-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/7880f7c8d5e580c6fb372cec3aec54d7.pdf
92abfe678f75bc35b178fe0628d52da3
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:
14462
OA/ID Number:
FoIderlD:
Folder Title:
Setting the Record Straight on the Economy , February 29, 1996 [Binder][2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
s
92
4
6
2
�Wages 6
�3/1/96 - WAGES 6
CLAIM:
From 1979 to 1994, the inflation-adjusted hourly wage of men with a high
school education fell from $13.84 to $11.57, a 16.4 percent drop... Any
American whose income has fallen 16 percent has good reason to be angry.
THE FACTS:
THE ENTIRE DECLINE HAPPENED BEFORE PRESIDENT
CLINTON TOOK OFFICE.
SINCE THE PRESIDENT TOOK OFFICE, THE DOWNWARD
SLIDE IN HOURLY WAGES FOR MEN WITH A HIGH SCHOOL
DEGREE HAS STOPPED:
While hourly wages of men with a high school education fell 16.4
percent between 1979 and 1994, 100 percent of the decline occurred
between 1979 and 1992 -- before President Clinton took office.
[Source: Economic Policy Institute.]
•
In other words, while real average hourly earnings of men with a
high school education fell from $13.84 in 1979 to $11.57 in 1992 -a 16.4 percent drop. Since President Clinton took office, the decline
has Stopped, r e m a i n i n g Steady at $11.57 i n 1994. [Source: Economic Policy
Institute.]
AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF MEN WITH ONLY A HIGH
SCHOOL DEGREE WENT DOWN UNDER REAGAN, DOWN
UNDER BUSH, AND REMAINED STEADY UNDER CLINTON.
Average Hourly Earnings Of
Men With Hieh School Education
Reagan
1980
1988
$13.38
$12.41
Down $0.97
1988
1992
$12.41
$11.57
Down $0.84
Clinton
1992
1994
$11.57
$11.57
Holding Steady
Bush
[SOURCE: Economic Policy Institute. Adjusted to 1994 dollars.]
�Wages 7
�3/1/96 - WAGES 7
CLAIM:
In 1995, wages and benefits advanced 2.9 percent — their smallest increase
in 14 years.
THE FACTS:
THIS IS JUST NOT TRUE.
1.
In real dollars, wages and benefits have grown twice as fast
under President Clinton than they did during the previous
Administration. (Source: Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment
Cost Index, adjusted to December 1995 dollars using the
CPI-U.)
2.
In 1995 alone, the inflation-adjusted increase in wages and
benefit -- while not as strong as the Administration would have
liked ~ was faster than the average growth during the previous
Administration and better than a couple of years during the
R e a g a n e x p a n s i o n p e r i o d . (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost
Index, adjusted to December 1995 dollars using the CPI-U.)
�1993 Plan 1
�3/1/96 - 93 PLAN 1
CLAIM:
The President's 1993 Economic Plan did not bring interest rates down; they were
already coming down.
THE FACTS:
TOP FINANCIAL E X P E R T S A L L A G R E E T H A T T H E E L E C T I O N O F
PRESIDENT CLINTON AND THE PRESENTATION
OF HIS ECONOMIC
PLAN IN MID-FEBRUARY
1993 WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING
DOWN INTEREST RATES. INDEED, MORTGAGE RATES HAVE BEEN
LOWER UNDER PRESIDENT CLINTON THAN UNDER ANY
ADMINISTRATION SINCE THE 1960s.
1.
Interest rates fell from 7.76% at the beginning of November 1992 to 7.26% by inauguration
because of confidence in the incoming Clinton Administration:
New York Times, 12/7/92: "The sharp rally in the bond market....seems to show a surprising comfort
among market players with President-elect Bill Clinton, a Democrat who will govern with a Democraticcontrolled Congress."
30 YR. BOND
2.
11/6/92
7.76%
1/26/93
7.26%
2/19/93
7.13%
4/23/93
6.79%
Experts recognize interest rates fell further after the presentation of the President's deficit
reduction plan by Secretary Bentsen:
Wall Street Journal, 2/24/93: "The spectacular bond market rally accelerated yesterday, with long-term
Treasury bond yields plunging to another record low as investors rushed to embrace President Clinton's
economic package."
Financial Times (London), 1/26/93: "The market opened markedly higher as investors and dealers got
their first chance to react to Sunday's comments by Mr. Lloyd Bentsen, the new Treasury Secretary,
which suggested the White House views cutting the deficit as a top priority."
3.
After passage of the President's 1993 Economic Plan, experts recognized its further positive impact
on interest rates:
Fortune, 10/3/94: "[President Clinton's] economic plan helped bring interest rates down, spurring the
recovery."
Lehman Brothers, 1/10/94: "Lower deficits, lower long-term rates and higher real growth was the
overall promise. With the data now rolling in for December 1993, it seems clear that President Clinton
delivered on all three counts over the second half of the year."
Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, in 1994 and 1996: "The actions taken last year to
reduce the federal budget deficit have been instrumental in creating the basis for declining inflation
expectations and easing pressures on long-term interest rates." 1/31/94
"The deficit reduction [from 1993]...was an unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in
economic activity that occurred thereafter." 2/20/96
�1993 Plan 2
�3/1/96 - 93 PLAN 2
The Clinton deficit reduction plan does not deserve credit for bringing down
the deficit: it was the result of technical or unrelated economic factors.
CLAIM:
1. Deficits were rising when President Clinton took office. As President
Clinton took office in January 1993, CBO reported that "the federal budget
deficit is stuck near $300 billion for the next few years and will move even
higher in the second half of the 1990s." CBO projected the deficit would soar
to $455 billion in FY2000 and to $589 billion in FY2002.
THE FACTS:
2. The deficit is lower with President Clinton's Economic Plan:
•
•
3.
The actual FY1995 deficit was $164 billion - $120 billion lower than
CBO projected at the start of the Administration ~ and nearly half the size
it was when President Clinton took office ($290 billion).
Deficits are $1.5 trillion lower than projected over the next 7 years:
Even without the much-needed passage of the President's balanced budget
plan, CBO projects the deficit will be $1.5 trillion lower over the next
seven years than projected when President Clinton took office.
Ask the experts: they acknowledge that the President's Economic Plan
reduced the deficit, lowered interest rates, and spurred economic growth.
•
Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), quoted in
Audacity, Fall 1994: "The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton
Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that....and I
think we're seeing some benefits."
•
Congressional Budget Office, Economic and Budget Outlook, January
1994, p. xiii: "The dramatic improvement [in the deficit] since last January
is largely the result of the enactment in August of...the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993."
�President Clinton Has Already
Cut The Deficit Nearly In Half
Dollars in Billions
$300
$250
$290
$269
$255
$200
$203
$150
Pre-Clinton
$100
1991
1992
Clinton Administration
1993
1994
$164
1995
�President Clinton E*minates The Deficit
Deficit Cut Nearly In Half After Three Years FY97 Balanced Budget Finishes the Job
Deficit in Billions of Dollars
$300 -
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
�1993 Plan3
�3/1/96 - 93 PLAN 3
CLAIM:
The deficit would be lower without the tax increases contained in the 1993
Economic Plan.
THE FACTS:
1.
The Clinton Economic Plan has reduced the deficit more than the
Administration projected. Actual deficits in fiscal years 1993 to 1995 were
$123 billion lower than the Administration projected right after enactment of
the 1993 Economic Plan. [Source: Based on OMB Midsession Review of the 1994
Budget; and actual budget deficits FY93-95, as reported by the Department of Treasury]
2.
According to their logic, the top 1.2% of American taxpayers — the only
taxpayers who saw their taxes go up -- would work dramatically less
because of the tax increase, driving revenues down.
•
The Clinton plan only raised income tax rates on the top 1.2% of all
taxpayers ~ but, the top U.S. income tax rate is *//// lower than any of
the major economies in the world. According to Ernst & Young, the
United States had a lower top federal income tax rate in 1994 than any
other major economy, including Japan, Germany, and Canada. [Source: Ernst
& Young, Worldwide Personal Tax Guide, based on 1994 tax rates.]
•
3.
Do they really want to claim that America's top earners wouldn't work
as hard as their foreign competitors, even when our top tax rate is
lower and capital gains taxes were left unchanged?
The Feldstein/Feenberg study that concluded that the tax increase on the
top 1.2 percent raised much less than predicted is seriously flawed. The
study's methodology ignores that taxpayers shifted at least $20 billion in
income from early 1993 to late 1992 in anticipation of higher rates in 1993.
Income shifting explains most of the study's findings. ISource: Eric Todtr. ix-puu
Assistant Secretary for Tax Analysis, written comments on "Tlie Effect of Increased la\ Kaks
on Taxable Income and Economic Efficiency: A Preliminary Analysis of the 1993 Tax Kate
Increase" by Martin Feldstein and Daniel Feenberg, National Bureau of Economic Research
conference, 11/7/95.]
�1993 Plan 4
�3/1/96 - 93 PLAN 4
CLAIM:
The 1993 Economic Plan contained the biggest tax increases in history.
THE FACTS:
1.
THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE.
•
Wall Street Journal, 10/26/94: "Contrary to Republican claims, the 1993
package ... is not 'the largest tax increase in history.' The 1982 deficit
reduction package of President Reagan and Sen. Robert Dole in a GOPcontrolled Senate was a bigger tax bill, both in 1993-adjusted dollars and as
a percentage of the overall economy."
Washington Post, 2/1/95: "The biggest tax increase in history did not
occur in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. The biggest tax
increase in post-World War I I history occurred in 1982 under President
Ronald Reagan."
2.
Tax increases targeted at the wealthiest Americans — and tax cuts for
many Americans.
•
H&R Block confirms that the 1993 Economic Plan only increased income
tax rates for the top 1.2 percent, while cutting taxes for "16.6% of all
taxpayers [who] benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit Expansion."
