-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/65e71eb0485081749bc54061ccd07a7a.pdf
0fcb1c9624be9be57e30cb2aa305d071
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0469-F (2)
FOIA
MARKER
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:
Michael Waldman
Subseries:
14461
OA/ID Number:
FoIderlD:
Folder Title:
1996 Campaign: Dole - Speeches
Stack:
Row:
Section:
S
92
4
Shelf:
Position:
�Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
001. list
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
Planning for Tax Proposals (27 pages)
nd
RESTRICTION
P5
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Speechwriting
Michael Waldman
OA/Box Number:
14461
FOLDER TITLE:
1996 Campaign: Dole Speeches
2006-0469-F
sb93
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act -144 U.S.C. 2204(a)|
Freedom of Information Act - |5 U.S.C. 552(b)|
PI National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA|
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office 1(a)(2) of the PRA]
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information 1(a)(4) of the PRA|
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors |a)(5) of the PRA]
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy 1(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(l) National security classified information 1(b)(1) of the FOIA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA)
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute 1(b)(3) of the FOIA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes 1(b)(7) of the FOIA]
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA|
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
�PLANNING F e f T T A X P R O P O S A L S
SECTIONS:
I.
Overall Framework For Republican Growth Debate
II.
Four-Box Strategy For Response
III.
Description of Possible Republican Tax Proposals
IV.
Analysis of Current Republican Tax Proposals Under Discussion
V.
Analysis of Possible Hybrid Approaches
�I. OVERALL GROWTH DEBATE
Republicans seem likely to pin their new economic message on seeking to contrast
what they may call a "Clinton Glass Ceiling" versus what they will call a strong economic
growth agenda. In other words, rather than try to convince the nation that the Clinton economy
is terrible ~ a battle which they are continually losing - they will suggest that growth is simply
mediocre under President Clinton and claim that we believe that the era of 2.3% growth is the
best America can do. They will suggest that the only way to return to the bygone era of high
growth and rapidly rising wages is to roll-back government and take a new direction on
economic growth.
For example, in a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago, Dole said:
The White House congratulates "themselves because, in their view, 2.5 percent
growth represents the outer limit of America's economic potential. In the Clinton
Administration's world, America's economy has hit a glass ceiling. We can see
greater prosperity.... Our whole history tells us that America can do better."
[Senator Dole, Chicago Economic Club, September 5, 1995]
When Republicans attack the President for believing the American economy has "hit a
glass ceiling," they will be aware that the President has his own pro-growth agenda and middleclass tax cut. Therefore, they will seek to deliver an anti-government, excessive tax cut proposal
that will give them a distinctive plank. They are telling reporters that they want to be able to tie
their tax cut proposals to other defining issues. Their agenda will probably call for a 4-part
agenda:
1) Large Tax Cut: Propose a "bold" new tax cut that the President is certain to disagree
with. This will be their way of ensuring that there is a clear debate on taxes where they
are posited as being for a tax cut and we are against. This is then the context to continue
to demagogue the 1993 deficit reduction plan. Significant entrepreneurial tax cuts and
Medical Savings Accounts could also be included.
2) Anti-Litigation Theme as Obstacle to Growth: Possible theme of litigation costs
having a negative impact on economy growth ~ using international comparisons.
3) Non-Environmental Anti-Regulation Proposal: Look for some kind of antiregulation proposal that does not expose them on the environment.
4) Restructure Federal Government: Dole is likely to adopt some version of ending or
merging Cabinet Departments. Calling for eliminating Departments gives a false sense
that there are new big savings being called for.
�Prominence of the Tax Cut: The key highlight of the Republican pro-growth proposal will
most likely be a dramatic tax cut. This large tax cut would be their clear way of highlighting a
defining difference between the two parties. Dole has already casually called for a $150 billion
tax cut for $500 contributions to charities addressing poverty. Yet, the Republicans face real
risks in proposing such a large tax cut because if they pay for it, that would suggest deep,
extreme spending cuts ~ and if they don't pay for it, they will look completely false and
hypocritical. Not paying for the tax cuts would mean backing-off both a decade of positions
Dole has taken on opposing supply-side economics and backing-off of the so-called Republican
commitment to a balanced budget certified by the Congressional Budget Office. Because paying
for a large tax cut or adopting supply-side economics will be hard for Dole to stomach, we
should also consider that his aides may seek a hybrid alternative that is not currently being
discussed in the press. The hybrid could be a form of gradually phased-in tax cuts, or a
combination of smaller tax cuts, or a variation on a flat tax with a blurred financing scheme that
hides the degree that it is unpaid for.
Planning: We need to use the time we have now to not only ensure that we have a response for
each possible tax cut that Dole might propose, but also to ensure that those who will be
analyzing the Republican proposal are prepared to ask the right questions and to look at their
proposals with the right framework. In sum, we have to ensure that everyone understands that
they are either:
(a)
Giving up on a balanced budget and Dole's number one character point: his
willingness to stand up to the Reagan supply-siders.
(b)
Ready to heap extreme cuts on Medicare and other key priorities in order to pay
for the tax cuts.
Once his proposal is out, we should also be ready to quickly demonstrate why our tax cuts
are not only more conceptually attractive, but why millions of families will actually get a larger
tax cut under our proposal.
Reiterating the Clinton Growth Agenda: We must make clear in our own remarks that we are
not conceding that a Republican style growth agenda is the only "growth" agenda in town and we
must emphasize that we believe that our growth pro-growth agenda ~ that includes education,
health care and pension portability, targeted middle-class tax cuts, deficit reduction, and open
trade ~ is the growth agenda that will deliver for American families. If the economy were to
grow 1.0 percentage point faster, the size of the economy would double every 20 years, instead
of nearly every 30 years. And if the economy were to grow just 0.5 percentage point faster,
average income per four-person family would be $6,000 higher in 2005 (than it would be i f we
continued at our current growth pace).
�II. FOUR-BOX STRATEGY
WE SHOULD HAVE A FOUR-BOX STRATEGY. The first three boxes deal with the overall
conflict they face in proposing a tax cut of enormous costs. The last box goes to the fact that
even by proposing a large broad tax cut, they will still have a hard time showing millions of
families that their tax cut is superior to the President's proposal ~ and without devastating
Medicare.
BOX 1:
Dole's Hypocrisy and the Republican Congress' Hypocrisy
BOX 2:
Giving up on Balancing the Budget
BOX 3:
Extreme Spending Cuts to Pay for Tax Cut
BOX 4:
Our Tax Cut is More Generous for Working Families and
Without Devastating Medicare Cuts or Raising Taxes on
Hard Pressed Working Families
�BOX 1:
DOLE'S HYPOCRISY AND THE REPUBLICAN
CONGRESS' HYPOCRISY
Clearly, a large wing of the Republican party wants to return to supply-side economics
and simply state that the tax cuts will generate economic growth that will raise enough revenues
to pay for the tax cuts. This releases them from the box of deep Medicare and Medicaid cuts, but it
presents them with another constraint: complete contradiction of Dole's most clear economic position
~ paying for tax cuts and opposing supply-side economics and responsible progress toward deficit
reduction. The points that make it harder for Dole to go this way are the following:
1)
A decade of opposing supply-side economics: The main reason that Dole has earned
some respect from inside Washington journalists is that he opposed the reckless
supply-side policies of the Reagan economists. He has argued numerous times that it
is just plain common sense that you have to pay for tax cuts with spending cuts.
Here are just a few of the many Dole anti-supply-side quotes that have been
collected by our friends at DNC Research:
"It's easy to cut taxes but what do you do with that. You have to add it to the
deficit unless there is an offset. Now, if they can offset the tax cut with a
spending freeze or a spending reduction... that would make good economic
sense. But a tax cut by itself as some of the supply-siders might advocate,
would be bad medicine." [Los Angeles Times. 8/17/92; NBC's "Meet The
Press," 8/16/92]
"Just our view, just makes good sense if you 're going to cut taxes, you have to
pay for tax cuts with spending cuts." [CNN's "Moneyline," 1/6/95]
Larry King Live, November 4, 1992
Caller:
[H]ave you changed your views on supply-side economics?
Sen. DOLE: I never was in that camp, if you go back and look at the record.
I used to tell the story that somebody told me - a
good-news-bad-news joke. The good news was a busload of
supply-siders went over the cliff. The bad news was there were
three empty seats. So, you knowKING:
[laughs] You were never a supply-sider.
Sen. DOLE: I'm a traditional Republican who believes you ought to restrain
spending if you're going to cut taxes. I don't think you can just
cut taxes alone and get gain without pain
KING:
And you have long argued that....
Sen. DOLE: That's been my- you know, my firmly-held belief.
�Indeed, many of Dole's quotes opposing supply-side economics reflected a puritan
ethic: a no gain without pain philosophy. Reversing positions goes right to his
core.
Dole said supply-side economics was "something I've never understood," and
that "it's had a fair chance to work," and that it failed. Dole concluded, "My
view is that there isn't an easy way." [Washington Post, 11/9/87]
"I'm a traditional Republican who believes you ought to restrain spending i f
you're going to cut taxes. I don't think you can just cut taxes alone and get
gain without pain. [Larry King Live, CNN, 11/4/92]
Dole said, " I don't have any quarrel with supply-siders; I just haven't seen it
work yet. There aren't any painless ways to (reduce the debt). You've got to
do it the hard way." [Columbus Dispatch. 4/16/93]
2)
Degree that Republicans stressed the need for a CBO-approved balanced budget as the
only way to do budget: To this day, Republicans continue to hammer the President on
anything that can be seen as the slightest variation from their view of CBO-scored purity.
Even when CBO verifies that the President's budget reaches balance - they still hammer the
trigger as not pure enough. In light of this, it should be impossible for Republicans to
simply turn around and say that CBO verification is unnecessary.
