {Our
most recent figures, including the 1st quarter-of 1996, show that
we have reached the 1. 5 'million figure) · ·
·
·
(
Understanding that the President is l'ikely to talk·about
broad policy and political themes with the Realtqrs, we: felt it
·.would be also helpful· to bring this news, - - which should directly
affect business coming to Re-altors around the country -- t.o your
~ttention..
·
· ,
·
·
If the'President· is able to announce this effort in his
address, we would also like to use his-announcement ·as a critical
element in a press outreach plan we haye for re~l -estate and
minority press outreach. We would also like to use a .
,homeownership quote from the President for this release~
. . Please <;:all-usor, Jon Cowan at 202/708~0980 if you_ have any
questions or would like additional in;ormation 'on -this outreach
campaign or our press plan .
.
-
/
£00d
9St> • ON ···
••
I
I
�BACXGROOND/SUGGESTEP TALKING POINTS
PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS AT REALTORS
The whole effort of the National. Horneownership ~-trategy
started at theNAR conference_ih Anaheim in November 1994. At
that' time, ·President-Clinton asked Secretary. Cisneros to 'develop·
the strategy and forming the part.nerspip. On June 5, 1995,.
President Cli:nton announced the development of the National
· · Homeownership· Strategy and . recogni2:ed ·.the unprecedented _
- public-private ·partnership fonned to carry it out. .
currently,_ 56 'national· organizations representing lenders,
real 'estate pro,fessionals' horne builders, nonprofit
'
organizations, and federal, state, and· local governments~ fC?rrn
the national core of the Partnership. The National Horneownership
Strategy call~ for achieving an all time high rate of ., .
horneo'llm.ership (67.5 ·percent) by the· end of the year 2000,
creating up to 8 rnil~ion additional homeowners. To reach this
ambitious goal, _a collaborative effort among· _the 56 National
Partners is underway to implement the lOO.actions in the
St:~-ategy.
We have already maqe progress toward the national
homeownership goal of 67.5 percent. As of the end of the 1st
quarter of_ 1996, the national horneownership-rate was 65.1
percent, unchanged from the 4th quarter of 1995. This is the
highest ~ate since 198l.and the sharpest year to year increase in
·at -least 30 years. Thanks to lower interest rates· and a stabl·e
economy, we are-well on our way to reaching our ambitious.goal.
.
Whi:tt ·is working nationally is the ADDED VALUE of National . ·
Partners working together to move.the technology and ·the industry
forward .. BUT, National strategies alone d~ not make_new
homeowners. National strategies can provide the framework and
national organizations. _can provide policy guidance and.
\
encouragement.· But.expanding homeownership·occurs one family and
one house at a time. It happens in indivi~ual-neighborhoods and
communities. Local partnerships are wh;ere' ,the real strategy
implementation will occur.'
·
·
Last month, Secretary Cisneros announced the next phase bf
the homeownership strategy -- the development of a series of .
. local partnerships to foster on the local 'level that .which we are
try~~g" ~o\
do on· the natioi:lal· level.
I
The goal.of a real est:ate professional is to help people
find and buy homes. This is their livelihood. If is an
essential. component of the homebuying process. This notion-- a
·local· partnership of builders, nonprofits, . city· agencies, etc.
may S,ound time consl.iining and irrelevant. But,. it wil·l increase
business. It is an investment in a real estate professional's
business, community arid,· long·term, in the. fulfillment of t.he
Partnership's goals. ·
·
. Cle~rly the primary benefit of these state and local
partr1erships will be expanded homeownership opportunities for 1
·Cit:izens within the local jurisdiction. In addition, the
National Par,tners in Homeownership will ·local partnerships with
provide reeoguition·and sup~ort.
60L.S9St>6
~
S<:t l.i;j.::J.::Ji;j J Il8nd J3S lSSI;j
I
�APR-24~96-20•27
FRO~·OMB
PAGE-
COMMUNICATION
J
'
l-
.
I,
i
'
l
17$'11
1
0
I
I
I
NEWS .
.
' ., " ·- ...._,.·." .... ,;· .
oma OF_PUBUc AFFAJRS • 1500 J>ENNSYLVANJA. AVENUE, N.w. • WASHlNCTONt :D.c. .e 20!20 .• (20%) 622-2960
.FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Janua-ry 17, 1996
;'
STATEMENT BY ,TREAsURY SECRETARY ROBERT E. RUBIN
. ON THE KEMP COMMISSION REPORT . •
· l)le President supports eff~rts to ~mplify our tax systeJl"!,_ b:-pt he a159.insiS~.that
·any proposal meet the te~t of being ooth fair to working families,a.nd deficir neutral. So
far,- no Republican flat tax proposal}J.as ,met this resL Although a flat tax lOOkS· ·.
appealing at first- ~ce. every Republican flat tax we have_ seen either eXplodes the
deficit or raises income taxeS on ntiddle income families.
,
.
-
The tax commission appointed by the Republican leadership is vague on specifics, but it is dear that it offers rio solution .to how su'* a flat tax proposal can. avoid either
raising income taxes on working falnilies or e:x:ploding the deficiL
to ·
_ Taking the latest Anney flat tax as a model, it would add $138 billion per year
the deficit. or over $1 trillion in. a 7 year period. Assuming the RepubliCans stick to their
goal of balancing the budget, their flat tax would raJ:se income t<U:es on middle income
Anleric:ans in order t.O pay for-lowering taxes o·n those making ov~r $200,000 a year.
-
The A.Tmey flat .tax w:ould exe~pt aU interest and dividend income from any tax.
while incre,asing ·income taxes on working families, taxing health·benefits, and eliminating
the. deduction for home mortgage interest.
·
'
·
,
-
-
-
2/2--
I
l.
-30-·
RR-810
or p~ n?leases, speer:hes. public schedules a:nd official biographies, t::rz/1 our 24-ho~tr fa:dirre ~~ (2(}2) 622,2040
j
�APR-24-98 19•52
F~OM•OMB
COMMUNICATION
PAGE
ID•
1/3
I
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20SOS
OMB COMl\IDNICA TIONS OFFICE
.FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
DATE:
v
NUMBER OF PAGES TO
'·FOLLOW:
·-
FAX NUMBER:
., .·
FROM:
,·colVIMENTS:
/
�APR~24-96
19!52 FROM•OMB
COMMU~ICATION.
PAGE
ID•
2/'3.
FLAT TAX T~G POilUS.
Jan-aary 19. 1996
President Clintoa Supports Efforts To Make Taxes More· Simple. And F3ir. That:~ 'Why his
.Balanced Budget plan provides families with a tax deduction of up to $10t000 for po$.-:seecnd.ary
edw::31:ion and training. It would give families the same incentive to invest. in eduC.aiicn and .
tnJ.inUl~ ·that we give corporatiollS to invest in plant. and equipment- . ·
. Presi~Um Oiataa h Open To.New.IclcU Tiaat Meet His Criteria OfBeillg-Morc Simp~
Fair, And Not IncnasiDg The Deficit. For ecample~ President Clinton has proposed legislation
to sigJ:Ufic:amly simplify tax: rules for employet-provided pensions .~o .make it easier. for
~ 'espcciBlly small business. to' provide peoSioo. .coVenige: to their worxas.. '
I
'
r
1
~
•
All .Repablicaa Flat Tn ·Proposals So Far Fail The
lncre9siqg The De&it.
Tm Of Being &til Fair And Not
I.
They. blow. a hole iD.lhe defiQt- some by nearly·. Sl trillion over 7 years; OR
2.
To· l'Cdeficit neutral. they raise w:es·on working families with incomes
under $200.000.
The Kemp Com~n Called For·a Fb.t Tu, But Was Vape Oil Specifics Bc:cau~ ~t Did
Nor Find a Way to Make a Flat Tu. Be Simp!~;. Fair, aacl Not Increase tlte Der~eit.
. A Tn:II.IIII'Y Dcpartmc:at Analj.-3ia of the Anuey/Shelby Flat Tax Proposal Foud:
\
It Blows a Sl Trillioa Hole in the ~dget. A recent amlysis by the Treasmy - Depanm.em fouad du¢ dle Armey t1ai mx pro~ with its 1?0.4 tax ~ would cost
about $13& billion a year and uemy $1 trillion over 7 years.
. If It WeR Deficit Neamll.. It Would Raise Tuis on Families with lacOmes Under
SlOO,OOO. While Cuttiug Taus For Tboac Witb. Iac:oma. Over $200.000.. To be
revmue neuttal the !wney flat taX talC would have to be im:rcased tO 21%, or the
sumdard. deductions cut more man in half (to SS.lOO for. single filers. S10.200 for joint
~ S69700 for beads-of-household. and $2.400 for'each dependent).. A revawe
neumd Armey fiat tax with a 2~% ra1e would increase federal tFes for the group of
families with inccmc:S bcJow $200,000 by'betwc:eft 5% and 71%. And i~ would cut
taxes by 28% fer thox with incomes ov_er $200,000;
3iXQrding
10 the TreaSury analysis..
.
'
'
~
.
.
It Eilds Ded1iaioD.s au4 ExauptiollS for~ the M"Jddlc Class WIUie Crc:amag New
Loop~Gies for the Wealthy and CorporatiOas. Uncler tbe Arm.ey flat tu ptoposa.l.
~lQU gaUls. imt:test and dividends would not be ~
immediazely ded.ud the COSIS of buij~ but:
---~...
aDd corporations
.
.
WOikcrs• wages would be· taxed;
Home owners would ·lose their mortgage interest payment dedudion;
Families would lose their dedUI:tion for doDal:ioDs to charity; aud
·w~· employer-provided. health ~ would be taXed.
could
�APR-24-9~
19:53 FROM:OMB COMMUNICATION
ID:
· By Mike. Mccurry
information about their work, ~nitoring that, you can ge'l: from
Fabiani.
'·.
PAGE
3/3
.. ,cg•'taotype == text&la == o~ 1o&querv"' nat+tax
Mr.
Q
~ke, '!:here's another resignation
in Moscow
Mr. - Chubays. has resi~ed. And that Is like number thre~ .recently in
the.
Mr. Mccurry: I didn't -- I was not aware of.· .that. , Did
that just happen, just break?
Q
Yes.
Mr .. Mccurry: We' 11 have 'l:o get -- as a ·very no.ted, very
.well respected economist who has.been .so. central ·in '!:he effort to
bring' priviti:zation and market elements in'l:o the Russian·econo:rny.
And we will have to look'and see how·that affects the overall
composit~on of the Yeltsin governmen'l:, which is clearly undergoing
some changes·as they examine their own policy needs and ,sort through
their own domestic debates and clearly in advancing part·of a likely
presidential election.
·
Q
Mike, one.final thing. Newt Girigrich·in a Detroit
'speecn said today~ quote: "I,'ll meet·with Dole and Arrney in the
morl}ing; we'll meet with the President if he has something to offer.
We 1·re. not going· to be props of .the charade." Does the President have
something to offer to~orrow7 .
Mr. Mccurry: He's already offered. As.the E'resident
said, they have an idea tha'l: -- the,E'resident's idea is the one most
recently on the table, is pending for them. The Speaker knows tha:t,
and .I'm sure the !?resident looks. forward to a 'good mee'l:ing ·with the
Speaker and the Majority Leader tomorro~.
Q·
Mil<:e, has Mrs. ·clinton ol:; any of her
representatives had any formal or informal talks with the
congressional commit tees or their staffs, apa'rt · from the public
.
comments she's made in recent days, about her potential willingness
if· .the circtimstarices were right to testify there, or have they asked
to talk with· her? Have they undertaken to hold any discussions- about
the circumstances that that mighe ·~- · '
·
Mr. Mccur·ry:· I'm not aware of any such conversations,
but I'd ask that you check with tb~ First,Lady's Press Office.
Q
flat
Mr. Mccurry:
tax
also·
I can't hear your c:;ruest.ion, !?aula.
sorry ...
I'm
)
Q
Does your objection to the flat tax also extend to
tinkering with the mortgage inter.!st deduction .-•
Mr. Mccurry: .Well, the mortgage interest deduction has
·been a very important incentive for horneownership and made it
·possible for many modest income Americans .to afford
home. I think
thE!re would be great concern at ·changing some of the fundamental tax
relationships that make it possible for American,s to purchas~ a home
and to afford it because of the effect that it has on their 'tax
liability. But that's one of the complicated questions that needs to
'be 'addressed when you get into the whole subject of t.a:X refo~ and
one of the reason.s why, as I said earlier, it's· not so easy as to
just say we figure out the. amount and fill out the pos~card •. \
a
15 of 16
.04/24/96 18:57:14
�·ro: 9P4565709
FROM: OMN I FAX ·
APR 25, 1996 12:17PM 1:1932. P.02
. u. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
, ,-
Washington, D.C. 20410-4000
OFf'ICI: OF THE ASSISTAN1' SECRETARY
FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS
-
·M E M 0 R A N D, tJ M
_;
)
~
·.
'TO:
·Terry Edmonds, Speechwriter
The White House
FROM:;
Alex Sachs, HUD Public. Affairs
' 202/708.0685
Jim ~ark, HUD Office Of Housing/FHA
202/708-3600
Our advice for the President's.speech. is that .he emphasize
three basic points on·homeownership :.._ the National -Homeowner~hip
Strategy and how .the. challenge he laid out in his 199'4 speech' is
being met; the_ important role that the Realtors have played in
·increasing homeownershl,.p and promoting the President's Strategy;
and fin~lly, the announcement of the Administration's new effort
to help millions more American families become. homeowners.
In his speech before the.Realtors convention,_we are hoping·
-that President -clinton will announci'e a new national. effort
. ( throug_h HUD and FHA)- to h~lp mill'ions of American famil.ies
be.corne first- time homeo-wners. The Department hopes that. the new
- .outreach wi·ll help the U.S •. achieve the. President's goal of 8_
million new homeown,ers by the end of the year 2000 -- reachin:g an
· historic high in homeownership ~
·
'
'
.