[Source: "H&R Block Analysis of the Income Tax Consequences of the Revenue
Reconciliation Bill of 1993," August 1993.]
•
CBO found that "only a sliver of tax filers ~ about 1.2 percent - will face
a higher income tax bill on April 15 because of the Clinton administration's
economic program." ["GOP Tax Issue May Fade Away: Only 1.2% of Filers Will
Face Increase, CBO Study Finds," Washington Post, 1/13/94.]
3.
The average federal tax rate for the typical four-person family is lower
today than when President Clinton took office, and is lower than a decade
ago under Ronald Reagan. The average federal tax rate for the typical fourperson family will be lower in 1995 than in 1992 or 1985 under Ronald
Reagan. [Source: Treasury Department Office of Tax Analysis, based on Census Bureau
data, 4/18/95.]
�1993 Plan5
�3/1/96 - 93 PLAN 5
CLAIM:
The typical family now devotes 24.5 percent of its income to federal taxes - a
greater share of income than at any time in America's peacetime history.
THE FACTS:
THIS IS SIMPLY WRONG.
1)
The typical family's tax rate is not the highest in peacetime history -indeed it is lower than when President Clinton took office in 1992. [Source.
Treasury Department Office of Tax Analysis, based on Census Bureau data, 4/18/95]
2)
In their claim, they are not just counting people's federal income taxes,
he's also thrown in employee and employer payroll taxes. Even using this
calculation, the effective tax rate in 1995 is still lower than it was in 1992,
the vear before President Clinton took office.
In 1995, the average combined federal income and employee plus employer
Social Security and Medicare tax rate for the typical four-person family will
be 24.46 percent. [Source: Treasury Department Office of Tax Analysis, based on
Census Bureau data, 4/18/95]
3)
When you do not count the employer's portion of payroll taxes, the typical
family's tax rate is 16.81 percent - lower than when President Clinton
took office, and the same or lower than 7 of the 8 years when Ronald
Reagan was President. [Source: Treasury Department Office of Tax Analysis, based on
Census Bureau data, 4/18/95]
�TlBIt 3
Average and Marginal Combined Federal Income and Employee Social Security and Medicare (PICA) Tax Rates
For Four-Person Families at the Same Relative Positions in the income OlsUibutton:
19S5-199S
—
*
rear
C n * * i a l f Median ineoma
Marginal
Avaraaa
Camomao
Combmao
Tai
Taa
Rata
inccma
Rata
*955
•:956
1957
1958
'959
2.460
2.660
2.744
2.843
3.C3S
200
2.00
2.25
2.25
2.50
:.oo
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
3.148
3.219
3.378
3.969
2744
3.15
348
432
5.58
569
•96S
'966
•967
1968
1969
3 900
4 1?'
1467
4 917
5.312
5.79
6.92
7 72
SO
938
r970
1971
1972
1973
1974
55*3
6.088
6.404
8 855
7.485
7 824
Ineoma
Madian incoma
Avaraga
Marginal
Combinad ' C o w o i n a o
Tai
Rata
Rata
e.o7o
735
796
8.37
8.62
9.47
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
9838
10.638
10.976
11.370
12.140
11 61
12.01
12.26
12.42
12.92
22.00
22.00
22.00
22.00
22.00
23.00
23.00
23.13
23.63
19.63
6,29S
6.437
6.756
7.138
7488
10.06
10.18
10.52
11.12
9.88
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
18.00
12.590
12.874
13.512
14,278
14 976
13.25
1334
13.55
14 07
12.82
22.00
22.00
26.00
25.00
23.50
•763
'8.20
'940
19.40
1980
7 800
8.341
3994
9.834
10.623
9.32
1080
'.1 23
•2.70
13.44
17.00
19.00
'9.00
20 42
20.90
15.600
'6.682
17.988
'9668
21.246
12.24
'3.16
•350
-in
•600
12.00
22.30
9.45
9.93
9.57
10.73
10.02 i/
19.80
20.20
20.20
21.85
21.85
11,163
12.176
12.806
13.710
14,989
12.70
12.60
12.74
14.06
14.15 u
19.44
19.00
19.00
19.00
22.00
22.330
24.352
25.616
27.420
29.938
15.15
1512
'3.35
16.35
16.93 w
25.62
28.00
28.00
28.00
33.00 <
32.85 n
22.85
22.85
25.03
22.13
15.848
17.315
18.723
20.428
22.512
14.82
15.06
15.58
16.31
1997
22.00
22.00
22.0O
25.00
30.13
31 896
34.630
37.4*6
40.856
45.024
1748
18.09
18 98
20.00