Rep. Kasich: "Frankly, we don't ask for a lot. We ask for nothing more than
a commitment to do this in a seven-year period. The priorities within that
seven-year plan are negotiable. But what is not negotiable is negotiating
away the principle of the need to exercise fiscal discipline and balance the
budget over a seven-year period of time." [Kasich & Domenici Press
Conference, Federal News Service, November 14, 1995.]
Sen. Domenici: "You will find, Mr. President, you will find that we have
only one goal in mind. Everything else is on the table, Mr. President, but not
the one thing that is sacred to our commitment, and that's a balanced budget in
seven years...using the new Congressional Budget Office as our economic
source." [Gingrich, Kasich, Dole, Domenici Press Conference, Federal News
Service, December 15, 1995]
Rep. Gingrich: "They owe the country a CBO-scored, seven year balanced
budget." [Rep. Gingrich, Los Angeles Times, December 13, 1995]
�BOX 2: GIVING UP ON BALANCING THE BUDGET
We must also establish that not only are the Republicans being hypocritical and
showing weak character, but that this abandonment of fiscal discipline in the name of
tax cuts will actually mean the loss of a balanced budget.
1)
Republicans Lose The $254 Billion Bonus I f They Have Large Tax Cut: One
point that has not yet been highlighted in the press is that the Republican balanced
budget assumes a $254 billion "fiscal bonus". This "bonus" is granted by CBO
because of the benefits they see from the market rewarding a real, certified balanced
budget with lower interest rates with slightly higher growth. CBO has said that the
fiscal dividend depends on the credibility of the deficit reduction to the financial
markets and to the Federal Reserve.
CBO wrote: "[L]ong-term interest rates, for example, might respond to
announced future reductions in the deficit if those reductions seemed
credible ~ and as the Congress proceeds along the path of deficit
reduction, credibility is likely to increase." [CBO, Analysis of the
President's Budgetary Proposals, April 1995, p. 55.]
Once the credibility has been completely undermined, one could state that merely
introducing a $250 billion or more tax cut and suggesting it would not be paid for
would cost an additional $254 billion.
2)
Must Show that Supply-Side Did Not Work and Its Adoption Means the End of
Balancing the Budget: Senator Abraham and others will be out trumpeting that
supply-side economics did work and that tax revenues went up due to the Reagan
tax cuts and that they went down due to the Clinton tax increases. This is not true.
Republicans come close to lying on this issue by including the increase in Social
Security payroll taxes in 1983 in order to make up for the fact that the Reagan tax
cut clearly lost revenue and hurt the deficit. Joe Minarik has done excellent work
documenting this fact.
1981 Tax Cuts Cost Tax Revenue And Helped Explode The Deficit.
After passage of the 1981 supply-side tax cuts, real individual income tax
revenue fell for three consecutive years, and did not recover to their 1981
level until 1986. That is, for 5 years after Reagan's 1981 tax cut, individual
income tax revenue were below their 1981 level. This loss in tax revenue
helped explode the deficit: in Ronald Reagan's first three years in office, the
deficit nearly tripled, increasing from $74 billion in FY80 to $208 billion in
FY83.
7
�Contrary To Republican Claims, Tax Revenue Increased Because Social
Security Payroll Taxes Were Raised. To the degree that overall tax
revenues went up, it was due to increases in the Social Security payroll tax
rate in 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, and 1986, which increased Social Security
tax revenues. This increase in Social Security revenues more than offset the
loss in individual tax revenues from the 1981 supply-side tax cut.
Economic Growth During Reagan Administration Wasn't So Great. Real
GDP grew more slowly during the 1980s than it did during the 1960s and
1970s. And the private sector of the economy has expanded more rapidly
under President Clinton (3.2 percent per year) than during the Reagan
Administration. Importantly, business investment - a key ingredient to longterm growth ~ during the Reagan era was weaker than during the 1960s and
1970s; therefore, the supply-side experiment did not result in an increase in
investment.
3)
Balanced Budget Amendment Is Not a Cover For Giving Up on the Balanced
Budget Now: Republicans may seek to use their support for a Balanced Budget
Constitutional Amendment as cover for their support of supply-side tax cuts. But
we must turn this around by showing that a push for a Balanced Budget Amendment
is an attempt to move from serious balanced budget negotiations to giveaways and a
38-state, long constitutional process that will defer progress for years.
4)
Tax Cuts Are Not Even Traditional "Growth Tax Cuts." At some outside level,
we may also wish to show that even under supply-side logic, there is no evidence
that an overall across-the-board tax cut will have a major growth impact, since it
misses the growth arguments that Kemp and others make about lowering taxes on
capital.
�BOX 3: UNPOPULAR SPENDING CUTS TO PAY FOR TAX CUT
Our first approach must be to box them into the simple proposition that tax cuts must
be paid for with spending cuts, and the spending cuts they would need are
unthinkable. This proposition should be particularly "simple" because it reflects Dole's
longstanding position, and because Republicans have been pressing for over a year on the
importance of CBO certified balanced budget proposals.
While the particular tax proposals are discussed individually later in this memo, it is
important to note that nearly every one they seem to be considering ranges from $300
billion to $600 billion over six years. And it could be more. For instance, the 15%
across-the-board cut will cost $550 Billion over six years (FY1997-FY2002), while the
Ashcroft deduction is projected at $280 billion (FY1997-FY2002) and $536 billion over 10
years. The 15% cut could be phased in like the Wilson proposal - 5%, 5%, 5% -- but
even then it would still be close to $500 billion. This is still so large that it makes the
possibility of Social Security cuts ~ probably through CPI adjustments ~ a likelihood.
Remember what Senator Lott said on Meet The Press just a few days ago:
Russert:
All right. Senator Lott, here's your challenge. Identify $600
billion in savings [to pay for a $600 billion tax reduction the
Senator just endorsed]. What programs, specifically, would
you reduce over the next sever years?
Lott:
I would control spending on every program.
Russert:
Would you freeze Social Security?
Lott:
No. But we would control the rate of increase.
Russert:
You would take Medicare and Social Security and defense all
off the table?
Lott:
No, / didn't say that. I think we have got to control the rate of
growth in all of these programs, all of these programs,
including defense.
�What they Pay for in their Current Balanced Budget Proposal: Republicans will
contend that their current budget resolution can afford a $180 billion tax cut. This
calculation comes from adding $122 billion net tax cut, plus about $60 billion in extenders
and their version of subsidy cuts. Therefore, if they are at the low end ($300 billion) we
will have to show how they pay for the extra $120 billion. If they are at the high end
(15% cut worth $550 billion), we will have to show how they would cut an extra $370
billion from the budget to pay for it.
We need to establish that there is nowhere f o r the Republicans to go, and that
even returning to the more extreme reconciliation cuts would be more harsh than
they were in 1995 (due to the change in the CBO baseline). If they do not give out
the details of where the cuts will come from, it would be only fair to assume that
they would return to the cuts they have already voted for in the reconciliation bill.
We must make clear two things:
1)
They have no where else to go but the cuts they previously made — the
extreme cuts they still criticize the President for vetoing.
2)
Taking Medicare and Medicaid back to their prior levels of savings
would require even deeper and more painful cuts than before. Why?
Because the baseline has gone down. Cutting Medicare at their old cuts of
$270 billion would mean cutting hospital payments to far lower levels than in
the vetoed reconciliation bill. With projected spending lower, they would be
cutting $270 billion from a lower baseline and thus leading to even less
spending. These additional Medicare cuts would reduce the rate of growth in
Medicare spending per beneficiary to less than 3%. Indeed, we currently
estimate that in order to make up dropping their premium increases.
Republicans may now be calling for cutting hospital payments ~ even in
nominal terms. This would put them in an unattractive box for two reasons:
(1) We would show that their choices were only cutting hospitals deeper and
deeper, or that they would need to return to premium increases ~ which
neither the Senate nor Bob Dole ever specifically denied; (2) They have
proposed or voted for several negative Medicare proposals ~ $40 Billion
From Raising Premiums to 31.5%, $8 Billion From Doubling deductibles —
and it would be difficult for them to contend that such proposals were not
very real possibilities.
The Could Save An Additional $91 Billion By Returning To The $163 Billion
Level Of Medicaid Savings In The Vetoed Reconciliation Bill. Their vetoed
proposal would have saved $109 billion off the current, lower CBO baseline. Thus,
$163 billion off the current baseline would be 50% deeper than the vetoed
reconciliation bill ~ which could have denied nearly 8 million Americans Medicaid
coverage in 2002. These figures include just the federal cuts. The total cuts under
the vetoed bill could have reached $330 billion, and could exceed $400 billion with
a 50% greater federal Medicaid cut. This would greatly strengthen the assumption
that states would have no choice but to look to every angle the law allows to cut
back benefits.
�Can They Cut Spending Without Opening Themselves Up to Extreme Medicare and
Medicaid Cuts? While they will say that they will look at everything when it comes to
spending cuts — they have few other choices. They will undoubtably take Defense off the
table. Veterans is being preserved as an area where they spend more than we do, and it
seems unlikely that they will cut agriculture or student loans even more. They may seek to
go to domestic discretionary spending, but there is little left, and Domenici himself has said
that he has doubts about Republicans' being able to deliver on their current level of cuts.
But Medicare and Medicaid account for 35% of the spending left on the table once you
protect Defense and Social Security.
Could they cut discretionary funding by an additional $131 billion over six years
without cutting education and the environment further? No. They are already cutting
non-defense discretionary spending by at least 25% in real terms in 2002. Because
education and the environment account for about 25% of all non-defense discretionary
spending, protecting these areas would require about 30% deeper cuts in everything else,
including some of their priorities, such as energy and water, veterans, NIH, and
transportation.