This 'is_a 'new FHA (Federal Housing' Administration) ·consumer
-education and, outreach campaign which .is formally kicked off on
May. let. The FHA'S comprehensive effort will reach out to working
families unable to buy a horne with a special. focus on.minority
_and immigrant families, lower-income buyers, yo~ng people and
f e~le- hea.ded households.
·
At the center of the-effort' is a new toll,;free number for
FHA and a qew ad:vertising campaign .to show families that :.._ with
the help ·of._ FHA . -- home ownership _can be within their reach. Last
year, FHA·helped 360,000 first-time homebuyers become.homeo,riers.
In addition, a new slogan has been created: "FHA - We' 11· Get You _
Home...
·
·
·
'
of
ELEMENTS
the comprehensive, consumerroriented
FHA
\
strategy 1 include:
..,
The new toll-free number -- l/888-444-4FHA. Persons
dial'ing" this number will be able to receive information about .the
wide variety of programs· and homebuyin'g help offered by HUD.
'\
l
. I
- more -
�FROM:OMNIFA><
T0:9P4565709
APR 25, 1996 12=18PM
1:1932
BACKGROUND/SUGGESTED TALKING POINTS
PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS AT REALTORS
~
The whole effort of the National Homeownership Strategy
·started at theNAR conference in Anaheim in November 1994. ·At
that time,- President Clinton asked Secretary Cisneros to develop
the strategy-and forming the partnership. On June 5; 1995,
President Clinton_announced the development of the National
Homeownership Strategy and recognized the unprecedented
public-private partnership .formed to carry it out.
_ Currently, 56 national organizations representing 'lenders,.
real estate professionals, horne l:)uilders, nonprofit
_- organizations, and federal, state, a~d local governments, ·form
the national core of the Partnership. _ The National Homeownership
Strategy calls for achieving an all time high rate of
homeownership (6?.5 percent} by the end of the year 2.000,
creating up to 8 million' additional homeowners.- To reach this
ambitiou~ goal, a collaborative effort among the 56- National
Partners is underway to implement the 100 actions in the
Strategy.
·
We have already made progress toward·the national
homeownership goal of 67.5 percent. As of the end of-the 1st
quarter of 1996 ,· the national homeownership ;rate was 65 .l
percent, unchanged from the 4_th quarter of 1995. This is the
highest rate since 1981 and the sharpest year to year increase in
at least 30 years. Thanks to lower interest rates and a stable
·economy, we are well on our >Nay to reaching- our ambitious goal~
What is' working nationally 'is-the ADDED-VALUE of National
Partners working together to move the technology and.tbe industry
forward. BUT, National strategies alone do not make new
homeoWn.ers ~ National· strateg'ies can provide the framework and
national organizations can provide policy guidance_ and
encouragement. But expanding homeownership occurs one family and
one house at a time. It happens in individual neighborhoods and
communities. Local partnerships are where the real strategy
implementation will occur.
Last month, ·secretary Cisneros announced the next phase of
the homeownership strategy -- the development of a series of
local partnerships to·foster on the local level that which weare'
trying to do on the national level.
·
The goal ·of a real estate professional is to help people
find and -buy homes. This is their livelihoo.d. It is an
essential component of _the_homebuying proc~ss. This notion~- a
.local partnership of builders, nonprofits, city agencies, etc.
may sound time consuming ·and irrelevant. But, it will increase
.business. It is an investment in a real estate professional's
business, community anq, long term, in the fulfil~ment of the
Partnership's goals.
Clearly the primary benefit of these state and local
partnere,hips will be expanded homeownership opportunities for
citizens within the local jurisdiction. ·In addition, the
National Partners in HomeoWnership will local partnerships ~ith
provide recognition and support •.
P,03
�FROM:OMNIFAX
T0:9P4565709
APR 25, 1996 12=19PM
~932
P,04
U.S. _Oepa11ment of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public Affair$
Washington, D.C. 20410
·
·
·.News· Release
HUD NO'. 96-11
FOR ··RELEASEi.
Aylin Gonen (.20.2) 70:8-'0685 ext. 119
Thursday, - .·
February 8, 19'9 6
Bill Connelly (202}708-0685 ext. 115
\
BUD ANNOUNCES SHARPEST RISE IN BOMEOWNERSHIP RAT£
. ·.
IN AT LEAST 3 0 . YEARS 1
.
.
HIGHEST BOMEOWNERSHIP RATB SINCE 19811
OVER 1.4_~ILLION ~HOMEOWNERS ADDED IN. 1995
WASHINGTON-·~HUO Secretary Henry G.· Cisneros· _eaid today that
the Clinton Administration's economic policies, lower ipterest
rates, and a public-private partnership with the,housing.industry
helped more than i.4 million more. Americans become homeowners in
1995.
.
.
.
.
The national homeownership rate rose to 65.1 percent in the
.·final ql.J;arter of 1995, the highest rate. since 1~81, from a rate
ot' 64.2 percent at the end of. ~9.94.. . l'Jle ga...i.tl .c.f ..nearly 1 percent
represents· the sharpest increase in the ra~e in at least 30
·
years.
Cisneros said this surge in homeownership bodes·well for the
success of President Clinton'.s National Honteownership Strategy,
which is seeking to add .up to 8 million more families to the
homeownership rolls.by the end of the year .2000~ ·
·
The dramatic increase in the homeownership rate is evidence
of a strong economy and the ·desire for families to invest their
hard earned money in~- horne," said Cisneros.
11
'
I
said that the percentage changes frpm the 4th
·quarter of 1994 compared to the 4th quarter of 1995 were among ,
the most dramatic. The horneownership rate for minorities rose·
from ·43.7 percent to 44.3_percent. For households under the ·age
of 35, the number of homeowners has increased from 57.1 percent
to 57.9 percent. For households with less than median family
income the homeownership rate rose from 48.6 percent to 49.4
percent.
Cisne~os
(more) .
I
�--------------------:---------------
FROM:OMNIFAX
APR 25. 1996 12=19PM
ro=9P4565?09
~932
· HUD No .. 96-ll
Page Two
President. Clinton l,.aunched the National Homeownership
Strategy in ,November~ 1994. He directed Cisneros to form the
"National. Partners in Homeownership 1 " in wh.ich 56 major housing
and finance industry groups are now working. with. government_ ·and .
nonprofit organizations to-r~duce barriers to homeownershi~ ..
On June 5, 1995, President Ciinton~ Vice President Gore and
. Secretary Cisneros w~re. joined. by the Partners at the White House
to announce a plan recommending 100 proposed collaborative
· actions to increase h~meownerehip. · The goals of the strategy
include:
\
.
(
'
'
•
Cutt.ing the costs of homeownership (inc.luding financing,
production and transaction costs·and fees), making finaricing
more ava~lablE;! 1 and Simplifying. the hOmebuy_ing prOCeSS •
•
Opening markets for homeownership to increase choice and
remove discriminatory and. regulatory barriers, .making homes,
financing,'and insurance available and affordable tor more
households. .
•
Encouraging homeownership fqr millions of. additional
tamiiies through ed4cation and counseling information :.
technology, communications media, and-community involveirient.
I
.
.
.
.
Considerable work implementing.the National Homeownership
Strategy is under way:
Housing production costs are being reduced
·•
A new initiative involving· the National Association of
Home Builders, HUD, Manufactured Housing Institute,
Fannie Mae and many other Partnership members will
accelerate technologY; improvements in .the construction
of' single family }lomes,.
•
The ~erican'Planning Association, u.s Conferenee of
Mayors, HOD, and others a.re developing 11 Growing Smart"
a model for new en~bling laws which state' and local
governments can use to reform zoning·. requirements.
•
A national swnmit is being organized to explore the
wider use of manufactured housing as an affordable
alternative. ·The meeting will include more than 20
Pa.rtnership organizations state and· local pla~ners,
and manufactured housing producers.,
I
(more)
1
P.05
�FROM=OMNIFF=l><
F=l~R
T0=9P4565709
25, 1996 12=20PM
1:1932, P.06
HUD No. 96-11
Page Three
Acquiring· a mortgage "!ill. become easier
,. -
' •
Downpayment assistance is being provided and increased
savings encouraged through·aggressive new efforts by
the Federal.Home Loan Bank System~ HUD, Neighb~rhood
Reinvestment Corporation and othe.r partners.·
·, •
.Mortgage c~edit in rural communities is being enhanced.
through innovatiVf3 new uses, of the. lJSDA'·s Rural Housing
Service 502 Program with Fannie Mae, a new initiative
called.Rural LISC, involving the Local Initiatives
.Support Corporation (LISC) and other partners, and a
new Partnership demonstration led by Habitat for
rHwnanity International.
\
•
1
More effective homeownership counselingfor first-time
home buyers is now available because of recent efforts
·by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the National Revinvestment
Corporation, American Bankers As'sociation,. Na.tiona1
· · Foundation for Consumer Credit, Mortgage Bankers
Association and HUD..
·
· ··
. Local homeownership efforts are b~ing supported ..
•
The Washington,. D.C. -b.as~d Partnership. will seek to
~trengthen .local homeownership activities.
The ,
Partnership has started a campaign to provide technical
support to.local horneownership partnerships.
).
•
Plans for new publications, homeownership training
opportunities, outreach. campaigns and an internet site
. are being developed to help local homeownership
providers do their jobs more effectively .
.)
�"'Tl
iU
0
3:
0
3:
-z
"'Tl
D
X
D
-u ..
iU
1\J·
IJl
....
1\J
1\J
~
-u
3:
:tt
I.D
w
1\J
�~-----~~----------------::----------c----~--
FROM:OMNIFAX
~
T0:9P4565?09
.
APR 25, 1996 12:22PM 't:t932
'
. CHANGE IN HOMEOWNERSHIP RATES
_BY REGION
.
'\
'
(FROM mE 4TH QUARTER OF 1994 TO THE 4TH QUARTER OF 1995)
..
I
REGION
Current rate.
(4th Quarter 1995) .
~te
at End of 1994 ·
(4th Quarter l 994)
NORTIIEAST ·
61.6
61.4
:MIDWEST
70.1
68.6 ,·
SOUTH
67~5
65.7
WBST-
59.0·,
59.6
NATIONAL.·~
65.1
64.2
\
Census Bureau Data
c /
p;~18
�FROMiOMNIFA!l<
T0:9P4565709
, APR 25, 1996 12:22PM
~932
P.09
�FROM:OMNIFAX
TO: _9P4565709
APR 25, 1996 .12=24PM
~932
P.10
-::~'~
;/j
...
. ·--\~:~
. ·:.~;jj
·.;r,l
'·':!!
' .~~
-- ~ .:;'£
·:~
'..;I
-'~
·~
. '~ll
·--~
:.a
···.m
.·.·.::~
. ·;,.j:j"-i
-~
· ·~-.·i.,"':,
.:~
:~
·I
. .,;jj!
··;i
• .j,.'J
·:~~
·;~
.·:·.~i
·-~
·,_~
:j'l
·-.-~'
·:\~
.;~1
·~~~
'it
' :l1
··~'
,J:.i'
..
;:~j
·~
.::J
.
J
I,
,"';
<·;··
~
·~-.'~·~
·~
·~
·~.
;;)
·loi
·~it
.1.~
,·;j
·. ~
'i
:i!
:J
1'
_:-~
·.·:.;';':"'
�FROM:OMNIF~X
T0:9P4565709
~PR
25 •. 1996 12:2SPM
1:!'332
\
P.11
�APR 25, 1996 12:27PM
T0:9P4565709
FROM:OMNIFA><
t!S"<2
P.l2
J)Ul)lJ
THE
-.HOME BUYER,
'FACTSHr.
SCHOOL
•,
Objectives of The
Homebuyar School Events
Homebuyer School .
Seminar Topics
· The Hcmebuyer School has three primary objectives:
• Increase' the number of active first-time homebu}'ers,
• Preparing for.Homeownership
• Finding the Right Home for You .
providing the local residential real estate market with ·
·• ShopPing for aLoan ·
an influx of new, knowledgeabl_e prospects
• HUD/FHA Options
• Build awareness and promote usage of FHA~insured
·. financing and REO inventory
Who Exhibits?
• Support the National Homeownership Strategy
Real Estate Agents and Brokers- Mortgage Len~; ,,s
.
'
.
and Brokers~Banks -Housing/Financial Co;1,..,- · 1
To support 1hes·e objectives, Hl:JD will be securing .
· Agencies- Home Builders/Developers..;,. Horn ·.
.
'
'I
:·
the endorsement and active participation of local
Inspectors -Title Companies- Real Estate At to;
mortgage
bankers
associations, mortgage bro!(ers
.
.
Various other'groups connected with the horn•1
associations, boards of Re~ltors- afld nonprofits.
buying process.
WhatlsThe
,
Ho"mebuyer .School
Who Attends?
'
Nationwide, the breakdown of total attendanr" _,~
'
• A national educati<mal series of events brought to
'
· past Schools has been consistent:
'
· • Various groups of potential first-time home;-,· ..
the local level .
. • Afree, one-day event organized and sponsored
.; inCluding: -young, dual·income couples
-young couples with children
byHUD
- singl~ parents
• A trade show designed to assist homebuyers in all ,
phases of the buying process
.
.
• Attendees can learn more about the homebuying
• Over
80% ere renters ·
'
. .
• 38% have household income between $3Q.J)ri r,r,!)
'
-,
proces? by;.
• Roughly 40% are between the ages of 3 C· · ·
-talking to housing professionals on the exhibit floor
• 84 o/o have curr~nt plans to purchase a horr· ·
~attending the educational seminars
• HUD Homes have been considered by 53%
---~--------..:.....----~------___;,----........,..-----_.:. ..:.- .~~J
i
�.FROM:OMNIFAX
llJ.U
.~
••
APR 25, 1996 12=27PM
·J0:9P4565709
u,.
Results of.Homebuyer Seh.~i\'!s
to Dati
.
Six Homebuver Schools sponsored by HUD are
scheduled for FY '96.
·
Santa Ana (San Bernardino), CA
The National Orange Show
8:30-4:30
.