20.32
32.00
32.00
36.00
39.00
37.00
30.13
30.35
31 70
29.70
28.70
46 664
52.548
55.238
58 362
62.194
V. 51
22.87
21.94
23 93
20.69
ooo
29.05
29.15
22.15
22.51
22.51
35.534
69.432
74.172
78.102
81.526
::.04
21.37
20.02
19.54
19.70
33.00
38.00
35.00
28.00
28.00
22.65
22.65
22.65
Z2.6S
22 6 5
22.65
82.902
86.104
88.502
90.322
92.640 E
95.440 I . P
19.83
20.33
20.13
20 13
2018
:o.i4
28.00
29.45
29.45
29.43
29 45
29.45
2.00
2.25
2.25
2.50
4919
5.319
5.488
5.685
1973
1976
1977
1078
1979
9 362
10.214
11.256
9 97 v
10.53
946
10.78
11.24
1980
1981
'982
-983
'904
12.186
13.137
13810
1* 591
•5 549
12.15
'3.47
13.21
13.23
•3.20
24 13
24 43
22.70
2170
20.70
24.332
26.274
27.619
29.181
31 097
1985
1966
1987
1988
1989
16.369
17.358
18 543
19.526
20.382
13.61
13.79
12.31
12.68
12.80
21.05
21.15
22.15
22.51
22.51
32.777
34 718
37.086
39.0S1
40.763
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994 e
1993 C»
20.728
21.526
22.126
22.541
23.160 C
23 860 e -
12.77
12.69
12.20
12.00 a
10.56 1/
9 86 U
22.05
22.65
35.79
36 58 *
40.33 H
42 87 v
41.451
43 052
44.251
45.161
46.320 I
47.720 t »
a.sss
SeDattment of tha Treatunr
Office ol Tai Asuryva
Twice Maoian ineoma
Marginal
Average
Comoined : Comoined
Ta»
Tai
Ineoma
aaie
Rata
173a—
' 18.44
;
17 76
;
17 08
16 95
1
— 17 39
1 1763
16.05
16.81
16.87
.
1
16.96
Iff tf.
18^83
/i6ii>
L —
Source:
:26a
17.50
42 46
39.00
3500
38.00
Aenis. 1995
family
I
Mian
Inetuoea effects a( (he Earned income Tai CTMA (EITC). tucrrrmg two afcgiMe deoenaent*. Sea (ootnota on text aage lor eioianation
Eetunaud trom 1993 median ineoma aa adiuaea far enca wvei cnangca: 1993 CPI-U. 144 5: eanrrwed 1994 CPI-U. 148 2:
protected 1998 CPI-U. 132.7.
Taaas oreiecte* on tna eaue oi enauad taw aa of Aent. 1990.
Median •tcome ta lor a lour-Deraon lamify. A income m aaaumed to ee earned by one aoouae.
U
itemized ecduenona are aaaumed to cduai 23 percent of income tnrouQfl 1988 and 16 pereent tnereanef
ftafla i one y a r rebate under P L 94.12, ineuong ncame related ohaaaout for
Note:
:2.oo
Median meomea Irom U.S. Ccnaua Bureau. "Current Poouiauon Weoorta. Senee P W . ramus i»euce.
�Average ana Marginal Comoined Federal income and Employee Plus Emoioyer Social Security
and Medicare (FICA) Tax Rates for Four-Person Families
at the Sam* Relative Positions in the income Distribution: 1955-1995
v
»ar
O n e ^ u i f M e d i a n income
Marginal
Average
Comoined
Comoined i
Tai
Tea
ncome
Rate
Rate
income
Median i n c o m e
Marginal
Average
Combined . Combined
Tax
Tai
Rate
Rate
Twice Median income
Average
Marginal
Comoined
Combined
Tai
T»a
Income
Rata
Rata
'955
'956
•357
'358
959
2.460
2660
2.744
2.843
3.035
400
4 00
4.50
*50
3.00
400
400
450
450
5.00
4.919
5.319
5.488
5 685
8.070
9.06
954
10.09
10.28
11 44
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
9 838
10.638
10.976
11.370
12.140
12.47
12.80
13.12
13.25
13.91
22.00
22.00
22.00
22.00
22.00
'960
-361
•362
•963
•364
3.148
3.219
3.378
3.569
3.744
6.15
6 49
7.44
920
9.31
26.00
26.00
2625
27 25
23.25
6 295
6.437
6.756
7138
7.488
12.35
12.41
12.74
13.56
12.21
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
18.00
'2.390
12.874
13.512
14,276
14 976
14.40
1448
14.66
15.29
13.98
22.00
22.00
26.00
26.00
23.50
1965
•966
•967
368
'369
3.900
4 171
4 497
4917
S 312
3.41
11.12
12.12
12.83
14.18
21.25
22.40
2380
2380
24 60
7.800
8 341
S.994
3.834
0 823
11.35
1413
1446
18.19
16.97
1700
1900
19.00
20.42
20.90
15.600
16.682
'7.988
' 9 668
21.248
13.35
14 82
15.12
1688
17 76
22.00
22.00
22.00
2688
27.50
•370
•971
1972
•373
1974
5 583
6088
6.404
S.8S5
7 485
•4.25
•S 13
^4 77
•6.58
15 87 u
24.60
25.40
23.40
27.70
27 70
• i 165
•2.176
12.808
•3 710
i«969
1606
15.93
1840
1867
19.31 u
1948
19.00
19.00
19.00
22.00
22.330
24,332
25.616
27,420
29.938
•6 82
16.78
1717
18.66
19.31 "
23.62
28.00
28.00
28.00
33.00 "
•975
'976
•977
1978
1979
7924
8.658
9.362
10214
11.256
' 5 . 8 2 2/
16.38