Indeed, i f the additional $131 billion were applied proportionately to all non-defense
discretionary funding, it would require approximately $10 billion more in cuts in the
environment (Function 300) and about $20 billion more in education and training
(Function 500) ~ on top of the $27 billion already assumed in the House FY97
budget resolution. The $60 billion gap between the President and House
Republicans in funding for education and training would increase to approximately
$80 billion. A research project that I will work on is a clear demonstration of what
extra NDD cuts would mean in key areas, so we can show how boxed in they are to
cutting Medicare and Medicaid ~ and even Social Security i f they go for a 15%
across-the-board tax cut.
NOTE ON FLAT TAX: If they proposed an unpaid for flat tax, we can either assume the
spending cuts needed to pay for it, or assume that it is deficit-neutral and then increase the
rate high enough to be deficit neutral — a move that leads to most middle class families
getting a tax increase.
�BOX 4:
OUR TAX CUT IS BETTER THAN THEIRS - WITHOUT
DEVASTATING MEDICARE OR DEVASTATING EITC
People Like Our Tax Cuts. Some have made the point internally, that Americans like our
Clinton Middle Class Bill of Rights tax cuts more than the 15% across-the-board or payroll
deduction ~ because of a preference for targeted tax relief. Yet, we will likely be able to
provide an even more tangible response showing that millions of families will benefit more
from our tax cut that theirs.
No matter what they propose, we can immediately be ready with case study examples
of typical American families who will be better off under the Clinton plan than under
the Republican tax cut proposal.
Both of their most talked-of proposals — the 15% across-the-board cut and the
payroll deduction ~ have the benefits of quantity of people: they would apply to
virtually every taxpayer each year. That is their advantage.
Yet, neither of these proposals are superior in quality to the tax cut for working
families with young children. I f Republicans choose an across-the-board tax cut, we
can come out immediately with example after example of average families with
children who will get a larger tax cut under Clinton than they will get under Dole's
plan. Therefore, one of our clear attacks is to show immediately that for millions of
families with children, the choice is a Republican tax cut that means a devastation of
Medicare and education or a more generous Clinton tax cut that protects Medicare,
education and the environment.
Furthermore, all middle-class families are eligible for our $10,000 education tax
deduction, so we can say that they get a $1500 to $2800 tax cut whenever they are
investing in their own education/training or their family's.
Republicans May Add To — Not Replace The Child Tax Credit: Of course, this
analysis may suggest that the Republicans cannot afford to give up their child tax credit. In
this case, they may copy our Putting People First plan and give people an option. Yet, this
further drives up their costs into more and more unrealistic ranges leading to deeper and
deeper Medicare -- and possibly even Social Security - cuts.
The following examples are not precise estimates, but show clearly enough that we
can show millions of families that will do better under our plan.
Family of Four With Young Children Making $24,000 with EITC:
Social Security Payroll Deduction:
15% Tax Cut:
Clinton Tax Cut:
$223
$120
$800
�Family of Four with Young Children Making $48,000
Social Security Payroll Deduction:
15% Tax Cut:
Clinton Tax Cut:
$450
$667
$1000
Family of Four with Young Children Making $200,000
Social Security Payroll Deduction:
15% Tax Cut:
Clinton Tax Cut:
$558
$6222
$0
Family Making $24,000 with $10,000 Education Expense (No Young
Children)
Social Security Payroll Deduction:
$223
15% Tax Cut:
$120
Clinton Tax Cut:
$1112
Family Making $48,000 with $10,000 Education Expense (No Young
Children)
Social Security Payroll Deduction:
15% Tax Cut:
Clinton Tax Cut:
$450
$667
$1500
Family Making $200,000 with $10,000 Education Expense (No Young
Children)
Social Security Payroll Deduction:
15% Tax Cut:
Clinton Tax Cut:
$558
$6222
$0
�NOTE ON FLAT TAX: We will have to be ready to show how our plan compares to a
flat tax that Dole might come up with. If they follow the Forbes route, they will call for a
large and unrealistic exemption for families of four. In that case, we can assume the
legitimacy of the exemption, and then show how taxes will be significantly raised for the
millions of middle families above the exemption or how there is no way they can afford the
exemption (up to $36,000 in the Forbes proposal) and how all middle class families will
face a tax hike i f the plan is deficit neutral. Our ability to make that case is strengthened
by the fact that Dole himself strongly questioned the viability of such large exemptions.
"Before we talk about flat tax...just keep two things in mind. Not everybody
in America can get a tax cut without adding to the deficit. I f you exclude
everybody who makes less than $36,000 and don't tax investment income,
something's got to give. You can't have it both ways." [The New York
Times, March 5, 1996]
NOTE ON EITC: One way we can show the attractiveness of our tax cuts is also to stress
the millions who have EITC tax increases in the Republican plan. They may seek to
construct their tax cut so that all those who get cuts in their EITC still get a net tax cut.
Nonetheless, we may be able to show some getting a net tax increase and we could still do
a table showing how the 15% cut applies, and then a separate table showing how much of
it is taken away ~ only for the most hardpressed families - through a tax increase by
cutting the EITC.
14
�III. POSSIBLE REPUBLICAN TAX CUT PROPOSALS
1.
15-Percent Across-The-Board Tax Cut: This proposal ~ modeled after President Reagan's
supply-side tax cuts ~ would lower marginal tax rates across-the-board by 15 percent (e.g.,
marginal tax rates would drop from 15 percent to 12.75 percent, from 28 percent to 23.8
percent, etc.). This tax cut would cost in the range of $600-700 billion over seven years.
NOTE:
Most Taxpayers Currently Pay at a 15% Flat Tax Rate. More than 70%
of taxpayers with tax on taxable income already pay tax at a 15% flat tax
rate. Almost 80% of all individual tax filers pay no tax on income or tax
at the 15% flat rate.
Almost 40% of All Taxpayers File The Simplest Returns. Almost 40%
of all taxpayers file using the easiest tax forms.
2.
Ashcroft Proposal — Allowing Deduction of Payroll Taxes from Taxable Income: This
proposal ~ first advocated by the Kemp Tax Commission ~ would allow workers to deduct
their share of the Social Security payroll tax from their gross income when filing taxes. For
the typical two-eamer family, this proposal would provide a $500 tax cut per year. This plan
would cost the Treasury about $280 billion over five years (over ten years, it is estimated that
this proposal will cost $536 billion).
3.
Nunn-Domenici USA Tax Plan: This proposal ~ the Unlimited Saving Allowance (USA)
plan - would replace the individual and corporate income taxes with two consumption taxes: a
graduated individual consumption-income tax and a flat-rate tax on business cash flow. Under
the USA proposal, all businesses would be taxed at a proposed rate of 11 percent on gross
receipts less purchases of material inputs, equipment, and structures. Financial receipts, such
as interest and dividends, would not be included in gross receipts, and interest and dividend
payments would not be deductible. All labor costs — cash wage and non-pension fringe
benefits -- would not be deductible. But businesses would receive a credit for the employer
portion of payroll taxes. The Nunn-Domenici proposal would also allow businesses to deduct
the full cost of purchased capital assets. Expensing under the business tax ~ combined with a
savings deduction under the individual tax ~ would ensure that the return to capital is not
taxed.
Individual income would be subject to a graduated income tax with deductions for all qualified
savings. The top marginal tax rate would be set at 40 percent. Under this plan, all labor
compensation (including, for example, health benefits, but excluding pension benefits) would
be taxed twice, once at the business and once at the individual level. The USA plan would
allow individuals to deduct charitable contributions, educational expenses, and a limited
amount of home mortgage interest. This plan maintains the EITC and includes a credit for the
employee portion of payroll taxes.
�4.
Armey/Forbes-Style Flat Tax: Rep. Armey and Steve Forbes have both proposed adopting a
two-part flat tax to replace the current corporate and personal income taxes. These proposals
include a tax on wage income at 17 percent with $36,000 of deductions for a family of four.
A tax would be levied at the same rate on all business cash flows with deductions for
purchases of capital and for wages (but not for non-pension fringe benefits, the employer
portion of payroll taxes, and State and local taxes.
Under this proposal, workers would be taxed only on their compensation for labor (including
health benefits); interest, dividends, and capital gains would not be included in individuals'
taxable income. And businesses would not be allowed to deduct interest and dividends paid to
the owners of the business. Moreover, businesses would be allowed to deduct the full cost of
purchased capital assets. This expensing provision would mean that income from new
investments would be effectively tax-free at both the business level and the individual taxpayer
level.
Treasury estimates that this proposal would cause a revenue loss of $186 billion per year. To
be made revenue-neutral with Armey' standard deductions, the tax rate would have to be
increased to 21 percent.
5.
National Sales Tax: This proposal would scrap the current income tax system and replace it
with a National Sales Tax. Rep. Archer and Senator Lugar have both proposed different kinds
of national sales taxes or VATs. These proposals are both pure consumption taxes; income
that is saved is exempt from tax until it is withdrawn from savings and spent. There are a
number of different methods to collect this sales tax, but none of the methods alters the
economic affect of a national sales tax. Since low-income families consume a higher
percentage of their incomes than high-income families, a flat-rate consumption tax is
regressive. Attempts to make a consumption tax more progressive are difficult and would
necessitate a higher sales tax rate. There are also enormous transition costs associated with
moving towards a National Sales Tax that would need to be addressed.
6.
Coats Proposals To Provide Charity Tax Credit: Sen. Coats proposes a credit of up to
$500 per taxpayer for charitable contributions. Under this proposal, the taxpayer must
volunteered at least 50 hours of service for the charity, the donation must be in cash, and it
would have to go to a charity that spends at least 70 percent of its annual program expenses
on providing services to people in poverty. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that this
proposal would cost $150 billion over seven years. This proposal is supported by Sen.
Ashcroft, Coverdale, Craig, DeWine, Smith, Inhofe, and Kempthome. Senator Dole just
endorsed a similar Charity Tax Credit.
7.