· ·Chicago, IL
McCormick Place
. 9:00-5:00
·
Similar events conducted by HUD in 1994 ar,~' ': ~.r.~.
attracted over 20,000 participants. Following · ·· ·,e ·
results of San ~ernardino and Chicago even to::
• San Bernardino- 8,000 attendees, over 3. c· ~·
4/13/96
certificmas distributed entitling bear~r to pu: · · .· ~e
aHUDH6m~withjusta$500downpaym9r.'
4/13196
Dallas
Dallas Market Center·
8:3().4:30
·Washington D.C.·
(Prince Georges County, MD) .
The Show Place Arena
8:304:30
·Los Angeles
Los Angeles Convention Center
8:30-4:30
'
seminars. Closeto 100 indust!)' particlpa:-~ ·. ·
Homebuyer Seminars ·.lnadditiontolargesealeschools.HUD pia ... ·•: ·. ·<-t
·6/8/96
6/15196
·•
20 smaller Homebuyer Seminars. These a··-
·11
be educational. 2-3 hour l.ectures on the ~r -. ·
·"-
buying process, with opportunities for c.'·"··
question and answers.
Markets !entatively planned for these ev,;.• ·
For more information, call the Homebuyer School
.Hc)tline at 1-800-244-8118.
·'To date, HUD has also been a lead sponsor of three
major existing Homebuyer Outreach events.
Baltimore
, Camden Yards
10:00-5:00
• Chicago- 6,600 attendees,l, 700 partie ips:
5/11196 .
Attendee Hotline
Atlanta·
Georgia World Congress Center
10:00.5:00
-
3/16/96
Denver
St. Loui~
Coral Gables
NewOr::·-
Tulsa
Salt LahJ ~
San Diego
SanAni:;; ·
Memph_is
Greens'.:·~.
Houston
Hartford
Detroit
Nashvi!i<;
Columbia,
3/16196
sc
. Grand Rapids·
Manchester
_
Phoenix Civic Plaza
9:0Q-5:00 '
'"'Jr .
60 industry exibitors. ·
Camden, NJ
The South Jersey Expo Center~Pennsuaken .
8:30-4:30
5/4196
Phoenix
P.13
l£>1JUJ.
l)J.)IJV
FY 96 Homebuyer School
Schedule
.
~S32
. 1113.4,5/95
I
·. 'Jackson
.Seattle
Little R~ :: · ·
�c:
""'
'·
N
Col
i
'a:
Cli
! '
0
t::·
z
1:1:
PRirinm fR;;
I) .' Jf'--~
/'l.. .
7)5eattle
l!
I(
I \. '
;·' ..' '
1lj (_
: r:-----•
. '
,
' '
~
~
.
ID)
.
!' ,·
1
.
I
I
-
'
3:
~
~
~
lJoo'
...""c
..........
.......
OE
l
•
~~
-
.
. · (..'
K'f
'
..
'
I
-·?J~·.
~-·
.
'
"--4-----_J
WA
~,,.. 01•_;;
., ~·~··
11•:
HUDS Homebuyer Education/Outreach
..
.
""'!
!
11
;;u
0
3:
NO
l
. .
OE
01
1'1:
.3D
~
1
0
w
~
A
=
e
~
c
JG
~
~
~
~-
~
;W
J''
Tlllsa.
'
c:w
:D
~
;;u
!\)
~
rl
Il
f-A
w
w
~
f-A
!\)
!\)
•. 1
'
==--·--'
'
=~
••
.
.
·0)
~
3:
'
- ""-·...:=:=----~.........-__......,.,...~,=-==:-·---~--=·""al.~~-=~---=--~=
'
:tt:
cD
1,.-.)
r,J
!
•,'
I
:).. ..;,;
>;,: ,.
-·;
l ••.•
, ...
;i
'I'·- .i\.1\ ~
~.'r
\:- •·· /f'I.'JI'/l't'
k·•···
·(!~..,.
~:~~cr:s~·-~:-+~I_t~::I~f;;~~-S>t·r
:"~
C>
o·
~
-o
1-'
_p.
.I
I
I
�-----------------,-----------------------
FROM:OMNIFAX
04/23/96
T0:9P4555709
TUE 14:05 FAX 4048411852
~PR
25 •. fgge; 12:28PM
j:j'332
I:JUJ)U
P.15
~.¥.t 1._1 1,.1 .)
/
FHA
f-'!.~1 ~
"HAVING KIDS"-:- :30 TV COMMERCIAL
,), '
"\;'€
. ;r
This commtrcial is part of a new FHA promotional effort designed to increase t~ numberoffirst•time h~tbuyer s
Jn support of the National Homeowner ship Strategy. Thefows of this spot is a )'Ouf'l8 coupl~ with 3 little boys. ~n!-:
household is quite cictive and the commercial captures the fast· paced joy and excitement of this family as they e·n:"·~~
their new home, purchased with the help of the FHA. ·
(HUSBAND VO) "You're nevet
really read',' to tuwe kid&.
Then we heard about the FHA.
Just call 1·888·444·4FHA (TITLE!
Call toll-free 1-8BB·444-4FHA Ask
eny real estate agent or lender
. We had our first and man, that
apartment got real small.
Buttherewasnowaywe cn~.· 1
afford this house,
(AN NCR) The FHA can help you
With a downpavment as li
become a homeowner.
a few months rent.
(HUSBAND VO) "They say h$ving
kids changes everything In your life.
Looking around.••
I'd ssythat's prenyneat. ·· ,1:
We'll get you t,ome,T~·~<:· '·
of Housing and Urban '
Eqval Housing Opport• ·
'
1•
. '4,
�FROM:OMNIFA><
U4/ii:3/YI:J
'l'Uh J4;Utl JfA.\ 4041!14111!152
APR 25,
T0:9P4565'709
1996 12.: 29PM
t:!S32 · ? . 1S
·. HHI>O
FHA
"'DADDY'S HOME" • :30 TV COMM-ERCIAL
This commercial is parE of a new FHA promotional effott de$igned to
inerea.~e the m.t~lber offirstrtime ho'ITU IJt<.>, · . ~ n
· &upport .of the N,ation(!l H rmieowm:rship Strategy. This spot focuses on a couple with young daughte~ .s. T,1·"-
outgrown the space in theit apartmt!nf.. but tltey didn't thin~ they could afford to buy a house. Then they hen
the FHA's message of a/fordability and low monthly payments .
. (MAN VO)
"My kfds ere all growing up
ao fest We needea this kind of apaee.
butwadldn'tthlnk we could afford ft.
· homeownel"61 how about that!"
Just caii1..SS8-444·4FHA
: (TITLE) Call roll~f(ee 1·888-444·4FHA
Aak any real estate agent or lender.
Then I heard about the FHA.
(AN NCR) With a down payment
Now C?heck
u& out. •.
thefHAcanhelpyou
hf'c'''"
es little es a few months rent.
homeowner.
(MAN VO) "Now, when I walk through-'
that door, mv kids yell, Daddy's home!
Daddy's home!
He sure Is." mTLE) FH , .
you hom(t, The U.S. D~
and Urban'DeveloprncHousin'! Opponunlty.
•
,,~
·t
�/
FROM:OMNIFA!l<
U41li:I/I:HI
.T0:9P4565709
'l'Ut; 14: lU I'AA. 4U4~411852
APR 25, 1996 12:30PM
~S~7
~.17
DlllJO -
FHA
"ANNA'S HOUSEN- :30 TVCOMMERCIAL
This commercial is ~rt of a new FHA. promotional effott designed to. increas~. the number offirst~time h~ b,_, / ·
sv.ppmt Of[1Je Naticm.dl Hom~ownetship Strategy. This spot portrays a very close·~nit, extendedfamiiy that t ·.·
tradition of~~tting tc>ger:he; on Sunday afternoons. The: story ts natrated by ·~nna:• a proudfa'-mily membt:r .
the help of the FHA, has just b~ught her first how.
.
:1
':1
.
.,
.·
.
'~].
~1
w
... 1~··~·;'
J' ••
r
"[·;:
-~·.'
·t
fWOMANVO)
•every Sunday, my
· · · family has been getting together at
one of our apartments.
(AN NCR) Fot not much more than
what you're paying in rent. ...
. "Let's
.
.
go to Anna's
houaer•
. .
My husband and I always wanted
our own house, but we dldn'tthlnk
Thctnwe heard about th"·! ·
we could afford one.
th& FHA can h alp you become a
r-.omeowner, Just can 1·888-444·4FHA.
(TITLE) Call toll-free 1-88S-444·4FHA .
Ask any real estate agent Ot lend a r.
Tl'lat'B so nice to hear•••
(WOMAN VO) "Now on. s ··
everyone says •••
Anna's hOU$e," (TITLEi' ·.
get you home. The U.s.
Housing and Urban DeEqual Housing Oppor
- I
�..
TUli 14:12 FAX 4048411852 .
· FROM: OMN I Fr=IX
04/2~/96
T0:9P4565709
BBDO
APR 25, 1996 12=31PM
I
�[H
Apr. 25. 1996 !2:33PM
IONAL ASSOCIATION··
NAT
.OF REALTORs®·
The Voice for Real Estate~
REALTOR 9
-- \
fROM:
No, 3530
NAT ASSN REALTORS
NATlCNALASSQCIATlCN QF ~EALTQR~
niO ell!'l'lmtn Stmt, NW
Wal'lin;lan. D.C.
Polltlc=~l
zaaa1 •41507
and Stala Affairs
Telephone: ZQ:ZI3C.1047
. . . Fa:
2D2f.SD.7!80
o.li, .
PBONE::
. '
PLIASE•DELMB IQ;
~-
']e--1~·:{
NAME:.
'
I
COMPANY:
.,
FA."<:
coMMENJ'.Sl
·'
'
;
I
(
'I
.
-
'
'
Total number of pages including coversheet - - - I
I
Date:
I
P.E.H.TCR!I~
=
real aatall!ll!ll'll
ala \llf'lo n
IN su.t~.scnlle 11:1 ill aariCl Code of
Account fl. _ _ __
P.
'
.(
.
�~~~------;::----------;~~~---
. -Apr. 25.1996
12:33PM 1 . NAT ASSN REAL}ORS
'No.3530
NADONALASSOCIAUONOFJEALTOR$
UGISLAJm: Q!IOO.ISJ: ..
· SENATI
.Support·
P. 2
'>
· \
S. 60S. ~·ority Leader Dol~s Omnibus Private Property lights Protedion ~ill.·
Cospoasor ·_ S. RES.l17 which preserVes the. mortgage imere5t dedUction in its
current form.
Capital Gains legisl~on passed by Congress in 1995 but vetoed by
President Clinton.
. .
~
'
Support
'
Support
I
Oppose
"
,.
The conversion of the FHA sinJle fimily mortgage insurance program to an
·_ incie~enden~ govemm_ent-o.wned e~tity providing loa.n-by:.loan mortgage
insurance.
S. 114S. which would privatize FHA
I -
Oppose
_Patteining FHA aft~ the VA loan progiant _
,.I
BOUSE
Cosponsor
·H.CON.RES.lO which preserves-the mortpge interest deduction in its
current form.
·
·
Support ·
Capital Gains legislation passed by Congress_in 1995. but vetOed by·
President Clinton. ·-·
·
· Support
Oppose
Oppose
H.R.. 1708, lbe Federal Mortgage Insurance ~orporation Charter Act.
of 1995. which tranSforms FHA to an independent, government-owned entity
streamlining its various authorities to improve iu bUsiness operations and
administration.
··
·
K~ 2198 which wo~d privatize FHA.·
Patterning FHA after. the VA loan p~ogram.
·-
�Apr. 25.1.996
12:33PM
No. 3530
NAT ASSN REALTORS
P. 3.
/.
TAx REFORM AND REAL ESTATE
•
Bouse Members should.cosponsor B.Con.~es.tO, and Seuaton should cosponsor
S.Res. 11.7. These resolutions express the sense of Congress that the mortgage interest·
deduction should be preserved in its current fonn. :rhe lead House· sponsor is Rep. Marge
RoiJkema (R-NJ). Finance Committee Chairman Senator Bill Roth (R..DE) sponsored
S.Res.117.
.
. ·
• ·.
America IDve~tS ia Real Estate. The mo~ widely held asset in America is real
estate, both residential and. commerciaL Accordingly, protecting real estate is not
· a· special interest, it's in ·everyone's interest.
··
•
. Preserling homeownenhip incentives is fundamental. The primacy investment of
American families is their home. Sixty.five percent of Americans own their homes, and
· many more would like/to do so. Congress should take no action that would erode the
value of t.his investment.
•
Tax Reform will involve more than just preserving the mortgage inter~st deduction .
While preservation of the mortgage interest deduction is the cornerstone ofNAR's goals
in tax reform, any reform process must retain a balanced mix of real estate. tax incentives
·for homeowners and investors, alike.
·
·
•
Investment real es~ate must be treated fairly. Some tax reform proposals eliminate
.important proVisions like depreciation, interest deductions and even capital gains: The
real estate investment provisions must be crafted so thai real estate remains a ;
. sound investment product for entrepreneurs.
'
•
The 1986 tax reform taught us that great care must be exercised in restructuring the
tax benefits associated w~th real estate ownership. Radical changes to tax rules are ·
ill-adVised. Eliminating tax incentives and/or changing 'the rules in midstream has harsh
impact on r~al estate .markets.
\
/
�Apr.25.,1996 !2:34PM:
.No. 3530
NAT ASSN REALTORS
P. 4
FEDERAL HOUSING APMiNtSTRATION (FHA) SINGLE
FAMILY INSURANCE PROGBAM
I'
•
Congress is. CWTently debating the future mission and structure of the FHA single
· &mily mongase insurance program. NAR is urging Memben of Congress to ·
suppOrt the conversion aJ FHA to an independent, government-awned entity
· providing loan-by-loan mortgage insurance, and gapose FilA restructuring
··proposals that jeopardize the tiuancialbealth of the FHA program.
.
-·
'
Proposals have' been oft"er~ to restruCture FHA in various fashions.
These include: restructuring, as· an independent, govemment·owned corporation;
elirrUnating HUD and privatizing FHA; and modeling FFiA after the Veterans
Administration
(VA) home loan guaranty
.program.