15.31
16 8 3
1737
38.70 ' j
28.70
28.70
31 10
28.26
•5 848
17315
18.723
20428
22.312
20.03
20.23
20.73
21.55
23.10
22.00
22.00
22.00
25.00
36 26
31.696
34.630
37.446
40 856
45.024
20.06
20.68
21.56
22.62
2344
3200
32.00
38.00
39.00
37 00
1980
'981
1982
1983
1984
12.166
13.137
13810
14 5 9 1
15 5 4 9
18.28
20.12
19.91
19.93
•9 90
30 2 6
31.08
2940
28.40
27 40
24.332
26.274
27.619
29.181
31.097
23.68
23.08
24 4 8
23.78
23.65
38.26
37.00
38.40
38.40
35.40
48.684
52.548
55.238
58.362
62.194
24.78
26.63
25.87
23.03
24.76
43.00
42.46
39 00
35.00
38.00
1365
-386
•987
-388
1989
' 6 389
•7 358
•3 5 4 3
19.526
20.382
2066
20.S4
19 4 8
20.19
20.31
2810
28.30
29.30
30.02
30.02
32.777
34 716
37.086
39.051
40 763
24 44
24.78
23.20
2432
24.38
36.10
36 30
2930
30 02
3002
65 554
69 432
74 172
78.102
Si.526
25.30
23.69
24.24
23.86
24.12
38.00
38.00
35.00
2800
28.00
'990
"991
'992
1993
'994 i
199S e »
20.726
21.526
22.126
22.581
23.160 (
23.860 c.r
20.42
20.34
19.85
19.65 v
18.21 *
17 51 v
30.30
30 3 0
43.44
44 23 V
47.98 n
50.52 2/
41.451
43.052
44.251
45 161
48.320 C
47.720 e.»
2463
24.60
30.30
30.30
30.30
30.30
30.30
30 30
82.902
S6.104
88.502
90.322
92.640 C
95 4 4 0 e.*
2457
25.62
23.47
23.54
25.68
2558
28.00
30 90
30.90
30.90
30 90
30.90
-
2448
Aem ia. 1995
Cffice ol Tax Anaiyaia
Mote
Reflects one-year rebate under P L. 94.12. including income rotated onasedut for tne tv«ce>median income lamiiy
inekJdee etlecta at the Earned Income Tax Cseait (EITC), auummg two eegiow eepeneents. See footnote on text sage lor exttanaiion
Eatwnaied from 1993 median meame aa aeiuatee for ence tevet changes. 1993 CPMJ. 1 *4 5: eanmatad 1994 CPi-U 148 2
sroiected 1999 CPI-U. 152.7.
Taxee orofeeted on trte eaus el eoaeted taw aa e Aem 1995
<
Median income ts for a tour-oeraon lamiiy. AJI ineoma < aaaumed to be earned by one toousa.
«
itamaea daducnone are aaaumea la equal 23 percent of mewne ttrougn 1086 and 18 pereent thereafter
Median incomes Irom U S. Canaua Sureau. 'Cuirent Population Reotfta. Senee P-«cr vanous issues.
�1993 Plan6
�3/1/96 - 93 PLAN 6
CLAIM:
Clinton says he only raised taxes on the wealthy, but according to recently released
IRS data from 1993, nearly 87 percent of the returns showing $200,000 or more in
income were filed by small businesses and family businesses.
THE FACTS:
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ECONOMIC PLAN HELPED SMALL BUSINESS.
OVER 90% OF SMALL BUSINESSES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR TAX
REDUCTIONS THROUGH THE INCREASED SMALL BUSINESS
EXPENSING LIMIT AND THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX CUT TARGETED
TO SMALL BUSINESS.
1.
Only 4% of Small Businesses Affected by Individual Rate Increase.
Wall Street Journal: "Only 4% of those taxpayers who report some business income
on their tax returns ~ and that includes partners in law firms and investment bankers
as well as owners of small manufacturing companies — make sufficient money to be
hit the by the higher rates." ["Foes of Clinton's Tax Boost Proposals Mislead Public and Firms
on the Small Business Aspects," Wall Street Journal, July 20, 1993.]
2.
100% of Small Businesses That File Corporate Returns Not Affected Corporate Rate
Increase. The increased corporate rate for businesses that file as corporations does not apply
to small businesses — it only affects corporations with taxable income in excess of $10 million
a year!
3.
President Clinton's Economic Plan Helped Small Business. It contained targeted probusiness investment incentives to promote small businesses:
Small Business Expensing. Increased the small business expensing limit by 75% -- from
$10,000 to $17,500;
Capital Gains. Provided a targeted capital gains tax cut to promote the expansion and
creation of small businesses. Investors who invest for more than 5 years in small businesses
can get a 50% cut in their capital gains rate.