Mcintosh Proposal To Increase Take-Home Pay: Under this proposal, workers would be
allowed to keep their share of the payroll tax (7.65%), while employers would pay their share
of the payroll tax (7.65%) to the employee, instead of to the IRS. Rep. Mcintosh says that
this proposal would phase-out at $5.25 an hour. Rep. Mcintosh asserts that this tax proposal
will cost just $8 to $10 billion and will be paid for by reducing spending on welfare.
16
�8.
Hutchinson-Ballenger Proposal To Increase Take-Home Pay: This proposal (HR 3441)
would modify the Earned Income Tax Credit as an alternative to raising the minimum wage.
Rep. Hutchinson and Rep. Ballenger claim that their proposal would increase the hourly wage
of minimum wage workers by 19 cents an hour for a worker with one child and 42 cents an
hour for a worker with two or more kids. These changes in the EITC would be financed by
reductions in the EITC for other workers and eliminate the childless EITC and would reduced
the EITC for working families with incomes slightly above the poverty line.
9.
Repeal 1993 Tax Increase: This proposal would repeal the tax provisions in OBRA '93.
This proposal would cost approximately $410 billion over seven years and would provide
about 80 percent of its benefits to those with incomes over $100,000.
10.
Repeal 1990 Tax Increase: This proposal would repeal the Bush tax increase of 1990. This
proposal ~ like the repeal of OBRA '93 ~ is supported by Jack Kemp and Wayne Angell.
This proposal would cost approximately $165 billion over seven years.
11.
Repeal the 1993 Social Security Provisions: The Contract with America would have
repealed a provision in the President's 1993 plan that subject a greater share of the top 13% of
Social Security recipients' benefits to the income tax. All of the revenue from the 1993
provision went to the Medicare Trust Fund. The Contract would have phased-out the 1993
provision over five years, but would have immediately redirected all of the revenue from the
1993 provision from the Medicare Trust Fund to the Social Security Trust Fund. Thus, while
the proposal would lose $28 billion in revenue over 7 years, the Medicare Trust Fund would
have lost $37 billion from 1996 to 2002.
Despite its inclusion in the Contract, this provision was not included in the House and Senate
reconciliation bills. This week, the Senate narrowly passed Senator Gramm's sense of the
Senate amendment to the FY97 budget resolution calling for the repeal of the 1993 provision.
12.
Capital-Gains Tax Cut and Other Targeted Growth Initiatives: They may seek to
strengthen their current capital-gains tax cut proposal with several new ones. For example,
they could propose a zero capital-gains tax cut for empowerment zones and perhaps a special
capital-gains break for low-income savers or small businesses.
�IV: ANALYSIS
All of the current tax cut plans that are being discussed have serious flaws and
vulnerabilities that we could take advantage of.
The main obstacles they face in devising a tax cut will be their difficulty to find a tax cut
that simultaneously meets the following five objectives:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Broad-based and Bold Tax Cut
Pro-growth, Investment Orientation
Not Portrayable As An Upper-Income Tax Cut Paid For By Medicare Cuts,
Etc.
Better than the Clinton Tax Cut For Families With Children
Passing The Laugh Test On Paying For It
As seen below, none of the current tax cut proposals successfully meet all of these tests.
["Cons" reflect why the proposal would be hard for them to propose]
1. 15% CUT:
Pros:
•
Meets the test of being broad-based and bold.
•
Because it cuts marginal rates, will be seen as pro-growth because it increases the
incentives for people to work more hours.
Cons:
Will be vulnerable to attack on being far more generous to the well-off than the
middle class. As seen above, a family making $25,000 gets $120; a family making
$250,000 makes over $7000.
We will be able to show that many families will do better on the Clinton plan that
this one. Middle class families with young children or with kids in college will prefer
the Clinton tax cut.
So expensive, could simply be off the charts.
�2. Payroll Deduction:
Pros:
Meets the test of being broad-based and bold.
While rich Americans will benefit, at least they will not be getting larger amounts
than the middle class.
$280 billion costs is more moderate than 15% cut and could be phased- in.
Cons:
Hardly an investment or pro-growth tax cut: Does not encourage investment or even
make it easier for businesses to hire, as the employers will still pay the 6.2% tax cut.
Clinton tax cut could provide twice as much tax relief for many families of four at
$50,000.
Tax cut semi-explodes and costs $536 billion over 10 years.
This proposal is fairly confusing: have to explain that 6.2% is still taken out of
paycheck, but now can deduct.
Works in the opposite direction of tax reform by adding another deduction.
3. Armev/Forbes-Stvle Flat Tax:
Pros:
Bold plan to scrap the entire current tax code.
Will claim that it simplifies tax system.
Taxes all income once: removes double taxation of corporate profits.
Will claim that it will raise the savings rate
If give huge exemptions like Armey or Forbes, can claim that families under $36,000
will not pay federal income taxes.
Cons:
•
Allows owners of capital to not pay any tax on interest income, while workers pay
taxes on labor income.
Costs the Treasury $186 billion per year at current flat rate and deductions.
19
�Dole's has insisted on protecting home mortgage deduction, charitable contribution, and
even state and local taxes ~ nearly forcing him to accept a flat tax rate that would be
well over 20%. The flat tax rate necessary for revenue neutrality is even higher. It is
estimated that if Dole chose to maintain the home interest mortgage deduction and the
charitable deduction, the revenue-neutral flat tax rate would have to be as high as 23
percent — more than most American families currently pay.
If Dole Maintains Just The Home Mortgage Deduction: Dole has said repeatedly
that he would maintain the home interest mortgage deduction. If he kept this
deduction, it is estimated that the revenue-neutral tax rate would have to increase
by about 1.0 to 1.5 percentage points.
I f Dole Maintains Just The Charity Deduction: Dole has also promised that he
would preserve the deduction for charitable contributions. This would raise the
revenue-neutral by an estimated 0.5 percentage points.
[A]nd I hope that you understand that our commitment has been long time,
it's been consistent, and we've never wavered. When we were taking all the
heat, as indicated earlier, on the flat tax, millions of dollars of TV
advertising directed right at Bob Dole, I stood my ground and said I don't
care what happens, we 're going to keep the mortgage interest deduction and
charitable deductions, and we will." [Remarks by Senate Majority Leader
Robert Dole at National Association of Realtors Conference, Washington,
D.C., 4/29/96/]
Dole lashed out at Forbes' tax plan ~ using Treasury's estimates ~ for blowing a whole
in the deficit. Dole adopted Forbes' flat tax, he would be stuck with the devastating
revenue estimates he used in New Hampshire ~ $186 billion deficit per year.
In order to be revenue neutral, the flat tax rate would have to be raised to 21 percent.
In this case, income groups under $200,000 would face a tax increase, while those
with incomes over $200,000 would get a tax cut.
"One thing that will not happen in a Dole administration, we will not pass
the burden from the super-rich to middle-class America and i f we're going
to increase the deficit through some kind of a tax scheme, then I think the
American people will have been tricked." [Union Leader. 2/9/96]
"When somebody comes riding into town...and tells you he has a plan,
everybody gets a tax cut, don't believe it." [AP Online. March 05, 1996]
"We 're either going to add to the deficit or not everybody's going to get a
tax cut. You can't have it both ways." [New York Times, 2/19/96]
"The typical New Hampshire household will pay $2,000 more in taxes. And
we lose our property tax deduction and our mortgage interest deduction.
That s bad for New Hampshire taxpayers and bad for our economy." [Dole
Campaign Ad]
�4. Repeal Clinton 1993 Tax Proposals:
Pros:
They will see this as pro-investment because it cuts taxes on the most-well off.
Highlights Clinton tax increases in 1993.
Cons:
No broad-based appeal: only the 4.3 cent gas tax affects average families, and the
Social Security provision could be done separately.
Would actually help expose the truth they want to hide: More than three-quarters
(76%) of the Clinton tax increase hit the top one percent.
Clinton tax cut in the President's balanced budget proposal would be far more
attractive for any middle-class family or anyone in the bottom 98.8% of all taxpayers.
NOTE: We should not worry about this one too much. They will not be that
dumb. Instead, they may try to cut taxes by an amount equal to the Clinton tax
increase. This would come to about $350 billion over six years.
5. Nunn-Domenici USA Tax Plan
Pros:
Broad and new: This would be a complete transformation of the tax code and would
therefore be the big idea the Republicans are in search of.
•
Has more progressive in tax system.
Probably revenue neutral.
Would most likely raise the savings rate - albeit only slightly - which
would help the long-term growth of the economy.
•
Includes detailed transition from current system to new system
Includes deduction for education expenses.
Cons:
Does little ~ if anything - to simplify the current tax system; this is one of the
driving forces in tax reform.
Double taxes wages.
Taxes fringe benefits such as health insurance twice.
Raises top marginal tax rate to 40 percent.
Could raise tax compliance costs.
Allows well-off owners of capital to pay no taxes while their workers face
regressive tax.
Created incentives for businesses to move operations abroad and export
their goods to the U.S.
21
�6. National Sales Tax:
Pros:
Bold plan to scrap the entire current tax code.
Will claim that it simplifies tax system.
Will claim that it will raise the savings rate because it only taxes consumption.
Cons:
Will be vulnerable to attack that it provides a tax cut to the wealthy, while raising
taxes on the poor. Owners of companies would pay no taxes on capital gains, while
their workers would pay high sales taxes on a high percentage of their income.
Families could find themselves paying 25 cents on every dollar spent - particularly in
cities and states with high state and local sales taxes.
We will be able to show that many families will do better on the Clinton plan that
this one. Middle class families with young children or with kids in college will prefer
the Clinton tax cut.
Complex transition issues would need to be addressed.
7. Coats/Dole Charity Tax Credit:
Pros:
Provides tax cut to middle- and upper-income taxpayers.
Promotes volunteerism and community service.
They will suggest that Republicans trust local organizations while Democrats
only trust bureaucratic government.