. .
.
.
•
•
'
NAR: supports H.R..l708, "The Federal Mortgage Insurance Corporation
Charter Act' of 1995", .introduced by Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL), which transforms
-FHA. to t1n independent, government-owned entity streamlining its various authorities"
to improve its business operations and administration. NAR believes restructuring
FHA in this fashion>will free the program from the bureaucratic manageq1ent process~
' provide a higher level of efficiency arid service to FHA customers, and reduce costs to
. the program further.enhancing FHA's sound, financial position. NAR urges Hause
_ Members to support this impo~ant legislation.
NAR opposes B.R.ll98 and S.ll45 which recommends privatizing FHA.
.NAR maintains privatizing FHA will disproportionately burden low- and
'middle-income homebuyers due to higher p·r~mium costs and more siringent
. under.vriting crit~ria. Privatizing FHA will result~in the ·imposition of income limits .
on borrowers or targeting to a specific population group; threatening the actuarial
_soundness of the program at a time when Congress is working to limit the Federal
-government's exposure to financiallo.sses. NAR urges Bouse and Senate Members
to oppose.B.R.2198 and .5.1145; respectively. ·
>
•
NAR apposes patterning FHA after the VA home loan guaranty progr~m because .
the FHA is self.. sustaining and has not cost taxpayers any money in its 60-year existence,
while the VA program is an entitlement program that has, required from. Congress since
1984•continuous appropriations of positive credit subsidy. For FY1994, FfiA,generated
$2.5 million while the VA program required $605,987 in subsidies. Confonning FHA
to the VA loan program will cause FHA loans to ,become more expensive .to homebuyers,
weakening FHA·market share,.and imposing/risk on the financial health of the FHA
program.,
..
·~
�Apr._25~
1996 !2:34PM
·Na.%30
NAT ASSN .REALTORS
P. 5
Current Summary on
Capital Gains
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
.
.
.
.
·.
ISSUi: Prior to 1986, taxpayers could exclude 60% of net long-term cap~al gains froni tax,
which effectively resulted in a maximum rate of 20%. Howe\fer, the Tax Reform Act of 1986
eliminated this exclusion. Under current law. the full amount of any capital gain is treated as
ordinary income, subject to a maximum rate of 28%.
Since 1988, the top tax rate on ordinary inCQme has Increased to 39.6%, while the maximum
rate for capital gains has remained at 28%. The effect of this 28% cap on higher income
taxpayers amounts to roughly a 30% exclusion ofeapital gains. However, taxpayers in the
lower brackets (15% and 28%) do not share in this benefit.
Current law allows capital losses to be deductible in full against capital gains. _Also, taxpayers ·
· other than corporations may deduct capital losses against up to $3,000 of ordinary income in
each year; with the excess losses being carried forward to be applied in futura tax years. .Under
· current Jaw, losses on the sale of a principal residenee are deemed personal losses rather than ·
capital losses and cannot be deducted.
· Capital gains are calculated bas~d on the difference between an assetis sale price and its tax
basis. Under current law, the basis is not adjusted to reflect inflation, so that capital gains taxes
are paid on inflationary gains as well as ·real gains.
NAB POSITION: 'NAR supports a meaningful differential between the taxation ofordinary ·
income and the taxation of capital gains.
·
· IMPACT ON REALTORS®: Favorable capital gains taxes are effective, in providing a stimulus .
for taxpayers who wish to sell appreciated property without losing a substantial portion of their
gain to taxes .. Today, many taxpayers are "locked-in" t~ original investments to avoid a major
tax expense in one year. This ties up funds for capital· reinvest~ent in the national economy.
· Reducing the capital gains rate will free up capital for investment and ·help stimulate economic
· growth and new jobs.
·
·
·
.
.
. 'Favorable capital gains taxes will also enable investor! to more accurately reflect actual ... ·
economic gain in a time of inflation. Indexing assets for inflation will inject fairness into the tax
code and avoid taxing property and assets ~n illusory gains.
·
STATUS/OUTLOOK: · President Clinton vetoed on December e, 1995-the 1995 Balanced
· Budget Reconciliation Act which provides for balancing the federal budget by the year _2002.
The Congress and the Presid~nt have agreed to fund government operations on a temporary .
basis through April 24, during which time negotiations over a long term budget are taking place.·
NAR endorsed the Republican Balanced Budget Act because had it become law, it would have
yielded significant benefits for American homeowners and homebuyers by reducing interest . ·
�NAT ASSN REALTORS
. Apr.-25.1996 !2:35PM
No. 3530
P: 6
.
'
. rates and enacting several important tax benefits for residential and. commercial real estate.
The most important real estate tax benefit of the vetoed bill is the 50 percent exclusion for
capital gains income, which effectively reduces the top indi'lidual capital gains rate to 19.8
percent. Of particular interest to residential real. estate, the bill allows a capital loss deduction
for sale of principal residence.. '
In his veto message~ President Clinton criticized the tax cuts bec.$use of the revenue loss and
argued that the cuts benefited the wealthiest taxpayers. In terms of the provisions of Interest to
Realtors, the President singled out the retroactive date for capital gains as a windfall for
taxpayers wno have already. sold their assets. The President did not specifically criticize !)~her
.·provisions of interest to Realtors but did say that the bill contained special interest loopholes for
.. real estate developers". The President did criticize the sunset of the low income housing tax
credit in the bill.
The President ·sent to the Congress on January .5. 1996 his own 7~year balanced budget plan
which contains $98' billion in tax cuts. This tax p'ckage is essentially-the same previsions put
· forward in February 1995 as part of his overall budget package, but does include some new
·"corporate welfare" loophole closers. The centerpiece is a child tax credit, a student loan .
interest deduction, and a less generous IRA proposal than in the Republican budget.
~
"
(
Currently, negotiations between the White House and the Republican leadership are
stalemated. This summary will be updated 1as soor'l as there Is any change.
'
CONTACIJ: Linda Goold (202) 383·1083, Tom Morgan (202)383-1078
PRIMARY REALTOR® COMMIUEE: Federal Taxation Committee ·
Last updated:
04/16196
Tom Morgan
) '
�· Apr. 25. 1996 . 12 : 35PM
No. 3530
NAT ASSN REALTORS
Curre·nt Summary on .
Private Property Rig_hts/Land Use
P: 7
J
)
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAl.TORS® GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
ISSUE:
P~vate Property Rights legislation
NAR POSITION: NAR recognizes the importance of ·protecting our natural environment.
However, we.feel that any such restrictions on the use of property should be balanced with the.
constitutional private property rights guaranteed .to our citizens under the Fifth Amendment.
IMPACT ON REALTORS®: _In recent years, as. efforts to protect the environment have
escalated, legislative and regulatory restrictions on the use of private property have become
more stringent. Legislation is needed in Congress to ensure that Federal agencies, in enforcing
environmental laws, such as wetlands and the Endangered Species Act, do not infringe upon
the constitutionally-protected private property rights of landowners.
·
··
·STATUS/OUTLOOK: In March, by,tinal vote-of 277 ~148, the House adopted HR 925, the.
"Private property Protection Act.". HR 925, introduced by Rep. Charles ca11ady (R-FL),
provides compensation for any diminution in value of the affected portion of'a property, greater
than.20%, that was caused by any federal agency action ari$ing under six federal wetlands,
endangered species, and water rights statutes. HR 925 will also allow property owners whose
property has been devalued by greater than fifty percent to force the federal government to
purchase their property outright. NAR strongly supported the passage _of HR 925.
,
The Senate private property rights legislation (S. 605) cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee
just prior to the Christmas recess, by a 10 -7 vote; and will go .to the Senate floor sometime in
1996. Introduced by Majority Leader Bob Dole, S. 605 addresses a .number of property rights
.·
'
. I
•
. concerns:
• •
It provides compensation for any federal agency action that results in a-diminution of fair
.market value of greater than 33 percent or more or the affected portion ~the property •. The ·
. definition of property includes real property, and the water and mineral rights incumbent to the
.· property. Suit would 'have to be brought in· Federal District Court or the US Court of Claims ..
•
It establishes a "Pnvate Property Owners Administrative Bill of Rights." Included are .
.provisi~ns: ·
-. Requiring agency heads to minimize impacts on private property;
.. Requiring agencies to get the prior cs;msent ~f property owners before entering their
land and to share any information gleaned from such entry. ·It also provides the property owner
the right to dispute .the accuracy of the data obtained. ··
'
I
.
'
- Providing private property ow,ers the right to an expedited administrative appeal of
I
�Apr. 25.1996 -!2:36PM·
#
..
No. 35JO . P. 8 .
. NAT ASSN REALTO-RS
',
·agency decisions impeding their property under the Endangered Species Act and wetlands
section of the Clean Water Act that resurts in a diminution of fair market value of greater than
33 percent ormor:eor the affected portion of the property. ·
·
'*
·It requires federal agencies to assess the impact of all proposed regulations on- private
property owners. The bill would al.so require agencies to perform a takings impact analysis and
to sel~ct the· re_gulatory alternative that minimizes the taking of. private property.
•
It provides for alte_mative dispute resolution procedures and clarifies federal court
jurisdiction for takings claims:
·
·
.
,' .
S. 805 is far more comprehensive than its House companion bill (HR 925) which provides
compensation for any diminution in value of the affected portion Of a property, greater than
20%, thatwas caused by any federal agency &lction arising under six federal_ wetlands,
en~angere~ species, and water rights statutes.· While the Dole bill has a higher takings
threshold than 'HR 925 (33% diminution vs. 20%) it would apply to all federal statutes, not just
the si~ addressed by HR 925.
.
President Clinton has already announced his ~pposition to S. 605 and HR 925.
.
'
'
CONTACTS: Lee White (202)383-10.77
PRIMARl' REALTOR® COMMITI'Es: Environment Committee
·Last Updated:
'04/15196
wee
�Apr: 25. 19 96 12 : 36 PM
No. 3530
NAT ASSN REALTORS
P. 9 ·
. Current SuiJ'}m.ary
on
.
· .Tax Reform .
'
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORN GOVERNMENT R!LATTONS
· 'ISSUE: Debate over simplifying and reforming the tax system continues in Congre~s. One of.
·.the proposals attracting attention is a flat tax proposal being championed by House Majority
·Leader, Richard ~rmey (R·TX). The flat tax involves a ra~ical oVerhaul of the tax syste.m by
replacing the current tiered rate schedule with one uniform tax rate for all taxpayers. This new
system would likely 'eliminate almost all deductions, including the mortgage interest deduction. ·
Senator Phil Gramm (R·TX) has proposed his own flat tax plan that would preserve the
mortgage Interest and .charitable con~ribution deductions.
r
Another proposal attracting attention is the "Unlimited Savings Account'' tax' system proposed
·_ by Senators Sam Nunn (D:.GA) and P~ter Domenici (R~NM). This proposal would eliminate
·taxes en personal savings, create a flat tax of less than 10 percent for .all businesses and_
establish an unlimited tax deduction for capital investment. While the treatment of real estate 1$
_less clear, deduction fer mortgage interest would be allowed.
·
,
A
third proposal that has been mad~ are ccnsuinption
or sales tax repla~ments for the current
income tax system. House Ways and Means Chairman Archer (R·TX). Senator Lugar (R·IN),
Congressmen Schaefer (R-CO), and Congressman Tauzin (R·LA) have made such proposals.
Congressmen Schaefer and Tauzin characterize their proposal as the House companion to Senatcr ·
Lugar's consumption
tax, and they introduCed their bill on March 7, 1996.
/
The Schaefertravzin prcposal replaces the current inccme tax system with a sales tax with a 15 perc:ent
rate. In terms of housing, they propose at this point a sales tax on housing but a credit to be provided to
the seller fer the sales tax paid on the property being sold. A buyer would pay net sales tax if he or she ·
· purchased a more expensive heme than he or she sold. A seller that sold a home and did not purt:hase a
· _ replacement home would receive a creclit that could_ be used to fund non-housing _purchases or savings.
· All current homeowners would receive a credit on the sale of their existing tiome. Any sales tax on
·primary residences would be payable ratably ~ver 30 years. Rent would be subject to tax.
HAR POSITIQH: NAR adopted pciicy in May 1995 opposing the Armey flat tax (H.R. ·
4585/1994), and its· closely related counterpart, S. 488, introduced In 1995 by Senator Specter.
H.R. 4585 completely repeals the mortgage interest deduction (MID). S. 488 permits a limited
deduction for indebtedness up to $100,000. Both bills would tax capital gains en sale at ~e·
highest rate applicable. to income. and would apply principles of full ordinary income recapture.
By contrast, there would be no tax at ~II en the capital gains arising on sales of securities. .
the
Concerning consumption taxes, the Realtors and the Homebuilders are
first cutsid~ groups that were '
approached by. Congressmen Schaefer and Tauzin fer reaction to their prcpc;~sal. Their proposal has been
placed on the agenda fO,r the tax reform working group and federal tax committee meetings in April. .
IMPACT ON REALTORS®: E_Umination of the ~crtgage interest deduction would have a
disastrous impact on h.ome values. NAR has participated in a study conducted by DRI, an
I
�NAT ASSN
Apr.25. 199_6 '!2:36PM
No .. 3530
REALTOR~
P.. 10
intematienaf ecenometric ~odeling finn. 'That study shows that the value of existing home~
· weuld decline by 15 • 20%, and that ~et househeld wealth in the U.S. declines by $1.7 trillion.
All ec:Onomie indicaters show marf(ed declines, Including gross domestic product, housing starts
ar:td growth. N~R- released a study on January 22, 1996 shoWing that the· decline in heme
values will triple mortgage Jesses and double fareCiosure rates.
'
The effect of the Schaefer!T'auzln sales tax pn:~pcsat is lesa cer:tain. While their taX credit approach on
real estate sales does relieve some of the. burden on real estate, It is not as beneficial as exempting
housing from sales taxes altogether, as Chairman Archer has previously stated was his poSition. In
addition, it is not clear what the effeCt of the pn:~posal would be on the comm~rcial sector.