Empowerment Zones. Created empowerment zones that give businesses incentives to
invest and create jobs in distressed economic communities.
4.
President Clinton's Balanced Budget Would Provide Additional Assistance to Small
Business. The President's FY97 budget, which balances the budget in 7 years based on
CBO numbers, provides additional assistance to small businesses:
Small Business Expensing. Gradually further increases the small business expensing limit
to $25,000.
Estate Tax Relief. Provides estate tax relief by allowing more small businesses and farmers
to pay the estate tax in installments at favorable interest rates.
Self-Employed Health Tax Deduction. Gradually increases the self-employed tax deduction
from 30 percent to 50 percent.
Pension Simplification. Significantly simplifies tax rules for employer-provided pensions to
make it easier for businesses, especially small business, to provide pension coverage to their
workers.
�Budget 1
�3/1/96 - BUDGET 1
CLAIM:
President Clinton vetoed the first balanced budget to reach a President's
27 years.
desk in
THE FACTS:
1.
President Clinton did not veto the Republican Budget because it balanced the budget —
he strongly supports a balanced budget and has presented his own balanced budget plan
based on CBO numbers. The President's FY1997 budget is the first official budget
presented by a President that balances based on CBO numbers in 19 years.
2.
President Clinton vetoed the extreme Republican Budget because it included extreme
cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Education, the Environment as well as a large tax increase
on the hardest pressed working families. President Clinton vetoed their budget because
their policies would squeeze working families and deny them and their children needed
opportunities.
•
Higher Taxes For Working Families. Their budget would have raised taxes on some
7.7 million of our most hard-pressed families by an average of $318 in 1996 alone.
•
Medicare Premium Increase On 37 Million Beneficiaries. Their budget would have
raised premiums for an elderly couple by $264 in 1996 alone, and by hundreds more
over 7 years.
•
Corporate Raid On Workers' Pensions. Their budget would have allowed
corporations to raid pension funds, risking pensions for millions of workers.
Repeal Of The Medicaid Guarantee Of Nursing Home Coverage. Their budget
would have put more and more working families at financial risk.
2.5 Million Students Cut Off Direct Student Loans. Their budget would have cut
off Direct Student Loan opportunities for 2.5 million students in 1,350 colleges and
universities.
•
380,000 Students Denied Pell Grants. The Republican budget would make
devastating cuts to the Pell grant program, denying Pell grants to 380,000 deserving
students in 1996 alone.
•
180,000 Children Denied Head Start. Their budget would have denied 180,000
children comprehensive Head Start education, health, and social services by the year
2002.
1 Million Children Denied Basic And Advanced Skill Training. Their budget would
cut Title I by more than $1 billion -- denying assistance to 1 million students in 1996
alone.
3.
President Clinton has continually called for passing the common savings in both plans so
that we can have a balanced budget and modest tax cut without the harmful Medicare,
Medicaid, Education and Environmental cuts. After more than 50 hours of negotiations,
both sides now have some $700 billion of savings in common — more than enough to balance
the budget in 7 years while providing tax relief for middle-class families. President Clinton's
door remains open. He urges the Republicans to come back to the table and work with him
to get the job done.
�Budget 2
�3/1/96 - BUDGET 2
CLAIM:
The deficit has not been balanced in 26 years and Bill Clinton was content to
run deficits for another 26 years.
THE FACTS:
1.
THE RECORD SHOWS THAT BILL CLINTON IS THE
PRESIDENT WHO HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO LIVING
WITHIN OUR MEANS AND BALANCING THE BUDGET.
•
Because of President Clinton's 1993 Economic Plan, the
FY1995 budget would have had a $14 billion surplus but for
the interest on the debt accumulated during the Reagan and
Bush Administrations.
•
The deficit exploded between 1981 and 1986 under a
Republican-controlled White House and Senate. The main
dramatic increase in the deficit occurred under a Republicancontrolled White House and Senate ~ the deficit nearly tripled
in just three years, from $74 billion in FY1980 to $208 billion
in FY1983.
•
In just 3 years, President Clinton has cut the deficit nearly
in half. President Clinton's economic policies have cut the
deficit from $290 billion in FY 1992 to $164 billion in FYI995.
•
CBO today projects that deficits will be S/.5 trillion lower
over the next 7 years than CBO projected as President Clinton
took office in January 1993.
President Clinton asks the Republicans to come back to the
table and get the job done. President Clinton is the one who
is currently asking Congress to come back to work and pass the
common ground savings that would allow us to balance the
budget and provide a targeted tax cut.
�The Budget Would Be Balanced Today WERE IT
NOT For The Interest On The Reagan/Bush Years
• Because of President Clinton's 1993 Economic Plan, the budget would be balanced today, if
we were not still paying interest on the debt accumulated during the Reagan and Bush
Presidencies.
• Not including the interest on the debt incurred during the Reagan and Bush Administrations,
the 1995 budget would have a surplus of $13.8 billion.