Cons:
Costs $150 billion over seven years.
Provides complete subsidy to people who already provide charitable relief with no
proof that people will give dollar for dollar more to charities.
Won't promote investment or long-term growth
Creates puts burden on charities to show that they meet the 70 percent expenditure
test that is required for the credit. Charities would have to determine whether each
person they serve is below the federal poverty line. Charities would have to certify
that volunteer provided at least 50 hours of service.
Expands IRS's role: certifying and auditing non-profits
�8. Mcintosh Proposal To Increase Take-Home Pav:
Pros:
Directly impacts take-home pay.
Makes it easier for small businesses to hire because it also relieves the employer side
of payroll taxes.
This is not a huge expensive tax cut, so Dole could afford it.
Cons:
•
Money comes out of the Social Security system — not general revenues. A dangerous
flaw in their program that is destabilizing to Social Security.
Only addresses minimum wage workers -- and gives them at least 50 cents.
Creates opportunities for gaming which could drive up its costs.
8. Hutchinson-Ballenger Proposal To Increase Take-Home Pav:
Pros:
•
Would provide large tax relief for some low-income families.
•
Popular with restaurant lobby and small businesses, since government assures wage
increase.
•
Will claim that it doesn't hurt hiring.
Cons:
Raises taxes for millions of EITC recipients.
Seems to call for dramatically expanded IRS role in supervising hourly wages.
If carried out, would increase costs - not save.
Generally, not a well thought out proposal, and many would do better with straight
minimum wage increase.
�9. Repeal the 1993 Social Security Provisions:
Pros:
Will highlight the fact that Clinton raised taxes in 1993.
Will help soften Dole image as tough on elderly after '95 budget fight.
Cons:
Dole would be hypocritical to try to repeal this tax provision because:
1.
Republicans enacted the first provision taxing Social Security benefits in 1983
when Bob Dole was chair of the Finance Committee and Ronald Reagan was
President.
2.
The 1983 provision affects 69% more Social Security recipients.
Revenue from this provision are deposited in Medicare Trust Fund, so repealing this
provision would harm the Trust Fund Dole claims to be trying to save.
�V. POSSIBLE HYBRID SOLUTIONS
As demonstrated, all of the current tax cut plans that are being discussed have serious flaws
and vulnerabilities that we could take advantage of. Therefore, we would be wise to discuss
some "hybrid approaches" that may be designed to ameliorate some of the obvious flaws in these
proposals.
If Senator Dole believes that the character hit would be too large, and goes for a smaller tax
cut that he can pay for, he could put together a hodge-podge:
15% Cut or Choice of Child Tax Credit: To address the problem that a 15% tax cut
would be less generous than the Clinton tax cut or their previous tax cut for families with
children, the Republicans could copy the Putting People First proposal of giving people a
choice between a tax cut or a child tax credit.
This would still be enormously expensive — certainly driving it well-over $600 billion.
Yet, once you have given up any hope of paying for tax cuts, why not?
Less Expensive Across the Board Tax Cut Plus a Generous Capital Gains Tax Cut: A
15% across the board allows Democrats to show that well-off Americans do extremely
well, while families do worse than the Clinton tax cut and it requires deep Medicare cuts.
One solution for them would be to simply lower the 15% bracket to 13%. For most
Americans, this would be a like a 15% tax cut, yet it would give not give well-off
families more than the middle class families. In other words, a family making $60,000
and a family making $600,000 would both have 13% applied to the first
thousand.
This would make their tax cut far more politically smart but would mean not having a tax
cut that addressed the higher marginal tax cuts of the 1993 tax cut. Therefore, it would
likely be combined with a generous capital gains tax cut that would appeal to the well-off
Americans who they feel are the key to spurring economic growth. This may also include
a zero capital gains tax cut for empowerment zones and for investments in entrepreneurial
businesses.
Social Security Payroll Deduction Plus Capital Gains Tax Cut: This option might be
the most attractive for them. It allows them to say they are doing something for every
American. It would be hard to portray as a tax cut for the rich — even though the rich
would certainly benefit the same from it as a middle class family. The payroll deduction
alone would have no growth component and would do little for the well-off Americans
they want to help. Yet, i f they combined it with a generous capital gains tax cut, they
might be able to say that they have a "take-home pay" component for all Americans,
while still a strong capital gains growth component. The costs would be $280 billion plus
the capital gains tax cut ~ so it could be over $300 billion. Yet, far less than the $550600 billion for the 15% across-the-board tax cut. Again, however, we could argue that
average families would do better under the Clinton tax cut for families with children.
�Social Security Payroll Deduction/Child Tax Credit Choice plus Capital Gains
Tax Cut: This "choice" is the best alternative they can come up with on the noncost side. It is broad-based; will seem more fair than most Republican proposals:
will be able to give families a cut close to the Clinton tax cut, and will have a
capital gains pro-growth component to satisfy the well-off and some of the supplysiders. Yet, it would drive the costs close to the $400 billion amount - closer to
being above the laugh test, and with only the capital gains tax cut to point to as a
"growth initiative."
Phased In Broad Tax Cut with "BLUR" Financing: Rather than go for a large
tax cut and supply-side approach to paying for it that would make Dole such a big
hypocrite, they may go for a "blur." Republicans already have $122 billion paid for
in their balanced budget plan ~ and up to $185 billion if they use their tax extenders
and corporate subsidy cuts to pay for increased tax cut. Therefore, to come through
on a $360 billion tax cut, they would have to come up with $180 billion of magic.
Their goal would be to provide some new spending cut option - a freeze, or acrossthe-board cut or entitlement cap, and make the total magic seem like a smaller part
of the package.
•
Phased-in Large tax cut: Under this version the Republicans call for a large tax
cut, but they actual plan has a long phase in stage. This keeps the costs down,
and there can be promises of speeding it up i f spending cuts are passed.
Additional Specifics to Show "Courage" while distracting from the fact that the
Cut is Not Paid For:
•
Small Entitlement Cap or Across-the-Board Flexible Cut: This cut would be
enough to help, but small enough that they could show how they were "just
cutting the rate of growth" and they could say it would not include certain
controversial cuts.
0.3% Growth Dividend: Even a 0.3% growth dividend, can add up to $30
billion a year seven years out. This extra $150 billion in "magic" would be
critical to the proposal, but would bfc blurred within the proposal.
26
�Flat Tax with "BLUR" Financing And Popular Deductions: Dole faces three
major constraints with proposing a flat tax: (1) it can't look as though is favors the
rich, while raising taxes on the middle class; (2) it can't blow a huge whole in the
deficit; and (3) it must be consistent with his recent statements (e.g., maintaining the
mortgage interest and charitable deductions). This will provide a significant
challenge for Dole's advisors.
Dole has already said that he would preserve the mortgage interest and
charitable deductions. In order to be revenue neutral, Dole's modified flat tax
rate would have to be as high as 23 percent. The problem with going with this
rate is that it is higher than most Americans currently pay. Dole will have to go
with a flat rate around 20 percent. But, at this level, his proposal would blow
an enormous hole in the deficit ~ probably at least $500 billion [check] over
seven years.
Dole might still try to construct a flat tax with the following restrictions:
• Dole calls for a 19% flat tax, but to prevent his plan from being
portrayed as increasing taxes on the middle class, Dole could propose a
plan that had a very large exemption (possibly even higher than the one
proposed by Forbes - $36,000 for a family of four).
• To take away the perception that it is a tax cut for the rich and tax
increase for the middle class, he agrees to some type of surtax or upper
level for the top 5% of Americans.
• To take away the perception that he is simply relying on supply-side
growth assumptions. Dole could admit that there is a $300 billion shortfall
— and then pay for $200 billion with real cuts and then fudge the rest.
Even if the real shortfall is $600 billion - so that he is really $400 billion
short, it could take awhile for the scoring of a complete change in the tax
code to be established, making a quick, crisp critique on numbers difficult
in the initial introduction of the plan. His line would be similar to Forbes':
our numbers are bogus, constructed by number crunchers who don't
understand how big a positive effect a flat tax will have on the economy.
However, Dole will have a difficult time with this line of argument: He
relied on our revenue estimates of the flat tax during the New Hampshire
primary. In fact, he cited Treasury estimates in attack ads against
Forbes' flat tax.
27
�Congress have increased funding for WIC and Head Start programs.
Recently, the President and the Vice President came to California to announce their goal
to connect your classrooms and your children to the Internet — the Information Superhighway.
They established a fund and challenged the private sector to help make every child technologically
literate for the 21 st century.
The Clinton Administration is committed to making a college education available for every
one of our citizens who is willing to study hard. The President has expanded Pell grants for
deserving college students and made student loans more accessible. Americorps provides
volunteers with college money in exchange for community service.
America has to do more for working parents, too. Under the President's new G.I. Bill,
American workers who lose their jobs to corporate layoffs and downsizing will receive vouchers
to pay for the retraining they need to become employable again. The Earned Income Tax Credit
has a proven track record of lifting working parents and their children out of poverty and all of us
must help the President protect and expand this valuable program.
Economic security goes hand in hand with health security. We must protect Medicaid and
Medicare. Those programs are the safety net for millions of Americans,fromthe seniors who
worked so hard to make America the great country it is today to the children who will make it
great tomorrow. We must ensure that every American has access to affordable health care, and
that people who lose their jobs can keep their health insurance.
We must reclaim our neighborhoodsfromcrime, gangs and drugs. We must leave our
children a society where they can turn on the evening news and actually be surprised when a crime
is the lead story. The President has instructed federal, state and local law enforcement to work
together in an unprecedented co-ordination to crack down on gangs across America. He has put
100,000 new police officers in our communities. By getting out of their patrol cars and getting to
know the people they serve, community police officers are actually preventing crime, not just
catching criminals.