ITATUS/OUTLOQK: The flat tax proposal has spawned considerable debate concerning tax
restructuring. The. lead tax reform proposal has been introduced by Congressman Dick Armey
(H.R. 2080) and Senater Dick.Shelby (S.1050}. VVtiDe their bills are marginally '!lOre. detailed .
than the 1994 version of the flat tax, the bill is still largely an outline of a,system that would .
re~eal all deductions, give Individuals a generous personal e~er:nption, and tax all remaining
income at a rate of 20 percent. fal!ing to 17 percent after 2 years. These bills would repeal the
mortgage interest dedudion. While Senator Gramm has announced 'the outlines of his
. proposal, he has not introduced it as a bill at thiS tJme.
Other reform proposals include a plan (not·in bill form) outlined by House, Minority Leader Dick
Gephardt. It retains a graduated tax rate schedule, and retains1the mortgage interest
, •
· dedudion. · Most other popular deductions would be repealed. Senators Nunn and Domenici
have overhauled the tax system with a preposal called the Unlimited Savings Account (USA)
Tax. It retains the mortgage interestdeduction,'but taxes capital gains on real estate sales in·
full..
·. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Archer has stated his opposition to the flat tax,
prefering instead to move to a consumption tax that would eliminate the income tax, and
replace it with a tax that resembles a sales tax or European-style value-added tax: Archer has
written in editorials that such a system would not tax housing.' Under such a system, there ,
would be no need for a mortgage interest deduCtion,· as the income tax would be eliminated,
and purchases of housing would not be subjed to a fede~l-level tax; either. Archer has yet to
. ouUine the parameters of his ~roposal, so it Is difficult to assess its impact on the economy or
on housing.
·
.
-
.
Former Sec~tary and Congressman Jack Kemp chaired a commission that rel,ased its report
on Wednesday, January 17, 1998. While the Kemp Commission report does· net ex~lieitly
.endorse maintaining the mortgage interest deduction, it does state that ''the home mo!'tgage. r
.interest deduction ,has spurred home ownership in America; an important goal of our
. cemmission is to s~read ownership give more people a stake in the
system".
r
to
...
-.
CONTACTS: linda Go'old 202·383-1083, Tom Morgan 202-383-1078
· PRIMARY REALTOR® CQMMITIEE:. Federal Taxation Committee
�No. 3530
Apr. 25. l 996 12: 37PM · NAT ASSN R.EALTORS
P. 11
•
I
Current Summary on
Mortgage Interest Deduction
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF Wl.TORS® GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
ISSUE: Mortgage Interest Deduction
. MAR POSITION: NAR supports current law, which permits deductions of the interest paid on
mortgages of up to $1 million in value on a primary residence and one additional residence. In
addition, the interest paid on home equity loans of up to $100,000 may be deducted. NAR
vigorously opposes any.change to current law.
·
·
.
.
IMPACT ON REALTOR§®: The MID is a central feature of homeownership: and is probably
the best known benefit of homeownership. Cbanges to the MID could have·serious implications
to the value of homes and homeownership.
.
·.
STATUS/OUTLOOK: House Majority leader DickArmey (R·TX) and Senator Richard Shelby
{R.;Al) have introduced legislation to create ''flat
system that would significantly broaden
the tax base and lower the rates so that there would be a single tax bracket. This legislation
would regeal the MID. Other legislation has been proposed that would limit the MID in various ways.
·
a
tu'
OMB Director Alic:e'Rivlin wrote a memo in October 19S4 t~at listed the MID as one of many
options that could be used to reduce the deficit. This memo generated enormous controversy.
It was Intended as a "catalogue" and is not a formal proposal. ·rn addition, Senators Bob
Kerrey (D~NE) and John Danforth (R-MO) noted in their report of the Bipartisan Commission on
Entitlement Reform that significant revenues could be generated with limitations on the MID. ·
In addition to flat tax bills, many academic and social welfare organizations have advoc;ated a
reduction in the MID, with the "savings" to the government being allocated to various housing
goals. The most frequently described proposal would 'reduce the cap on mortgages from $1 ,
million· to $300;000. While these proposals may have some appeal with certain constituencies,
they would be very controversial. Tt:ley would be very unfair to high cost areas; and could
cause significant reductions in value to more c:Ostly housing. This, in tum, would have an
adVerse impact on the local tax base of many communities. In addition, these proposals do not
reflect any recognition of the way that Congress works. VVhile the tax writing committees could
change the MID, they have no jurisdiction to establish the trust funds or make other
appropriations that these proposals envision. Thus, there is no practical way· to raise the tax
and appropriate the money.
.
.
.
Realtors® can anticipate that the MID will remain yolatlle for the foreseeable future.
(See the di§cussion of Tax Reform.>
·
·
NAR has undertaken an extensive grass roots effort to make it clear to the Congress that ANY
erosion of MID is unacceptable. For now, it appears that the earlier threats to MID in the·
�Apr. 25 .. !996 ·!2:37PM
No. 3530
NAT ASSN REALTORS
P. 12
,,
· Senate have diminished due to the resignation of Senator Packwood. Nonetheless, Realtors®
can expect that he will continue to pose the possibility of atradeoff between MID and otl'ler
valuable deductions to illustrate the need for thoughtful consideration. of tax policy.
. CONTACTS: Linda Goold (202) 383-1083, Tom Morgan (202) 383-1078
PBIMARY REALTOR® COMMIUEE: Fec:feral Taxation Committee .
Last updated:
04/16198
-
Tom Morgan
.'
'
�Apr. 25.1996
12:38PM
No. 3530
NAT ASSN REALTORS·
P: 13
Current Summary o·n
FHA (Federal :·Housing-Ad.ministration)
"
!
~
NATIONAL A$SOCU\TION OF REALTOR6e GOVERNMENT RElATIONS '
/
ISSU§: The FHA single·farnily mortgage insurance program plays a major role in making
·available and expanding homeownership by .insuring low down payment mortgages. The
universal and consiste~t availability of the FHA program to-borrowers of varying income
sp~ctrums ensures an alternative source of mortgage financing especially when private
mortgage insurance is nonexistant. Congress is currently considering. the future of FHA with
. debate centering around its mission and purpose and its financial stability. Legislation · ·
(H.R.1708) has been introduced that would establish a separate Government corporation to
administer the current FHA single~farr,ily mortgage insurance program. On the other hand,
legislation (H.R.219S,and'S.1 145) has been·introduced that would.abolish HUD and privatize
FHA.
-
.NAR PO§ITIOtj: .The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ~EALTORS® supports the restructuring
. of the FHA single family program to the extent that it would create a government-owned
corporation. W~ support consolidating FHA's exi~tlng insurance programs into two separate
insurance authorities: single family and multifamily; reducing the number 'of single. family offices.
centralizing the underwriting and processing centers, transferring the property disposition .
.
activities to the private sector, and providing state and local governments and community-based.
housing pr(!viders with the tools to leverage their subsid_ies with a variety of partners through ·
wholesale credit enhancement arrangements. Also; FHA must maintain the ability to insure ..
individual mortgages to meet the homeownership needs of families in all markets at all times.
NARstrongly opposes the privatization of FHA and proposals that impose income limits or
target future business solely to .first-time hom~buyers. ·
. ·. · .
· ' . · -.
·.
IMPACT ON· REALTORS®: Re~tructuririg FHA as an independent goveniment-controlled · ·
entity will simplify its delivery system and improve program management. Restructuring FHA
as an independent-govemment-cclntrolled entity
also disengage FHA from the bureaucratic
management process·reducing costs and improving the delivery of homeownership while
maintaining a Federal.presence in the mortgage finance market to ensure homeownership
\
opportunities at all times and In all markets. Privatizing FHA ~md reconfiguring -program delivery
targeting future business by income a_nd group will drastically limit homeownership opportunities
. and disproportionately burden low-. moderate·; and middle-income homebuyers due to higher
. premium an~ stricter qualifying guidelines. . ·
,.
·
·
will
'
'
•· STATUS/OUTLOQK: While HJ~.1708 and H.R.219S/S.1145 represent the "polar ends''· of the (
· FHA debate, NAR is strongly supporting H.R.1708 because it encompasses many of the
· Associatio~'s pqlicy objectives regarding the FHA single-family program. H.R.1708 will be a ·
·principal focus of the 'House h~using subcommittee's FHA deliberations and NAR is
..
encouraging REALTORS to urge their Members of Congress to support the bilL Similar
legislation has not been introduced in the Senate. ·
1.
�Apr.25.1996 !2:38PM
NAT ASSN REALTORS
'
No. 3530
.
P. 14
·The
House housing subcommittee is preparing its own IQgislative version of the FHA .. · · .single;.family program as a compromise to the legislative proposals calling for the privatization
·of FHA or its restructuring as. an independent entity. Originally, Rep. Lazlo, Chair. of the
Housing Subcommittee indicated that he would pi'Opose modeling FHA after' the· VA mortgage
·program and alter FHA's risk structure and mission to encompass less than the ~urrent 100 ·
.percent coverage. After meeting with NAR staff, Chairman Lazio.has decided tnat a more
· ...surgical" approach should be used in m•king change to the single fa'mily program. NARis
closely monitoring the development of -the Subcommittee's bill for policy and advocacy action
upon formal Introduction. . ..
.
CONTACTS: John Sebree 202-383-7559, Gary Weaver 202-383·1038
fRIMARY REALTOR® COMMIUEE: . Federal .Housing Policy Committee
.'
Last updated:
~
04115198
...
Gary Weaver •
..
.
~
,-
,,
�Date: 04/25/96 Time: 10:17
Home sales continue rebound
WASHINGTON, April 25 (UPI)
Sales of existing u.s. home·s rose 6.9 percent in
March to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.21 million, with gains in
every region of the country, a housing trade association said (Thursday). The
National Association of Realtors said buyers locked in to the lower mortgage
rates in January.
�1
'
~·-
'
E X E C U T I V E
0 F F I C E
0 F
THE
P R E S I D E
25-Apr-1996 04:35pm
TO:
(See Below)
FROM:
Margaret M. Suntum
Office of the Press Secretary
SUBJECT:
1996-4-25 Statement by the President on the budget
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
April 25, 1996
For Immediate Release
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
The Briefing Room
4:00 P.M. EDT
Day.
THE PRESIDENT:
(Laughter.)
Q
This is "Take Your Daughter To Work"
How about you?
THE PRESIDENT: This is "Take Your Parents To Work" Day.
(Laughter.) They all brought yo~ here.
I'm glad you're here.
I
think it's a wonderful thing.
I think it's terrific, and I'm glad ··to
see you all.
Good afternoon. The budget agreement which is now being
voted on by Congress is good for the American people.
It cuts
billions of dollars in spending, cuts the deficit, keeps us on the
path to balancing the budget. At the same time, the budget reflects
our values by preserving our commitments to education, to the
preservation of the environment, and to health care.
'
. '~
�The budget continues to put 100,000 police on the
street.
It will enable us to enforce antipollution laws. It gives
me authority to block provisions that would put at risk our natural
resources, our parks, and our environment. It protects our efforts
in educational, to shrink cla~s size, to improve teaching standards,
to keep our children safe, and it funds Americorps, the national
service program.
Today we are showing that we can work together to cut
the budget and to honor our values. But our work is not done. Now
we should summon this same bipartisan spirit and we should work
together to finish the job of balancing the federal budget in seven
years.
MORE
�-------------------------------
The most important thing to happen today is simply this:
We have shown that we can work together and that when we do we can
get results that are good for the American people today and for our
future.
But when the leadership of Congress insists on going it
alone, one party alone, we get gridlock, stalemate, vetoes,
government shutdowns.
Today was a real victory for progress over partisanship.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress deserve credit.
Let's keep it going. The message to the Republicans in Congress
today from me is simple. It is a line first used in a very different
context by President Kennedy: Let us never fear to negotiate.
Since I took office we've cut the budget deficit in
half, and more than half. Earlier this year I proposed to Congress a
plan that the Congressional Budget Office has certified as balancing
the budget in seven years. And our plans have in common more than
enough savings to balance that budget and to provide a modest tax
cut.
I truly believe we can convene a true, mainstream coalition to
continue this progress toward a balanced budget, and that we can
�reach agreement pretty quickly because there are so many savings
common to both plans.
I want to meet with members of Congress -- I'll do it in
a large group or a small one, or a one-on-one, but I want to finish
the job. We have an opportunity; we can't let it slip from our
grasp. We have seen now with this year's budget and the
Antiterrorism Bill that we can do things together.
We have other important work to finish as well. Congress
should pass an increase in the minimum wage.
I'm disappointed that
the leaders of Congress have refused to schedule a vote on the
minimum wage so far. As I have said so many times, you simply can't
raise a family on $4.25 an hour, but millions of Americans are trying
to do that. They don't want to be on welfare; they don't want to be
dependent. They do want to be rewarded for their work, and they want
to- be able to raise their children in dignity. The increase in the
minimum wage I have proposed will help them to do that.
And congress should also move forward to send me the
Kassebaum-Kennedy bill with no special interest amendments. Again,
that bill, as proposed by Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy,
passed the United States Senate 100 to zero. That is a clear,
unambiguous statement that it is beyond politics to say to the
working people of America, you ought not to lose your health
insurance when you change jobs, and you ought to be able to get it
even if somebody in you family has been sick.
Let's don't litter this up with special interest
amendments. Let's don't let this opportunity pass. Let's don't walk
away from the plain, clear, unambiguous needs of millions of American
families.
Let's pass this bill unadorned, simple, good and strong.
J
Again I say that this agreement shows what we can do
when we work together. Yesterday with the signing of the
antiterrorism legislation, we showed what we can do when we work
together.
I look forward to joining with the Republican and the
Democratic leaders in Congress to give the American people the
balanced budget they deserve.
I hope they will join with me. We
show today that that's the way to get things done in the American
system.
Thank you.
Q
Why do you think that happened? Why do you think
there was a compromise or turning point after all these months?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm not sure. We would have happily
accepted this budget last year.
I think that the forces within the
majority party in Congress who wanted to show some positive results
prevailed. I think the spirit of principled compromise prevailed. I
have shown a willingness to work with them and to compromise with
them. And I have also shown that I am very anxious to reduce this
deficit.