Deficit in Billions of Dollars
$200
$13.8 B
Surplus
1995 Deficit
1995 Deficit Without
Reagan/Bush Interest
�Budget 3
�3/1/96 - BUDGET 3
CLAIM:
President Clinton placed excessive and unproductive regulatory burdens on the
American people — totaling $600-700 billion per year.
THE FACTS:
1.
THIS IS SIMPLY THE SAME OLD HOSTILE VIEW TO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AND PUBLIC SAFETY: EXAGGERATED COSTS AND NO
CALCULATION OF BENEFITS.
2.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S COMMON SENSE REGULATIONS WORK:
ELIMINATING NEEDLESS AND BURDENSOME REGULATIONS WHILE
PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT, GROWING THE ECONOMY, AND
CREATING JOBS.
•
President Clinton is strongly committed to reforming our regulatory system so that it is
more flexible, costs less, and imposes fewer rigid rules on the American economy.
The Administration is eliminatins 16.000 pases of needless resulations. and is
streamlining another 31,000.
•
Significant steps include:
Shrinking a SBA loan application form from an inch thick to one page.
Rewarding results, not red tape, by changing performance measurement systems
to focus on ultimate goals (e.g., cleaner air and safer workplaces.)
Enacting interstate banking deregulation and intrastate trucking deregulation.
Dramatically simplifying bank regulations issued by the Comptroller of the
Currency, and radically reducing the regulatory burden placed on exporters.
A Stronger Economy. Over the last 3 years, the economy has grown faster than any
major economy in the world - twice as fast as during the previous Administration.
•
Stronger Job Growth. Nearly 7.7 million new jobs added in 3 years - a better
record than either of the previous two Administrations.
THIS COMPLAINT IS FROM THE SAME FOLKS WHO TRIED TO PUSH
THROUGH EXTREME ENVIRONMENTAL CUTS AND POLICIES THIS YEAR,
INCLUDING:
Halting new standards for meat inspections.
Cutting EPA's enforcement budget by 50 percent.
Eliminating all clean drinking water state loan funds.
Halting EPA action or enforcement to keep storm water pollution out of the
nation's waterways.
Prohibiting EPA enforcement to keep raw sewage off beaches and out of
waterways.
Eliminating EPA's ability to set standards to prevent industrial water pollution.
Curtailing protection of toxic air pollutants from all oil refineries.
�Budget 4
�3/1/96 - BUDGET 4
CLAIM:
More than 90 percent of all reductions fin the federal work force] come from
the closing of Resolution Trust Corp. and the firing of tens of thousands of
civilian military employees — on orders from the base-closing commission.
THE FACTS:
THIS IS FLAT WRONG.
More than 40 percent of the reductions are non-Defense. More than
40 percent of the reductions in the federal workforce come from
departments and agencies other than defense. Virtually every department
and agency has reduced their number of employees. [Source: onice of
Management and Budget data, as presented in the National Performance Review Report: President Clinton's
Record In Reducing The Federal Workforce, February 8, 1996.]
Defense had a buy-out program earlier than other agencies. The
civilian Defense Department made up slightly less than half of the
federal workforce (44%) and has contributed somewhat more than half
of the workforce reductions (59%). This modest additional contribution
to workforce reduction from the Defense Department is not surprising
given that the Defense Department began downsizing and had a buy-out
p r o g r a m earlier than Other agencies. [Source: Office of Management and Budget data, as
presented in the National Performance Review Report: President Clinton's Record In Reducing The Federal
Workforce, February 8, 1996.]
RTC closing has done little to reduce workforce. The closing of the
RTC has done little to reduce the federal workforce. Thousands of the
former RTC workers have moved to the FDIC, having little effect on the
level Of federal e m p l o y m e n t .
[Source: National Performance Review, 1996 ]
�Budgef 5
�3/1/96 - BUDGET 5
CLAIM:
President Clinton is for big government; he fights every effort to cut
spending.
THE FACTS:
1.
Government spending is lower today than under the Reagan or
Bush Administrations as a share of the economy: Federal
government spending as a share of the economy was lower in fiscal year
1995 than in any year under the Reagan and Bush Administrations ~ the
lowest o f any year since 1979. [Based on actual fiscal year 1995 outlays and
GDP from the Treasury and Commerce Departments, respectively; historical data from
the CBO, Economic and Budget Outlook, January 1995.]
2.
Because of President Clinton, the Era of Big Government is over:
Reduced the federal workforce by 205,000 workers ~ the
smallest in three decades.
•
Proposed terminating more than 400 federal government
programs, and consolidating many others. [Source: OMB and
Third Report of the National Performance Review.]
Closing more than 2,000 unnecessary government field offices.
Eliminating 16,000 pages of unneeded rules and regulations.
3.
President Clinton's 1993 Economic Plan cut spending by $255
billion, and his balanced budget plan would cut spending by over
$600 billion more. The President's balanced budget upholds America's
values, protects Medicare, Medicaid, Education and the Environment,
and provides targeted tax relief while it cuts discretionary spending by
$297 billion and cuts entitlement spending by more than $270 billion.