We have to do more to protect the environment. We have already achieved so much on
this front. The water our children swim in is cleaner; they arefishingagain in lakes and streams
once thought hopelessly contaminated. We cannot allow anyone to turn back the clock on
environmental protection.
And there is more that we can do to leave our children a better world.
We must continue to meet our responsibilities as leaders in thefightforfreedomand peace
in this world. In countries where peace was only hoped for, from Bosnia to Haiti to Ireland to the
Middle East, the President has initiated the process of lasting reconciliation.
Finally, we must demand the reform of our political system. We must make sure that our
3
�elected representatives answer to the people and not to the big-money lobbyists who line
campaign coffers and haunt the halls of Congress.
We have to make our democracy work as effectively as it can. That means we also must
demand more of ourselves. Women, in particular, have a crucial role to play in the next and in
every election. Because of the diverse roles we alreadyfillin society — in the home and in the
workplace — we bring special insights into the task of building a better country.
And yet, today, 75 years after winning the vote, many of us do not feel enough of a stake
in the political process to exercise this hard-won right. Fifty-four million women chose not to
vote in the last election. That is an abdication of responsibility — and a missed opportunity for
women who deserve to have a say in the direction of our country.
I think about that every time I travel and meet women around the world whose life choices
are so limited because they are still living without this basic right.
Please, reach out to the women in your lives and encourage them to use their power to
vote and shape our common future.
.
h
'
California has always been a land of pioneers. It is a state built by Americansfromall
corners of this continent and all parts of the world who shared a common faith in democracy and
the American Dream. Califomians have invigorated our culture and led the country with new
ideas, new methods and new strategies of keeping the American Dream alive. The nation has long
looked to you for leadership. We continue to look to you now, in this momentous time in our
nation's history. On the eve of the 21st century, there is still so much we can and must do
together, as one American family. Thank you for doing your part.
�pubbcan economist Gary Robbins. the
15 percent cut would result, on average, in a tax cut of about $150 for a
taxpayer reporting annual income oi
$20,000: $700fora taxpayer with an
income of $50,000: $1,900 for a taxpayer'with an income of $100,000:
"Steve" Forbes Jr. for peddling "snake ana $9,800 for a taxpayer reporting
oil" with hisflattax proposal.
an income of $200,000.
By Clay Chandler
In a television interview with
But the reduction would deprive the
CNN's Ltrry King, Dole once
of about $90 bilbon in revePresumed Repubbcan presidential summed up his thinking this way: "I'm Treasury year, by Bartlett's estimates.
nue each
nommee Robert J. Dole has spent a traditional Repubbcan wno bebeves
Advisers say Dole also has exthree decades m Congress battling you ought to restrain spending if pressed interest in a proposal champifederal deficits. Senate colleagues you're going to cut taxes. I don't oned by Sen. John D. Ashcroft (Rdescribe his deterrnination to shrink think you can just cut taxes alone and Mo.) that would allow workers to dethe deficit as the most enduring get gain without pain."
duct their share of. the payroll tax
characteristic of his legislative reDole already has moved in the di- from gross incomes whenfilingtheir
cord.
rection of lower taxes. Aides were en- returns. Ashcroft bills the plan, which
Now, struggling to catch Presi- couraged by his success in capturing he says would mean an annual tax cut
dent Clinton in the polls. Dole ap- media attention earlier this month by of $1,770 for the avtogetwoincorae
pears ready to embrace a series of leading the fight in Congress to roll . family, as an answer to the concerns
proposals that would make reaching back a 4.3-cents-a-gallon increase in of middle-income workers concerned
that goal much harder. Advisers say the gasoline tax that was pan of Clin- about stagnating take-home pay.
he is reviewing a list of sweeping tax ton's 1993 budget.
But the payroll tax-break also
cut proposals that have been urged
Last week. Dole endorsed a more would be costly,.reducing revenue by
oo him by adherents of supply-side costly tax reduction plan that would an estimated'$50 bilbon each year.
fconomic theories he once dispar- create a $500-per-person tax credit
Meanwhile. Forbes, whokmet with
aged.
for contributions to nonpront groups . Dole»last Wednesday, has.urged the
Dole's political strategists are that devote more than 75 percent of candidate to roll back all tax increases
approved by Congress during the
touting deep tax cuts as a bold eco- their budget to fighting poverty.
Dole aides said the charity credit Clinton and Bush administrations.
nomic remedy needed to jump^tart
Tax analysts at the Treasury Departthe economy—and the Kansas sena- would reduce revenue collected by ment estimate those measures would
the Treasury by about $15 billion to
tor's campaign.
lower revenue by an average of about
This is a new Bob Dole," said $20 bilbon a year. Private tax ana- $90 billion each year. .
lysts estimated the proposal could
Dole confidant Sen. Robert F. Ben- cost as much as twice that amount
Forbes, whoridkuledDole for his
nett (R-Utah) who, along with Sen. Dole did not say how he planned to lack of ideas in the pnmanes, said he
Connie Mack (R-Fla.), met with the
got a sympathetic bearing and is
candidate Friday to consider an eco- pay for the proposal
Dole advisers say he is seriously .. praising Dole's new vision.- ^
nomic stntegy memo that weighs
"I think (Dole-.isj now convinced
the costs and benefits of several tax- considering the proposal for cutting ' that the only way to gef this country
income taxes.by 15 percent an idea moving is with dramaoe.tax .change
cutting proposals. "He's willing to
open himself up to new ideas; he's first floated by Bruce Bartlett. a and tax cuts." Forbes said Sunday on
Treasury official during- the Reagan NBC-TV's "Meet the Press." •
willing to break with his past."
administration and now a fellow at the
Many fiscal experts, however, conservative National Center for Poli- Republicans seem to suffer from a
warn that the measures Dole is said cy Analysis. The idea was a focal kind of pobtical "attention deficit disto be considering—including an point ofriisniswonat a May 8 brainaaoss-the-board income tax cut of storming sessno on ecooonuc issues order." said former Congressional
15 percent—are potential budget attended by Dole, his key campaign Budget Office director Robert D.
busters and could add hundreds of aides and congressional allies »nrf a Reiscfaauer.
They can't keep their minds on
bflbons of dollars to the deficit
half-dozen leading economists from - one topic very long. Last yean it was
SMI>0LE,A8.COU
how do we make the deficit smaller..
Wall Street and academia.
Several of Dole's Senate colleagues This year, all of a sudden, everybody
DOLE. From Al
are urging him to defend the tax cuts seems determined to make it bigger."
offset by far-reaching and politicajjy by saying they would, pay for them- Economists who attended the May
painful spending cuts.
selves by spariung stronger economic 8 meeting said there was an acknowlSlashing taxes now, when the econ- growth.
edgment that although the economy
omy is operating near what most
"It wib be necessary for Dole to re- is not growing as fast as it has in past
economists believe to be full employ- fute the Pavlovian criticism that the
ment, would do little to increase the only reason we have had deficits is be- years, with unemployment low and
growth rate, argues Republican econ- cause we have had big tax cuts." said markets steady, it might be difficult
omist Rudolph Penner, who served as Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.). a for Dole to turn economic issues to
director of the Congressional Budget close Dole aby who is a vigorous prohis advantage.
Office during the Reagan administra- ponent of the 15 percent cut
There was a sense that "the worid,
tion. "It's not good ecanomic policy
Dole campaign officials stress the
and i hope (Dole) doesn't do it"
Kansan has made no decisions about though good, is not perfect." said HarSome Dole backers fret that push- whether to endorse the plan, but the vard University economist Martin
ing tax cms might not be good politi- idea tops the list of pobcy options out-Feldstein. accompanied by a feeling
cal stntegy, either. While there is lined in a lengthy memo prepared for that "it is hard to imagine running for
general consensus among Dole's ad- Dole by Stanford. University's John president without making a speech
visers that he cannot hope to defeat Taylor, one of the economists at the. about the economy."
Clinton without a dearly defined eco- May 8 meeting. The proposal "is in
nomic policy agenda, some worry that the pole posmon," said a Senate staff Staff writer John M. Berry
the tax gambit could easily backfire. member close to Dole.
contributed to this report
Dole throughout his long career
Indeed, several Dole colleagues say
has rejected the supply-side notion Dole's primary concern with the planthat tax cuts would eventually pay for appears to be that it isn't bold
themselves.
enough.
THE HA m cm P<*T
- s n- v
Dole is famous for telling and re- "Dole is clearly committed to doing
TUESDAY. MAV 28,1996
telling a favorite joke about supplysomething other than just tinkering
siders on a bus (The good news: the the tax code." Bennett said. The
with
bus plunged off a cliff. The bad news: percent solution "could be con15 .
three seats were empty). He has prostrued as tinkering, and J would be
fessed repeatedly that he "never real- surprised if he was satisfied with
very
ly understood all that supply-side justdoing that"
business."
Dole allies contacted last week said
Often, his condemnation of supply- they expect the candidate to propose
side tax cuts has reflected the austeri- the 15 percentTeduction as a shortty of his Dust Bowl origins. Dole duti- term measure! and cab for broad funiully helped steer President Reagan's damental tax reform—possibly along
tax cuts through Congress in 1981. the lines oi the flat tax advocated rebut be spent the next several years cently by a panel of GOP experts
trying to dam up the river of federal headed by suppiy-sider jack Kemp—
red mltthat was largely created by m the latter hab of his first term.
L-at deal.
According to calculations by ReIn the Republican primaries, he attacked millionaire publisher Malcolm
Dole Considers Tax Cuts
Support Would Reverse His Focus on Deficit
!
�GOP TAX CONSEQUENCES
Some of the leading Republican tax proposals and their estimated
cost in lost revenue—in the absence of offsetting spending cuts—to
the Treasury over seven years. Proponents of such tax cuts argue they
would pay for themselves by increasing economic activity.
• Reduce federal income taxes "across the board" by 15 percent
Cost: $630 billion.