�Even .though we still have some problems with our budget,
I'd like to point out that it is the lowest deficit of any advanced
economy in the world as a percentage of our income. This is going to
-- the more we keep driving the deficit down, the more we're going to
get interest rates down, the more we're going to keep growth going,
the sooner we'll be able to see American incomes going up. So I want
to do this with them.
I don't know what happened, but whatever it
was, it was a very positive and good thing.
I want to thank Mr. Panetta for the work that he did on
this in negotiating on our behalf very strongly, but also in a
conciliatory spirit. A~d I want to thank the leaders in Congress
MORE
�- 4 who
~id
the same. We can get this done in lots of other areas if we just
keep working at it.
Q
Are you worried that Republicans won't go along
with a seven-year balanced budget because they're worried about
making you look good before the election?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know. You see, I believe
there's enough credit to go around when you do the right thing.
Yesterday, when I asked the members of Congress to stand out there,
most of them Republicans who came, although we had a fair number of
our Democrats who were there as well --
Q
Senator Dole was way in the back.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that was his choice.
I think -- I
saw him -- I saw him, in a generous gesture, make sure that the
committee chairs, Senator Hatch and Mr. Hyde got to go up front. He
was just being generous to them.
But I believe that when we do things together, the
American people are not fooled; they know that I cannot claim full
credit for a bill that goes through a Congress that is majority
Republican, and they are more than happy to give credit to people who
actually work together to build things.
So I believe that -- my argument is this:
If we have an
agreement that is within our grasp, that we know is good for the
country, then the credit will take care of itself, and the credit
will probably flow in appropriate proportions to everybody involved
in it. Then there are still all these things that there is
disagreement on, that you can have a legitimate, exciting,
interesting campaign about, thrown into the future.
My view is that, you know, we got into this budget mess
because of profligate decisions that no one who was here in
Washington during the time in either party is probably completely
blameless from, between 1981 and 1993. And I see passing this
balanced budget amendment as a way of taking care of past problems
that we need to get rid of. Then we can debate this march into the
future -- which path are we going to take for the future.
Everybody knows in the next four years we are walking
right into the 21st century. The answer is, which road are we going
to take. That debate will still be out there.
The American people
can have that debate, make their judgments without being frustrated
at the political system in Washington for not producing results
today.
So I think we can get these things done, and I hope we
will.
Q
The Justice Department is asking Judge Howard to
�keep your videotaped testimony off TV and out of political ads. Two
questions: One, are you afraid of being embarrassed by the tape? And
secondly, do you agree with a growing number of people who think that
Kenneth Starr should step down?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'll just answer the question
about my testimony, and I'll -- I don't think I should answer the
other question at this time. The facts are what they are, and they
are plain for all to see now on the second question you asked me.
On the first question, what I want to do is to -- I was
asked to testify; if I have any information that is helpful, I want
to be able to give it.
I think that the American people and the
MORE
�-
5 -
press should have access to my testimony, but that it shouldn't be
abused in any way.
�- 7 -
And so that is the position that I have taken. And I
take it that is the position the Justice Department has taken, and
they will have more to say about that as we go along.
THE PRESS:
END
Thank you.
4:10 P.M. EDT
Distribution:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO!
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
TO:
mwolfe@isl.js.mil@INET
Mary Ellen Glynn
Marlene A. MacDonald
Julie E. Mason
Kathy McKiernan
APRIL K. MELLODY
A. Victoria Rivas-Vazquez
Darby Stott
Margaret M. suntum
Virginia M. Terzano
backup@wilson.ai.mit.edu@INET
wh-outbox-distr@clinton.ai.mit.edu@INET
Pauline M. Abernathy
Lori E. Abrams
Lori L. Anderson
Brenda Anders
Donald A. Baer
Karen L. Barbuschak
David S. Beaubaire
Antony J. Blinken
Gabrielle M. Bushman
Phillip M. Caplan
Laura Capps
Lisa M. Caputo
Joseph w. Cerrell
Steven A. Cohen
Amanda Crumley
Carolyn Curiel
Marilyn DiGiacobbe
Chris Dorval
James T. Edmonds
Anne M. Edwards
Rahm Emanuel
James L. Fetig
Karen E. Finney
Jeremy M. Gaines
Michael A. Gill
Jason S. Goldberg
Christopher M. Gruin
LAWRENCE J. HAAS
Alexis M. Herman
William c. Hornish
�4/25/96 7:30pm
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
RADIO ADDRESS TO THE NATION
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE
APRIL 27, 1996 (TAPED APRIL 26, 1996)
Good morning. This has been a very good week for America. On Thursday night, I
signed a bipartisan budget to keep the government operating for the rest of the year. After a
year of intense -- and sometimes heated -- debate, Republicans and Democrats in Congress
came together and worked with us to craft an agreement that is good for the American
people. '
First of all, it keeps the deficit on the downward path we got it started on in 1993.
This budget cuts billions of dollars in spending and eliminates over 200 government
programs. At the same time, this budget upholds American values -- like I promised it
would -- by honoring our commitment to our elderly, to our children, and to the future.
Look how far we've come. A year ago, many in Congress insisted we could only
move towards a balanced budget by imposing extreme measures and walking away from our
commitments. I knew that wasn't true, and I was determined to hold the line. So now we
aren't going to break our promise to put 100,000 new police officers on the street. We
aren't going to stop enforcing anti-pollution laws, and risk severe damage to our
environment. We aren't going to abandon our efforts to shrink class size, raise teacher
standards, keep kids in school safe, and make college more affordable.
But we are cutting the deficit for the fourth year in a row. This is the first time the
deficit has been cut four years in a row in almost fifty years, since Harry Truman was
President. We are on the way to a balanced budget. Now, we have to finish the job.
Earlier this year, I proposed a plan to balance the budget, and Congress' own
economists have certified that my plan will balance the budget in seven years. Republicans
in Congress have their own balanced budget plan. If you laid my plan and their plan side by
side, you would find enough cuts in common to both plans to balance the budget and provide
a modest tax cut. The ingredients for a balanced budget are at hand. All we have to do is
sit down together and assemble a final agreement, based on the things we already agree on.
And there's the problem. I have made it clear that I want to meet with Congress and
work this out as soon as possible. I am willing to meet with a large group of lawmakers, or
a small group of Republican and Democratic leaders. I told Senator Dole I would be happy
to meet with him alone.· My singular goal is to work together to craft a bipartisan plan to
balance the budget in seven years, while upholding our values.
Unfortunately, some Republicans in Congress don't think it's in their political interest
to work together with us. They want to work alone and send me a plan marked "take it or
leave it." Let me be clear: I refused to accept extreme proposals for 1996 and I will not
accept extreme proposals for the future. And anyone who thinks they should foil a bipartisan
'
'
1
�balanced budget today, in order to create a campaign issue for later, should think again. The
American people will see through that with their eyes closed.
We have an historic chance to balance the federal budget. We are closer than we
have ever been. And nothing -- not politics, not partisan pressure, not presidential
campaigns -- should be allowed to stop us. But if the Congressional leadership refuses to
ignore all the outside pressures, if Republicans in Congress refuse to let us work together,
they won't leave me any choice.
Just about a year ago, I gave a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors.
I told them I did not want a pile of vetoes. I told them I wanted to work with Congress, and
get things done for the American people. But I also said I would never accept extreme and
unnecessary measures that would jeopardize our ability to care for our elderly, educate our
children, and protect our environment.
Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress didn't listen very well, and look what
happened. They tried to impose drastic measure after drastic measure and I was forced to
stop them. Then last week, we worked together and quickly agreed on a plan that
accomplishes what I said could be done all along: The deficit is going down, and our
commitments are secure.
Today, the Republican leaders in Congress face a similar choice. They can go it
alone, and end up going nowhere. Or they can come on down to the White House, and we'll
get the job done together.
That's how to get things done. That's how the anti-terrorism bill became law. That's
how we should reform health care and help working families. Every U.S. Senator voted to
pass the bipartisan Kennerly-Kassebaum health care reform bill. Now, Republicans can work
with us to make health care more available to 43 Million Americans, or they can send me a
partisan bill with special provisions for special interests. The Republican leadership can
work with us to raise the minimum wage, or they can ignore working families -- and
moderates in their own party -- and do their best to obstruct us.
I believe that the only way for us to move forward is to move forward together.
That's the right thing to do. That's what we're here for. .Let's get together, and get to
work.
Thanks for listening.
'2
.f
�\
E X E C U T I V E
0 F F I C E
0 F
T H E
P R E S I D E
24-Apr-1996 12:43pm
TO:
(See· Below)
FROM:
Margaret M. Suntum
Office of the Press Secretary
SUBJECT:
1996-4-24 Service Employees Union remarks of presid
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 24, 1996
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
Media Technologies
washington, D.c.
12:00 NOON EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for that wonderful welcome.
And thank you, Dick, for that fine introduction.
I really enjoyed
working with you and I want to congratulate you on the many years of
service you have given to your great union.
I look forward to
working with your new president, Andy Stern. I know he has also made
a tremendous contribution as your organizing director, and I wish him
every success.
I want to also acknowledge your secretary treasurer,
Betty Bednarczyk, and my wonderful Secretary of Labor Bob Reich.
I
know that you enjoyed his speech, and I thank him for his work on
your behalf.
(Applause.)
'"
And fina,lly, let me thank SEIU for one of its greatest
�·gifts to America, John Sweeney.
(Applause.) Because of John's
leadership, and because of your commitment, labor is back.
I know in
this political season, some people aren't too happy about that, but I
am delighted.
(Applause.)
I am proud that in 1996 the voice of organized labor,
the voice of working men and women from all across our country will
be heard in our national debate.
I welcome your voice. America
needs to hear it. And I promise you this, you will be heard.
(Applause.)
You know, in a way, it's hard to believe that SEIU is
celebrating its 75th anniversary, for you stand out as America's most
�dynamic and innovative union, a shining example of labor's revival.
Not only has SEIU given renewed hope for millions of union members,
you've also pioneered new ways to organize both workers in low-wage
industries and workers in fast-growing industries like health care.
Of course, we all know your contributions to America
stretch far beyond collective bargaining. From civil rights and
family and medical leave to the minimum wage and the fight to save
Medicare and Medicaid, SEIU has been a leader in the struggle to
achieve economic and social progress for all Americans.
In many ways, we're on a shared mission. Four years ago
our economy was drifting with high unemployment, a deficit twice as
high as it is now, and very few new jobs. I took office determined
to change our course, to cut the deficit in half in four years, to
invest in educational and training, to shrink and reform the
government so that it works better and cost less. Our government is
now the smallest it's been since 1965, but it's still strong enough
to protect workplace safety, pure food, clean air and water, to help
Americans to get the educational and training they need, to help grow
the economy and to protect our seniors through Medicare. And I'm
proud of that strength. You helped to get it there and you helped to
keep it there, and I thank you very much.
(Applause.)
�In 1992, I told the American people that if we carried·
out our economic plan, two things would happen -- we'd get 8 million
new jobs and the deficit would be cut in half. Well, just a couple
of weeks ago, we learned that our economy has already created 8.5
million new jobs, nearly all of them in the private sector. And last
month the Congressional Budget Office said that by the end of this
year the deficit will be less than half of what it was when I took
office. Over 8 million new jobs, the deficit cut half.
(Applause.}
Those are two important commitments you helped me keep
to the American people. We also have the lowest combined rates of
unemployment and inflation in 27 years. Our auto and
telecommunications industries are now leading the world again. We
have a 15-year high in homeownership, and we have finally halted the
decade-long slide in real hourly earnings.
But let's face it, we all know this is a record to be
proud of, but to build on, not to sit on. Too many Americans still
are working harder just to hold on. We have to do more. We have to
continue to focus on the concerns of working Americans, the concerns
they have about their own families economic security at a time when
the country is undergoing profound economic transformation, a
transformation every bit as momentous as the shift from farms to
factories a century· ago.
As I said in the State of the Union, one of the main
challenges we face is to make sure that this new economy with all of
its opportunity doesn't leave behind people who are willing to work
for their own opportunities. We need to make sure that every
American can be a winner in this time of economic change, to make
sure that every American has access education and training, and good
health care and secure pensions. And we absolutely have to get wages
rising again in our country. We have got to do that for working
people and working families.
That's why I fought for the passage of the Family and
Medical Leave Act. That's why we have dramatically expanded the
earned income tax credit, to give tax cuts to more than 15 million
working families with incomes under $28,000. That's why just after I
took office I swept away my predecessor's anti-worker, anti-union
executive orders. And that's why, with an executive order of our own
last spring, this administration said in no uncertain terms we will
not allow companies who replace striking workers permanently to do
business with our government.
(Applause.}
I also want you to know
that I directed the Justice Department to take all appropriate steps
to overturn a recent court decision blocking that executive order.
Now, unfortunately, for the past year you and I have
been trying to work with a Congress that didn't always see eye to eye
with us when it came to putting in place an agenda that would make
the American Dream accessible to all Americans.
I'm proud to say
that in these battles we've had with Congress we've more than held
our own. Not only have we managed to stall or defeat practically
�every major attack on America's working families and on the unions
that represent them, we may be poised on the verge of major
victories.
I challenged Congress to pass the Kassebaum~Kennedy
bill, which would improve access to health care for 43 million
Americans, so that you don't lose your health care when you change
jobs, and you can't be denied coverage if someone in your family has
been sick. Now Congress is finally moving forward with that
important legislation. Yesterday it passed the Senate 100 to zero.
That's the kind of thing we all ought to be doing more of for the
American people.
(Applause.)
�APR-24-96
20~27
~ROM•OMB
COMMUNICATI6N
I
ID•
PAGE
EXECUTNE OFRCE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE 0~ t0ANAGEME:NT AND BUDGET,
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20503
OMB COl\IMUNICATIONS OFFICE
. FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
'DATE:
NUMBER OF PAGES TO
FOLLOW:
\
~OM:
..
\_a( ("'I U~s..
(202) 395-7254 .