SOURCE: Bruce Bartlett. National Center for Policy Analysis
• Establish $500 per-person tax credit for contributions to antipoverty organizations. Cost: $105 billion to $300 billion.
SOURCES: Joint Committee on Taxation, private tax analysts
• Allow individuals to deduct all payroll taxes withheld for Social
Security. Cost: $350 billion.
SOURCE: GOP economist Gary Robbins
• Repeal tax increases in the 1993 budget agreement, including
4.3 cents-per-gallon gasoline tax increase and rise in taxes on Social Security benefits for upper-income households. Cost: $410 billion.
SOURCE: Treasury Department
• Repeal increases in taxes adopted as part of the 1990 budget
agreement. Cost: $230 billion.
SOURCE: Treasury Department
• Forbes flat tax proposal. Cost: $1.3 trillion.
SOURCES: Treasury Department, Dole campaign
�MfiY-16 96 14:57 FROM:COMMUNICATIONS
05/14/96
£024561213
17:25
TO:65709
PAGE:01
^,047
Dole Remarks ~ Excerpts
Dewey Beach, DE
May 10,1996
(From Read to WkUc House, S/2206)
TRANSCRIBED FROM VIDEO
Thank you... Thank you very much. Thank you... Thank you... Thank you very much, I
appreciate it.. Thank you. Well, I'm very honored to be here and Tm very pleased that you're
here. I know they canceled dinner but we make more money thai way, so., (laughter). Good
work (laughter), it's good to be here with Mike, Hazel, and my goodfiiendBill Roth - and BUI
and I have worked together for a long time. He Is the chairman of the most powerful comminee
in the United State* Senate, the Finance Committee and don an outstanding job as you know.
Deals with everything that you could dank o(, *>.. (applause). And Mike had just picked offpicked up where he left off, he's a great Governor of Delaware, gone to Washington, worked in
the House. He's one of the stalwarts in the Hmine of Representatives. For thefirsttime in 40
years we have a majority and I know you're proud of the work he doea, too. so it's good to be
here. ... I warn you to stand up our next governorfromDelaware. I understand some of the
other races are contested so I better hadn't get involved in that.
I want to talk to you tonight justfora few moments about America's future. That's why you're
all here, why you became a Republican — and I met a young lady, and I don't see herrightnow,
she's brand new, 'I'm brand new in the Republican party.' Probably herfirstmeeting and I think
tliat's great because if we keep getting more and more brand new Republicans, there's no doubt
about what would happen on November S, 1996. It means we're going to win big time.
I want to talk about the direction I believe America should take and about the dangerous road of
weakness and stagnation Bill Clinton is taking us downrightnow. Let me just give you the facts,
over the last three and a half years, we have had a glimpse of the diflSaroiees between Bill Clinton,
and what Bill Clinton believes and what the Republican party believes - the difference it means to
our nation. And in 1992, they took control of the entire government — they had h all. They had
more governors, more state legislatures, they had the House and they had the Senate, they bad all
the Congress and they had the White House. And what did they do in just 24 months? They gave
us the biggest tax incrBase in the history of America, not a single Republican voted for it, it was
$268 billion increase in taxes and everybody got to pay it Not a single Republican - as I said I'm
proud to say - voted for it He also gave us a defiinded and demoralized military, a foreign
policy that could beforcedto reverse course even by a mob on a dock in a tiny country like Haiti.
He gave us judges that put therightsof criminals above those of victims, and an attempt to
remake the greatest health care system in the world in the image of the post office. And he gave
us all of that in just 2 years, in just two years. And die American people didn't like it.
And after 40 yean, as I said, they gave us the Republican Congress. I didn't know if I'd ever live
long enough to see a Republican Congress, bui we did. Even Senator Thurmond was begiiinmg
�HAY-16 96 14:57 FROM:COMMUNICATIONS
05/14/96
17:25
2024561213
TO:65709
PAGE:02
NO.047 P083
to wonder if he would live long enough to see a Republican Congress, and of course he was there
when we had the other one. And what happened when we got a Repubfican Congress? Well, we
passed a balanced budget for thefirsttime in a generation, we passed welfare reform, we passed
tax cutsforAmericanftmilieswith children. Yes, and then what happened? Welfare reform
vetoed not once, but twice. The balanced budget - vetoed. Tax cuts for Americanftmilieswith
children — vetoed.
Now just stop and think where President Clinton would hove taken us had we not elected a
Republican Congress in 1994. Now just imagine if you will, given just that little sample of what
he came to town with and what he gave America. Keep in mind this election, yes it's about the
future, but stop and think what would happen if somehow he wen elected to a second term and
his unrestrained liberalism was turned loose on America. I can tell you he's had ideaa that not
many Americans support. And with no need for yet another election year conversion, what new
taxes would Bill Clinton suddenlyfindunfavorable? What liberal judges would he appoint for
life? What new government spending programs would heforceon taxpayers? What new
government run health care plan would he mast American people accept?
Now some say, and they always say, 'Oh, there's no difference between the parries this year.*
Well, I say the differences are profound and the differences are fundamental And I think it's time
to spell out the differences. The differences in outlook on the economy and on the role of
government and on America's role in the worid. Because when you add it all up, Americana will
have a clear choice this year. And the choice is just this simple: BID Clinton is the rear-guard of
big government, make no mistake about it. He's also the rear-guard of the welftre state. He's a
champion of the Great Society status quo. while we stand for less government, lower taxes, flatter
taxes, fairer taxes, morefreedom,and a strong, proud America at home and abroad - that's the
difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
And we don't have to look very ftr. (applause)., thank you. We don't have to look far to see the
differences between us and the President at work. They've been all over the news the past few
weeks. Bill Clinton says the way to lower gas prices is a one-time-only shell game that sold off
our strategic petroleum reserve. And let me say that, you know, 4.3 cent* maybe to some doesn't
seem like a lot, but it's SS billion a year that consumers payings* taxes and H doesn't go for
roads and highways. If h did, we wouldn't be fussing about it. It goes to Bill Clinton so he ean
spend more money on more programs we don't need. That's why we want to repeal the gas tax
That's why we ought to repeal the gas tax: And Bill Roth already prepared legislation to do that
and I'm pleased to he a eosponsor and we're going to repeal the gas tax and we're going to save
you that money. And then in November, let's repeal the administration that gave us the gas tax.
(Applause) We might as well repeal the administration. (Applause). We mfeht as wellrepealthe
administration, it's running on empty anyway. (Laughter)
But I think American people are looking for leadership, and leadership in therightdirection. Let
me talk about the economy for a moment, because it affects everybody in this room. It affects the
young people who are up here gMng us the graat entenainmem, the great musk. The
administration — every time your president talks about the economy and how this big tax increase
realty settled everything. When Bill Clinton came into office, the economy was growing at 4.3%
�•MAY-16'96 14:57 FROMrCOMMUNICfiTIONS
05/14/96
17:25
£024561213
10:65709
PPieE:03
NO.047 P084
and now we're tudcy if it hits a crawl and I think America can do better. Today the American
people are caught in the Clinton Crunch between higher taxes and stagnant wages. According to
one study the Clinton tax increase has cost America more than one million new jobs and cost
every household $2,600 in disposable income.
And that'a not all. As I said, the Presidm vetoed thefirstreal shot we had at a balanced budget
in 20 years. But then he offered his own fantasy budget where the real cuts don't take place until
the next century So even if he were elected, he'd be bade in Little Bock before anything
happened. So my view is, send him back in '96 and let him be there when h happens.
And after the veto of the balanced budget - thefirstbalanced budget placed on any president's
desk in a generation - after he vetoed it mortgage rates began to dimb. They've gone up one
full percentage point since January. That means the average mortgage payment on an average
home is going to go up about $800. Now, we warn a balanced budget, I said, with lower and
flatter taxes - and you know who the champion of lower andflattertaxes is? He's sitting right
here Bin Roth. He's been there all the time I've known Bill Roth. Because Bill knows and
Mike knows and I know the engines of economic growth are new businesses and new
technologies and they'll run If we give them opportunities in the tax code and take off the ?har.klrs
and lessen the regulation and do all these things we should have done and would have done had
President Clinton not vetoed and vetoed and vetoed.
We want people who work hard to take more home — take more pay home whh them at the end
of the week or the end of a month We want them to build a better and a brighter future for their
children and their grandchildren. We want to end the IRS as we know it because our tax code has
grown too complex. The IRS has grown too powerful and too aggressive and if you fill out the
so-called EZ Form - I know you aU have paid your taxes, hut if you did get an extension, don't
use the so-called EZ Form, the one pager that comes with 36 pages of instructions. So that is not
tax simplification. That is not a simple form.
So I think it's time we put the government on the ade of the American people, the side of hardworking Americanftmilies.And thefirststep is to cut wastefid government spending, cut taxes
and cut interest rates and balance the budget with less spending and more growth. Tliat's the
RepubDoan ticket for the economy and for prosperity and to get readyforthe next century. And
while Bill Clinton may s y Bill Clinton says the em of big government is over. Not yet. But
a—
come November, with your help, it will be. And that's what it's all about.
Thank you... Thank you... And also will come to an end the short, fat interlude of American
waffling and weakness in worid aAirs. The last 50 yean have taught us that a securer peace
depends on a strong America and that legacy is being sacrificed by the CUmon administration.
The Clinton White House has accepted a sham agreement with North Korea that they well allow
them to keep and develop more midear weapons. They have been indecisive about defending a
democratic ally like Taiwan against Chinese aggression. They have allow Iran, of all nationa, to
conduct American fbrdgn policy In Bosnia. Andfromthe halls of Port Au Prince to the shores of
Somalia, Mr. Clinton's conduct of foreign policy has telegraphed indedaion and weakneas around
the worid. Mr. Clinton wouldn't even stand up to washed-out, isolated, eommunist dictator in
�•PHY-16 96 14:58 FROMrCDMIIUNICATIONS
05/14/96
£024561213
17:25
TO:65709
PAGE:04
NO.047 P005
Cuba Fidel Castro, who had murdered American citizens in cold blood, until his hand was forced
by Congress.
He has slashed our defense budget. He has slashed our defense budget and sent our men and
women into combat units thai do the bidding of Boutros Bouoros Ghall and serve under U.N.
command ~ afirstin American history. And I'D tdl you one thing, when Tm the Prandent of the
United States, that will not happen. I will make the dedsions and not the United Nations. And
sometimes., (applause).- Thank you... thank you., thank you.
Sometimes, you've got to wonder - and I know we wonder a lot — you've got to wonder what
goes on in the heads of those deep thinkers in the Clinton White House. They've ofBered a missile
defense system In Israel - which is a good idea, like President Bush and President Reagan were
there with it - but they fought giving the American people a defense against missile attacks. If a
missile defense is necessaryforTel Aviv - and I bdieve his-it's equally necessary for America.
And let me tell you something, I guess in all the surveys, they've asked a question in some of
these surveys, if a missile was- had an incoming missile headedforlet's say, well,righthere,
what should the president of the United States do? Wdl, shoot it down. We can't. We don't
have the capability. And I've supported missile defense but the President's against it In my
administraiion we will have it. And anyone who says we don't need a miaaile defense because
there's no immediate nuclear threat is like someone saying he doesn't need an umbrella because
it's notrainingoutrightnow. We've got to be prepared to protect the people in America and we
will be prepared.
And I've seen enough of war to know you don't take chances with America's security. I
remember in Worid War II - and there may be a few here-we had to train with broomsticks
because we weren't prepared. We weren't preparedforanything We will never let that happen
again. And I think our highest obligation, or the president's highest obligation is to protect the
citizens of the United States. And I understand the price offreedom.And in my administration,
America will once again follow Ronald Reagan's policy of peace through strength. Thai will be
understood by ourfriendsand enemies around the worid. Our allies, our allies then would no
longer doubt our commitment and our adversaries would no longer doubt our resolve and
America will lead again.
Now I've spoken about the di&reneea, the clear difference between CGntoa-nomics and the kind
of economic policy you can expectfromm administration And T'va talked about m views on
y
y
security and his no-views on security. But let m talk for a minute about something as important
e
as either the economy or foreign policy. Let m talk about the difference in our sense of values,
e
the difference between common sense conservatism and out-daled liberalism, the difference
between talk and action. We don't need a President who prefers to spend his spare time raising
moneyfromthe Hollywood elite. We need a president who honors the common sense Americans
who won't be afraid to speak out on values. We need a Presidem who puts his trust in people,
not in big government, a president who honors his commitment and means what he says. We all
know that too often, this admbiistratlon has talked conservatively while walking knee deep in the
swamps of liberalism. And they do it every day.
�.MflY-16.96 14:58 FROM:COMMUNICATIONS
85/14/96
17:25
2024561213
TO:65709
PAGE:05
NO.047 P006
The president's rhetoric is tough on crime. After 3 years being AWOL on the war on drugs, he
went to Miami this week and talked about how he'd done all these things as president. Beats me.
He talks about all these tough judges. One of them had to resign this, or take his name out of
consideration. His only qualification was he's raised about S10 million for the Democratic party.
And he couldn't answer even the basic questions. Sofinallythey got M to withdrew to save
m
Presidem CUmon more embarrassment. Well, I would say in a Dole adrninistratkm, liberals
judges need not apply because they're not going to get any work in my admnustration.
His actions are to appoint liberal judges who've made careers of getting tough on cops. I want to
get tough on the criminals for a change. I- want to worry about the vicrims. I want to worry
about the policemen. You've heard about this judge in New York. It's kind of hard to bdieve
but it's true. That's Judge Baer. He's a New York judge who said, before reversing hunsctf after
a lot of pressure, the police couldn't use 75 pounds of Heroin as evidence because there's nothing
suspicious - no reason to investigate - when drug dealers runfrompolice That would make me
a little suspicious if anybody runsfrompolice. I get a little suspidous. Now, Judge Baer was
appointed by Bill Clinton. As I said, in my administration, only conservative judges - 1 want
people who can read the Constitution. First I want people who can read, then I warn people who
can read the Constitution. And I want a strict interpretaaon of the Constitution. So if all these
people who want to be judges warn to be legislators, let them runforCongress or the state
legislatures. We don't need them on the federal bench. And they'll not be on the federal bench.
Then he appoints officials like HUD's Roberta Achtenberg who- later who left and ranforoffice
— who ordered an investigation of men and women who petitioned and spoke out andfiledsuits
against putting a house for [recurring] drug addicts in their neighborhood - isn't that terrible, if
somebody would speak on that - and threatened them each with heavyfines.So while the
Clinton administration invents ever new and expansiverightsforcriminals, they are apparently
willing to trample on the basicrights,First Amendment rights of law abiding citizens standing up
for their own communities. In my administration, neighborhoods andftmilieswiD have rigbta,
too.
He said he wants to make abortion rare, but his polides are confined to taking the ertreme
position. I point this out because this matter happened to be supported by pro-choice and pro-life
- the extreme position of vetoed Congress' ban on partial birth abortion. As president I will sip
a biD outlawing partial birth abortions and I believe I will have the great support of die American
people
So he talks the talk. Talkright,govern left - that's Bill Clinton. And he's good at it. He's good
at it We'll not just talk the talk in my administration, we'll walk the walk and that's the
difference. He can talk the talk and we'll walk the walk.
Andfinallylet me say this, I want to be president so I can return integrity to our government I
think that's sort of a visionary thing to happen. I want to be president so I can restore the vigor
of the American economy, to restore the growth and opportunity that open up bettor Uvea for
American families and their children. I warn to be president of the United States because I want
to restore and instinct for decency to our national life and our national culture. And that's very
�-HPlY-iS 96 14:59 F O : O M N C T O S
RMCMUIAIN
05/14/96 17:25
2024561213
TO:65709
PAGE:06
NO.047 P0e7
important. And I want to be president because I want to restore America's strength and
America's purpose in the worid, and restore the strong defense that is needed to support it And I
want to be president because I befieve as great as America's been, America has even greater and
better days ahead. WeD, we're seeing the Olympic Torch being carried across America this year
in relays. That's son of what the presidency is - a relay Into the future, with the torch ofofflce
passedfromone Commander in Chief to another. And the question the American people must
answer between now and November is this: they must decide how has theflamebeen kept these
last four yean? Has it burned as brightly as it should? Has the torch carrier taken along the right
path? Does theflamelight the way to a better life for ouraelvea and our children and our
grandchildren? Or should the torch be passed to a new president who knows a better way and a
president who will hold it higher and a president who will cany it on a steady course? (Applause)
Thank you. So pass it on to somebody who will hold it high, someone who wiD hold h cany it
—
on a steady course and leave burning even brighter when it's passed to other hands in die yean
ahead.
And I believe the torch should be passed in 1996 and I am prepared to receive it. I want you to
join me in running the race together. Together we can make a brighter, better, more bopeflil
America. And that's what this election is all about. Let me just conclude on a personal note. It's
really not about a Bob Dole. It's not about me. It's about you and it's about your family. It's
about your job. It's about your business or your farm, and maybe your retircnient. It's about all
these things in America. It's about how do we come together sad how do we make America a
better place, as I've suggested. How do we regain ourright&lplace in the worid because, let's
face h, we've lost a lot of prestige around the world bt the last 3 yean and 4 months? And how
do we hold our hand up and how do we have people look up to the President of the United States
and say 'I understand what he says and I know he means what he says.' Because I've found the
president,fromtime to time, to be a little confiising on precisely what he means. And I never
cease to be amazed about how you can shift positions so quickly. And I don't dislike the
president personally, don't misunderstand me. This is not about Bill Clinton either. This is about
America.
This is about our country. It's about your counory. And you've got to decide in the state of
Delaware, and in Maryland, and in Virginia, up and down the coast and aU across Americawho do you want making decisionsforyou and yourfemilyand your children? Who do you wont
standing up for America when you're dealing with foreign leaden? Who do you want making the
tough decisions that may affect your children or grandchildren if some conflict arises somewhere?
That's the decision we make between now and November 5. And I can tell ynu, the dtfihrencea
are very dear. The differences are very dear. And I'm not perfect but Fm wilHng to make the
tough dedsions because I love America as you love America. I want to take us on therighttrack,
therightcourse, therightdirection. 63% of people now say we're going in the wrong direction in
America and we want to correct that We want to prepare oundvesforthe neat American
century which is going to start in four short years. And so again I say thank you for coming,
thanks for letting me appear. I appredaie it very much. Let's work togetherforvicury for
America on November 3, 1996. God Bless America.
�
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
Michael Waldman
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Waldman was Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting from 1995-1999. His responsibilities were writing and editing nearly 2,000 speeches, which included four State of the Union speeches and two Inaugural Addresses. From 1993 -1995 he served as Special Assistant to the President for Policy Coordination.</p>
<p>The collection generally consists of copies of speeches and speech drafts, talking points, memoranda, background material, correspondence, reports, handwritten notes, articles, clippings, and presidential schedules. A large volume of this collection was for the State of the Union speeches. Many of the speech drafts are heavily annotated with additions or deletions. There are a lot of articles and clippings in this collection.</p>
<p>Due to the size of this collection it has been divided into two segments. Use links below for access to the individual segments:<br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+1">Segment One</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+2">Segment Two</a></p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Michael Waldman
Office of Speechwriting
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1999
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
Segment One contains 1071 folders in 72 boxes.
Segment Two contains 868 folders in 66 boxes.
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
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
1996 Campaign: Dole - Speeches
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Michael Waldman
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 48
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36404"> Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763296">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F Segment 2
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.
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.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
6/3/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
7763296
42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg2-048-002-2015