COMMENTS:
1/2
�. - .. ~ ..~·;";··~-ti'·:.lff:~r-r.: :::_~::.;~~~{!--- ~::-~:/_:·;:~' ~
:.. 1: ::.-:_-::~-~ ..;. _: .:.
,.
J .
'
'
'
I
'•
''~
'.
''
''·
'
Job Crea.tion and Employment Opportunities:·
_The United States Labor Market,.1993-1996
'·
. A Report .by the
.·Council of Economic Advisers
with t~e U.S. Departmentof Labor, Office of the Chief Econorhis~
,..
April 23, 1996
.
-
- ....
(
-- ..
·-----~-·-
.'
-
.-
'
�'
•• f
~-·:;::::~;:7:::};~~- i:~~ic.r:i~::'~"'~-- •'lii<'i;:·:' __
-·r.-. ;_:- ... ~ .; ·. ·~
.
::"-.·
.··
i,.
' ._.
)'
..
.
~· ~~;;r'~> :,~~~~~ ~
"
-~;:
·
..:. ·~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARy
'
.
.
.'
'
'\
'.
'
'
'
*
Since January 1993. employment has grown rapidly-- expanding by 8.5 million
net new jobs. Based on comparable data; employment growth has been. stronger.
in the United States than in any of our Q;,7 partners.
·
*
Two-thirds C68 percent) of the net growth in full-time employment betw~en
february. 1994. and February 1996 occurred in industry/occupation groups paying
above-median wages .. Over half of the net growth occurred in the top 30 percent
. of job categories. Although many of these new jobs were in the .service sector,
they did not conform. to ster~otypes..
·
*
The evidence suggests that the vast majority of the n~t new jobs are full-time.
Both the household and establishment surveys indicate that job growth has beer
concentrated in full-time positions. .
·
*·
The share of workers holding multiple jobs has remained roughly constant sin~e ·
· the late 1980~. The household survey suggests· that, the proportion 'of employed
persons working mult,iple jo~s has remained 'at about 6 percent.
.
*
*
. •. The o.verall number of workers displaced was roughly the sam~ proportion of the
workforce in 1991-2 as in 1981-2. although the recession during the 'early 1980s
was more severe th-an 'the one during the ~arly l99ds. However, it is difficult to
determine precisely how tb accoun~ for the business cycle in assessing
·displacement rates. The official data on displacement after 1993' are n6t yet
av.ailab.le, but an alternative job loss measure has fallen sin~e then. ·
The characteristics Of displaced workers have changed somewhat. Displacement rates for
older. white~collar and_better educated workers have risen. although thev remain low·
relative to those for youn~er. blue-collar. and less educated workers ... '
'
.
*
-
'
De~pite some recent positive signs. long..:terro challenges remain. Between the
1970s and the early 1990s, 'real wages stagnated and income inequality widened.
· But in 1994, for the first time in 5 years, real median' family income rose and the
poverty rate felL We inust continue to build on these gains to' improve livi,ng '
standards and reduce income inequality. And althou.gh many more jobs are being
. -~r.eated than destroyed, a dynamic economy inevitably imposes costs on-~om~
workers.· For example, data from 1981 to 1993 indicate that job losers were more.
likely to be permanently dismissed (.rather than temporarily laid-off), that older
workers were subject to greater risk of job displacement, al}.d that the average real
wage loss due to displacement was signifi~ant and persistent. In order to obtain
the full benefits of a dynamic economy, w'e must reduce these adj~stmeht costs.
;
r
'
.I
I
�,.
INTRODUCTION
Employment growth in the-United States has been robust since January 1993, with
nonfarm payroll employment expanding by 8.5 milliol}. Based on comparable data, U.S.
· employment growth has been stronger than in any of our G-7 partners.
first purpose of this
study is to sift throug~ the evidence to develop a' more detailed picture of :where the job growth is
· occurring and the nature of the jobs being created~
The
The news is encouraging: employment has grown disproportionately in the · ·
iridustry/occupation job ca~egories paying above-median wages. Even in the traditionally lowerpaying service industry, a majority of the net employment growth has been in managerial and ·
professional specialty positi'ons, whichtypically pay ab.ove-median wages.,· Contrary to ·
conventional wisdom, the new jobs are not disproportionately part-time, low-skill positions.
The second purpose of the study is to ex~mim~ job di;placement. Although the economy
is generating miiiions of net new jobs, it is clear that the speed of transformation in the U.~. labor .
market has left many American worke~s anxious about their economic futures. A dynamic and
growing labor market·can impose costs a.S well ~offer opportunities, and poliCies to help.
workers deal withjob transitions are critical to reducing these adjustment costs.
,JOB CREATION
According to the. Bureau of t~bor S~atistics establishment survey, nonfarm emp.loyment
grew by 8.5 million (7.8 percent) between January 1993 and March 1996. Private~sector payrolls
(up 8.7 percent) grew even faster, while federal payrolls (excluding the postal service) actmilly
. declined by 11.4 percen~, and state and local government payrolls combined grew by only 5.0,
percent (see Figure I): The public sector's share of employment is therefore falling.
·
·The unemployment rate has fallen from over 7 percent in January 1993 to5.6 percent in
March 1996, and has been below 6 percent for 19 consecutive months. Given current
·demographic trends, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects the labor force to continue growing
by approximately
1.1 percent annually between 1994 and 2005. Therefore, to keep
.
unemployment low, the economy needs to average a net inqease of about 120,000 new jobs per
month. Employment is now expanding at a pace consistent with steady, sustainable growth an'd
low unemployment.
'
\
'
.
�~-·'
.·.
.., .
.,
f.
Figure 1
,.
Private Sector and· Government' Employment Growth
January 1993 - M~rch 1996
State & Local
Federal.
8.7
10
Q)
5.0
Cl
c:::::
ro
..c:::::
~
0
c:::::
Q)
~
Q)
a..
-10
-11.4
.Private 'Sector
·.Government
Note: Federal employment exdudes the postal service.
Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, esta~Jishment survey.
International Comp~risons. The United States has experienced faster employment
growth than any of the other G-7 'countries. Only Canada has experienced any significant
· employment growth, while the other G-7 members have experienced negligible job gains or
outright declines. The U.S. labor market perfqrmance is particularly impressive given that it has
occurred during a period in which the federal budget deficit was reduced from 4.9 .percent of
GDP in FY 1992 to an esti~at~d 1.9 percent in FY 1996.
THE QUALITY OF JOBS
According to data from the CurrentJ>opulation Survey, 38 percent of the net employment
growth between February 1994 and February 1996 occurred in "service" industries. 1 This section
therefore first examines job quality in the service sector. It then presents a more detailed analysis
of all seGt_prs of the e~onomy.
.
.
.
.
.
1
.
. .
.
A major redesign of the survey in January 1994 makes long-tem1 comparisons difficult.
Moreover, because the household survey data are often not seasonally. adjusted, we try to compare
. the same month in different years. The sample period ·we. study .is therefore February 1994 to
February 1996.
.
.
'
2
-~ -~ ......-.:.::..;:::::..::.::::~::--:-
--
,....
.... ...:-·:-,:-. :::.:::.:.:.:::.-::.:~·-.;:.....__..
-----
�·-
-·
Higher-paid Jobs in the Service Sector. The i'seivice sector" is quite diverse. It
. includes many low-wage positions, but also many high-wage positions in financiai services,
hospitals, and computer·and accounting services. For this reason, it ~~ important to determine
whether employment growth within services has occurred primarily in the high-skill managerial
and professional specialty occupations. or in low-paying occupations. The Current Population
Survey,provides evidenc~ on ernployment growth by occupation.
.
' .
*
The data show that recent net job growth in services has been predominately in
managerial or professional specialty positions (Figure 2). These are relatively high-·paid
. occupations.
( /)
"0
c
cu 1000
Figure 2
.Service Industry Occupations
February 1994 - February 1996
,(/)
:::l
0
800
Q)
600
'2
0>
.I
I
c
cu 400
..c
u
200
Thus. the con~entional wisdom suggesting that the growth in service sector employment
is disproportionately concentrated in low-wage job categories is_ wrong.
..
.
'
.
-
.
.
-
.
_Growth of Higher-paid Jobs by lnd~stry and Occupation. An even more detai)ed
picture of the nature of the new jobs created emerges from an examination of industry/occupation
categories. Using data from the February 1994 and February 1996 Current Population Suf'\eys,
we sorted full-time workers into 45 detailed occupations in 22 major industries. A quarter of the
s~mple reponed earnings in addition to the industries and occupations in which they worked. \ '
'
/
3
'
�-. .
·~
J
\.
. Although many ofthe possible 990 industry/occupations cells were small, only ,6percent of the
. population-weighted sample was found in cells with 10 or fewer sample members reporting _
earnings data for both surveys. · In order to avoid the high sampling variability associated with
. insufficient numbers of observations, we eliminated these small cells from our analysis. There .
. were 287 job categories ~n each- year after eliminating the cells with 10 or fewer sample
tnerribers. 2
·
·
·
·
I
The first step in ~our analysis was to rank the 287 occupation/industry cells by the median
weekly earnings of full-time workers. Approximately half of all full-time employment in
February 1994 was found in cells with median weekly earnings above $480(in February 1996
dollars). The employment growth in these "high-wage" job categories can then be compared to
overall employment growth. Our key measure ofjob quality is thepercent~ge of total . . · ·
. employment growth that occurred within the .occupation and industry categories~ that paid above"
mediCm wages in ,February 1994.. The results were striking.
.
.
.
'*
Two-thirds (68 percent) of the net growth in full-time employmentbetween February
1994 and February 1996 was found injob categorzes paying above-medianwages.. 3
.
.
.
.-
.
.
.
Another .way to su1Tl111arize the results from our industry/occupation analysis 'is shown in·
Figure 3. Here ·we ranked the 287 industry/occupation categories by their median weekly ·,
earnings for full-time workers, and sorted them into 10 ordered groupings-- each with 10 percent
of employment in February 1994 --by their earnings ranking. If all 10 groups had·grown
proportionately to their share of employment in February 1994, ea~h would have accounted for ·
10 percent of the net new employm.enL But rather than accounting fqr their. proportional ·share of
total employment growth (30 percent), the top\three deciles accounted for irtuch more (over 50
percent).
*
, Over half(52 percent) Qj emplo_vment growth was found in the top 30 percent ojjoh
categories ..
2
The average remaining. industry/occupation cells included 331 sample members and
contained earnings data for 70 sample m~mbers.
c 3 As a result of sampling variability in the monthly ·surveys, the precise figure may be
affected by the months chosen for comparison. We have also performed the same exercise using
similar.
.
hourly wages for full-time and part-time workers combined. The results
are
I
'
'
4
~
.I
�·.'
••
-
·.
~
(
'
Figure 3
Shares of Net Empl.oyment Growth
.. · February 1994 _-·February 1996.
Higher paying job categories
68 percent df growth .
Lower paying job categories ·
· 32 percent of growth
Council of Economic Advisers analysis of Bl}reau of Labor Statistics data.
More Detailed Data on Occupations. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also p~blishes an
annual series on wages and employment growth for an extremely detailed set of occupational
categories, based.on pooling a year's population survey responses. The survey, included 488 _
·categories with data -for both 1994 and 1995 (the 1996 annual e:stimates will not be avail-able until
11ext y'ear):. The results from this dataset give additio-nal support to the results reported above:
Some of the categories with the largest employment gains included "sales supervisms and
proprietors," "electricians," ''managers of marketing and advertising," and "electrical and
electrc)nic engineers." And consistent with the above calculations, the detailed occupations in the
top half of the ~age distributi~n accounted for 70 percent of the net employment growth, while
.
.
the top 10 percent of the distribution produced a third of net employment growth. ·
"
.
'
~.
(
-- . - -.--.
··- ··-······---·-·--·- --···--·-·-~.
�·"
:~:1ti~\ll'l~~~r':'~"';'~"'"•·
-~·....
.
·-·
'
E~ployment in "hamburger-flipping jobs"4 actually fell between 1994 an.d 1995._
*
. \
- In sum,. the data indicate the following about the nature of recent job gro~th:
T~o-thirds of full-time job growth between Febru~ 1994 and Febru~ 1996
•
occ4rred in occupation/industry categories paying. above-median wages.
Ov~rhalf of full-time job growth between Febru~ i 994 and Febru~ 1996 was
•
in occupation/industry categories paying eve~ higher wages (top
30 percent).
·. The New J~bs are Mostly Full-Tim~. Data from both the Current Population Survey
and the BLS establishment survey indicate that most of the net new jobs are full-time. The.
Current Pop,ulation Survey includes data on part-:time employment. Figure 4 portrays the
proportion employed persons reporting that they worked part-time for "economic" as well as .·
for "non-economic" reasons.· Despite a shift in bot~ series corresponding to a redesign of the
surv.ey in ,Janu~ 1994, the proportion.of employed persons reporting to be employed part-time
has actually cf:eclined slightly. The. declines have been even larger for 'those worki~g part-time for .·
"economic" reasons, often referred to as the"involuntarily under~mploy~d."
of
The establishm~nt data indirectly suppo,rt the conclusions from_ th~ houserold survey. If
.· the net new jobs were disproportionately part-time, we would expect.average hours worked per
job to fall:. 5 But the employment data show that average houis worked for alljobs (including the ;
new jobs) remained roughly· constant: the number of nonfarm payroll positions and the total ·
number of hours worked both grew at abo.ut the same rate over the past three years (see table).
·Th~s suggests tl'\at the new jobs have not- been disproportionately part-time. · l
I
'
•
•
'
1
'
.
*
/
Data collected from both households and companies indicate·that most o/the net job .
. ·creation over thepast three years has beenfull-time:
4 These are defined as workers in the food counter, fountain and related o~cupations; and kitchen
workers, food preparation, and miscellaneous food preparation occupations~ The resuit holds both
forfull-time and for. all workers (full-time and part-time combined).'
This assumes thataverage hou~s w.orked on e~istingjobs did not change. Unfortunately,
existing s~atistics do not allow us to verify whether this assu111ption holds.
5
�- - .:;_ ·-~--·':-~::,~~{~~--~;r~i~-~-~~S~!~·-···
••
'. ···'J '
-
•
Figure 4
Part·Time Workers
16 ~------~----------~--------~--~----------~
c:
Q)
E
.r--,,-,-.. ,.
14
12
: Non-Economic Reasons
:/
'>0
0.10
E
--
~-----·
....
~,;·
CPS redesign
w
0
8
c:
Q)
~
Q)
c..,
.6
4
2
.
Jan.1990 Jan ..1991 Jan.1992 Jan.1993 Jan.1994 Jan.1995 Jan.1996
Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statisti~, Current Population Survey.
Ernploy_ment and Hours Worked at Nonfarm Establishments
Employment (millions)
·· Hours worked (annual basis. billions)
January
1993
March
1996
Percent
. Change
109.5
118.0
7.8
202.2
217.8
7.7
Based on dina from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
'
\
Little Change in Multiple
Job Holding. Some Americans 'decide to hold more than one
.
\
job, in order to save for a house or to meet unexpected expenses. Nonetheless, multiple job
holding would raise concerns .about the quality of jobs if.an increasing numb~r of Americans
have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. A frustrated worker is said to have reacted to
the news that 8.5 million ne~jobs have been.created by replying, ;"Yeah, and I have three of
them." .Butthe data simply do.not indicate ~ny significant inovemerH'in multiple job holding.
�,_;
.
. percentage. of-~'in:ployed perso~s w~rking multiple job~ -h~ remained in the neighborhood ~f .
.. . :_: :. ~--'':_6 percent since the l:ate 1980s.
'·
....·.•· '
-~
.,
~
.··
\'
-·' . · . . 'Impact on Wages and Income Inequality. Between the 1970s and the early 1990s,
. average real wage growth slowed and income inequality widened. In recent years, however,
.. there are some encouraging signs that the tide may be turning on these labor market challenges.
In 1994 --the most recent year for which data are available ..... real median family income rose·
and the poverty rate fell for the first time in 5 years, Improving job quality can enhance these ·
recent gains, although the effects may only become manifest after an extended period of time.
As discussed above, most of the recent net increase in employ~ent has occurred ,in occupations
and industries that typically pay above-median wages. But the additions to the workforce have
.h~d-only a marginal effect on· aggregate wage data, since net employment growth represents only
a 'relatively stnall percentage of total employment for the U.S. workforce. Nevertheless, the news
about the quality of net job growth is encouraging, and bodes well (or the future. Although there
is still much left to be done, recent trends show that the labor market is on the right track.
·.
THE CHALLENGES CREATED BY A DYNAMIC-LABOR MARKET · ·
A dynamic, healthy labor market creates enough jobs· to accommodate a growing l~bor
force. But at the same time, jobs in dynamic economy continu3.Ily shift away from certain areas .
and toward other areas with greater growth opportunities. (For example, the decline in federal .
payrolls has been more than offset by increases in private-sector employment.) Meanwhile,
research conducted by Robert Valletta and published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San .
Francisco concluded that, after controlling for the business cycle, the share of.unemployment
attributable to permanentdisnrissals (rather than temporary layoffs) has increased-- particularly ·
from 1980 to 1993. A· highei. proportion of job losers thus do not expect to be recalled by their
·former employers. As a rest.Ilt of these labor market changes, many workers feel less secure
· about their job prospects ..
a
.
.
.
While·the anxiety felt by many workers is real and important, it' is also importantto take
objective look at the evidence. Not all sources demonstrate increa5ed economic anxiety. For
example, the Michigan and Conference Board surveys of COJ?SUmer sentiment recently have been
·
above their historical averages. Respondents to those surveys apparently do not view
employmf!nt prospects as poor. Nevertheless, considerable evidence suggests that many
Americans are concerned, some very concerned, about job displacement. In order to know how
best to respond tci these concerns, we need a more precise assessment of the nature of the
displacement problem. Has job displacement in fact increased?· Is it affecting different
categories of individuals today than it did ten years ago? This section of the report examines
.
I
.
these questions. _
·. ·
. .
· - ·
.
·
an
·',
·'
8
'
'
�'.''
Evidence from the Displaced Worker Survey. The BLS conducts a survey of.displaced
workers every two years, with the most recent published ¢ita from February 1994. Tqe table :
·below summarizes the displacement rates (defined as the number of workers displaced per 100
<fmployed) for the i 9SI-82 and 1991-9-2 periods.
!
,The overall number of workers displaced was roughly the same proportion of the
workforce in-1991-2 as in 1981-2, although the recession in the early 1980s was more sevei:e
than the one in the early 19_90s. However, it is difficult to determine precisely how to account for
the business cycle incassessing displacement rates. · Acomparison of aggregate displacement ,
rates; also conceals a fundamental change in the incidence of job displacement.· The table shows
that older; white-:coll<ir workers were considerably more at risk -of displacement in 1991-92 than
during. the previous recession. And further analysis shows that job displacement nites rose for
more educated workers. These changes in the incidence of job displacement may be a reason for
the reports of heightened anxiety regarding job loss. Although blue-collar and less educated ·
workers remain more iikely to be displaced than others, displacement rates have clearly risen '
among those workers 'who had previously been largely immune from the threat of Job dislocation.
* '
'Displacement ratesfor older and more educated lYorkers,- who had largely been
unaccustomed to facing such risk, rose between 1981-2 and 1991-2.
Ch~mging incidence of displacement
Displacement Rate~ •
1981-2 '
199i-2
Total
3.9
3.8
Occup<ltions
White:.collar
2.6
3.6
Blue-collar
7.3
5.2
Age
25-34 years of age
5.0
3.8
·'
3.9_
35-44 years of age
3.8
45-54 years of age .
3.0
. . 3.8
55+
3.6
4.3·
• Expressed as a percent of workers with three or more years of
tenure on their currentjobc
Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
9
,,!.
�~
'·. .
__ ·Indicators ,of Recent Job
__ .. _ As noted above, the Displaced Worker Survey
the most recent published data are from the 1994
--is conducted only once-every' tWo-years,
-·~'~survey' which covers the 1991 ~93 period. tJ.nfortunately' the offici3.I displacement data for the '
; Period after 19~3 are ~not .yet available. 6 (Th~ ·results of the 1996 Displaced Worker Survey, .
•-conducted in February, should be available ·later this summer;) ~ntil the official displacement
-.. data are available, other ri{easures can be use~ to get an indication ofpow the-l~bor market has
-.•. been changing since 1993.
( .· -_
and
One indicator comes from unemployment data on job losers. Figure 5 sh~ws the job loss
rate, defin~d as the ratio of recently unemployed job losers ~- those who are unemployed due to
job loss (as opposed to job leavers or labor market entrants), unemployed less _than 5 weeks, and
not on temporary layoff.;._ to total employment in the Current Population Survey. This job loss
·rate roughly approximates the net "flow" into unemployment due to job loss, since It conside_rs
-only th<;>se who have lost their jobs recently. · As shown- in Figur~ 5, the job loss rate has _
continued to fall since .1992.
. Figure 5. ·
· New Job Losers
1.2 ..--------...;__,-------'---,----.;....._--.,.------,
Unemployed new job losers
c
excluding temporary layoffs
1
Q)
E
>.
0
0.
E -
--
0.8
Q)
0•
c
(I)
~
cf. 0.6
0.4
.
-
.
- 1976 19n 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
'
-
198~
-
'
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Based on data from the Bureau.of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survev.
·
Based ori previous experience, the displacement r~te for 1993 is likely to be lower in the 1996
·
survey data than in the,'l994 survey data.
6
10·
--'
..
. . . ·,.·.
�.:,-·
.- · ·:. ~~i~~l~~- .
.
·*
..
' .
.
. •.
..
.
.
. ;. ..•;i(.·;~~.......
..
Official data on job displacement are not yet available beyond 1993. But based on
unemployment d~ta for job losers, the job loss rate has de,clined since then .
..
~-
~
.'
'··•::"·
The Costs' of Job Displaceme~t. The Displaced Worker Survey provides information on
the.impactof job loss on workers. The results are sobering. According to analysis from the
. Bureau of Labor Statistic~,. roughly a quarter of those displaced during 1991 and 1992· had either .
stopped searching for work or pad not yet'found work by the time they were sut-Veyed in February
~ 1994. Arid while experiences varied widely, research conducted by Ht;nry Farber of Princeton
University suggests that the average real wage loss for workers ~splaced from a full-time job and
· re-employed in~o a full-time job was roughly 10 percent in the ea.Hy 1980s as well as. in the early
·199Qs. A study by Ann Huff Stevens of Rutgers University and the National Bureau of
Economic Research also indicates that the wage loss due to disp~acement is persistent.'· Sjx or '
more years after displacement, a displacedworker's ~arnings remain roughly 10 percent below
1
What they could have otherwise expected to earn..
\ .
In a market economy facing COIJ1petitive ·p;essures both nationally 3J1d internationally' it
is inevitable that some job displacement wm take place. Technology is constantly ch~mging.
New companies start up ,and some old ones contract or close down .. Since change can be costly
for workers, it is vital that p.olicies a,re in place to help workers deal with that change. Portability
of pensions and health benefits, effective re-empl<;>yment services, adequate uneinpl<?yment
insurance·, and education and training policies can all help reduce the adjustment costs between
.
jobs. Moreover, it is important that displacement not take place needlessly. A stable
macroeconomic environment with full employment willhelp minimize the,need for layoffs and.
will maximize-the chances for speedy reemployment of those who do lose their jobs. ·.
*
Job loss is costly. WhenfO;ced with job loss, American workers must be, equipped with
the. tools to fi~dnew jobs quickly. .
.
CONCLUSION
The labor m~rket is in the midst of a robust ,expansion in which 8.5 million~jobs have
been created since January 1993. Now that.we have emerged.from the last recession and are .
expanding in a steady, sustainable fashion, employment is growing most rapidly in those job
categories offering the best-paid employment opportunities~ Ot.ir.analysis indicates that over twothirds of recent employment growth has been in industry/occupation job categories 'with above- ·.
med!~n wages; th;lt the vast majority of new jobs being created are full-time; and that the ·
·proportion 'Of workers holding multiple jobs has remained roughly constant since the late 1980s:
~But a dynamic labor market inevitably destroys some jobs while creating others, and the costs of·
job loss are both significant and persistent. In order to obtain'the full benefits of a dynamic .
economy', we must reduce these adjustment costs.
11
---~··-· :--··
--~-·-·___ -~----~-~-----~--~~~~~~~~~
·------.-~, ... ,.--- ---- ,----· .::::--::- ----~
··-
.
�- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: 04/25/96 Time: 10:28
KRF > Homebuilders group sees modest US housing growth in 1996
--Homebuilders group sees US GDP +1.9% in 1996; CPI +2.8%
--us homebuilders group sees Fed policy unch for rest of 1996
Knight-Ridder
Washington--Apr 25--The National Association of Homebuilders
expects housing activity to rise modestly in 1996, the group's chief
economist David Seiders said today.
According to figures released today, the group sees housing
starts rebounding 3.3% in 1996 to 1.399 million units after falling
more than 7% in 1995.
In remarks prepared for delivery today, Seiders also predicted
moderate US economic growth of 1.9% in 1996 and 2.0% in 1997. His
forecast called for inflation to remain steady, rising 2.8% in 1996
and 2.9% the following year.
Seiders said 'the unemployment rate should remain unchanged this
year at 5.6%, then edge up to 5.8% in 1997.
Seiders said, "The Federal Reserve is happy with the evolving mix
of economic growth and inflation, and monetary policy should be
stable for the balance of 1996. The Fed will probably ease policy a
few notches during the first half of 1997 in order to keep economic
growth around trend."
,
Seiders added that the economy's performance favors President
Bill Clinton in the upcoming presidential election.
He predicted the average yield on 3-month treasuries for 1996
will be 5.1%, while 30-year fixed rate mortgages will average 7.7%.
Seiders sees starts for single family homes up 3% this year to
1.108 million units, after falling more than 10% in 1995. New single
family home sales should rise 1.8% to 681,000 after edging down 0.2%
the prior year.
However, he sees existing home sales falling 1.5% in 1996 to
3.747 million units after a 3.6% drop in 1995. End
By Susan Mandel, Knight-Ridder Financial News
Tel: (202) 383-6152
Send comments to Internet address krf.news@plink.geis.com
KFviaNewsEDGE
�'
I
-
U.S- Ocpartmcnt of Housing ;and 0fOao Ocvctopmcnl
Washington. O.C. 204 ~ 0:.-:000
I·.
~~<£ (;;)!& -"'S~T--'t ~E'OIIC't•_.:::n.
.
...qs.
tr()A ~<. ~..-:: ...
-_ TELECOPY INFORMATION
~f\GE
PHONE NUl1BER: ---~------,----:---"---------'-":""-
FRO!!:
-A L.~··f··
.TOTAL N01'1BER PAGES
~A' HS .. H \)D
INCLUDING THIS COVER:.- ·_ ~ .
_ OUR TELECOPIER NUMBER IS:
(202} 619..,.8172
OUR TELEPHONE NU1j_BER' IS: (202)
.'708::.0685
~'S f 14 .
. DATE: . , . /
I'
'~- ~--
FAX
_,
~-,
o·
9
~rn=----~-----~~----~--------~--~-----~---
l00d, 9£17"0N
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Terry Edmonds
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
James (Terry) Edmonds
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1995-2001
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36090" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763294" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0462-F
Description
An account of the resource
Terry Edmonds worked as a speechwriter from 1995-2001. He became the Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting in 1999. His speechwriting focused on domestic topics such as race relations, veterans issues, education, paralympics, gun control, youth, and senior citizens. He also contributed to the President’s State of the Union speeches, radio addresses, commencement speeches, and special dinners and events. The records include speeches, letters, memorandum, schedules, reports, articles, and clippings.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
635 folders in 52 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
4-27-96 Natl Assoc. of Realtors Washington, D.C. [2]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
James (Terry) Edmonds
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0462-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 23
<a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/2006/2006-0462-F.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763294" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
12/9/2014
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
42-t-7763294-20060462F-023-003-2014
7763294