4.
President Clinton has nearly cut the deficit in half in three years.
Deficits $1.5 trillion lower than projected over the next 7
years: Even without the President's much-needed balanced
budget plan, CBO projects the deficit will be $1.5 trillion lower
over the next seven years than projected when President
Clinton took office.
Because of President Clinton's 1993 Economic Plan,
the FY1995 budget would have had a $14 billion
surplus but for the interest on the debt accumulated
during the Reagan and Bush Administrations.
�Budget 6
�3/1/96 - BUDGET 6
CLAIM:
President Clinton's spending policies are reducing the size of the economy by 38
cents for every additional federal dollar spent.
THE FACTS:
THIS IS PATENTLY FALSE.
1.
After federal deficit spending exploded during the previous two
Administrations, President Clinton has cut spending — and cut the
deficit nearly in half — reducing the Federal workforce to its smallest size
in three decades and cutting 16,000 pages of regulations.
Federal spending as a share of the economy is lower today than at
any time in 16 years.
•
2.
CBO today projects that deficits will be $1.5 trillion lower over the
next 7 years than CBO projected when President Clinton took office in
January 1993.
The study used to support this claim fails to account for the important
fact that government investments — such as education, the environment,
Medicare, and Medicaid ~ help the economy grow. The study conducted by Lowell Gallaway and Richard Vedder for Reps. Armey and
Saxton ~ treats these investments the same as wasteful spending. The
distinction between investment and wasteful spending is crucial to evaluating
the effects of government spending on the economy.
General Accounting Office, "public investment plays a key role in
economic growth, directly and by creating an environment conducive to
private sector investment. Accordingly, in addition to the overall level
of deficit or surplus, the proportion of the budget devoted to investment
Spending W i l l also a f f e c t l o n g - t e r m g r o w t h .
April 1995, pp. 11-12]
3.
[GAO, The Deficit and the Economy,
The study is based on a fundamentally flawed methodology. The study
use inappropriate techniques to examine the impact of government spending
on output. The study fails to account for the fact that the amount the
government spends affects the economy and vice-versa. Thus, the simple
statistical techniques adopted produce misleading results and underestimate
the benefits of government spending. This study even makes the absurd
claim that their simple theory can account for 99.9 percent of the movements
in the economy over the past five decades.
�Budget 7
�3/1/96 - BUDGET 7
CLAIM:
Today, federal spending approaches 22 percent of the economy.
THE FACTS:
It is true that spending is between 21% and 22% of the economy, but
this is lower than any vear under the Reagan and Bush Administrations - the lowest in 16 years.
Federal spending in fiscal year 1995 was 21.1 percent of the economy
~ the lowest of any year since 1979. This is based on the actual
fiscal year 1995 figures, not estimates.
[Based on actual fiscal year 1995 outlays and GDP. Historical data in CBO.
Economic and Budget Outlook. January 1995; actual fiscal year 1995 outlaws from
Treasury Department, September Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and
Outlays of the U.S. Government, October 27, 1995; actual fiscal year 1995 GDP
from Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income
and Product Accounts, February 23, 1996.]
Ironically, the study that Rep. Armey cites to make this claim shows
that spending as a share of the economy was lower in fiscal year
1995 than in 1980 or 1990. The study says that fiscal year 1995
spending as a share of the economy was 21.6% based on estimates as
opposed to actual GDP, but even at 21.6% federal spending as a
share of the economy would still be lower than any year since 1979 - lower than every year under the Reagan and Bush Administrations.
�The Impact of the Welfare State
on the
American Economy
Prepared at the request of
Representative Jim Saxton
Vice-Chairman
Joint Economic Committee
and
Representative Dick Armey
Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
by
Lowell Gallaway and Richard Vedder
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio
45701
December 1995
�Pageb
Impact of the Welfare State o the American Economy
n
Table 2
Federal and Social* Spending Statistics, United States
Various Fiscal Years, 1940-1995
Increase in Social
Fiscai Federal Spending Federal Spendng Social Spending Sodai Spendng As Spending per Dollar
Percent of GDP
Year
i.SBillions)
Increase in Federal
As Percent of GDP
($ Billions)
Spending
1.7
1940
9.9
na
9.5
1.6
1.3
1948
29.8
12.1
0.084
3.3
3.9
1960
18.3
0.264
92.2
19.8
5.2
183.6
0.344
1970
19.9
58
9.8
1980
590.9
260.4
0.513
r 22.3\
10.1
1990
1252.7
22.9 \
0.44*:
551.4
1514.4
11.3
1.067
1995
\
21.6 )
830.4
* Defined as the sum of heaitn. income security, and social secunty expenditures. Beginning with
1966, heaim spending induces outlays on me Medicare program.
Source: United States Treasury and Office of Management and Budget
The overall impact of these changes is dramatic. As offiscal1995, 11.3 percent of Gross
Domestic Product goes to these three categories, compared to 1.3 percent in 1948. Put another way,
in fiscal 1948, about one dollar in nine of federal spending was for these social purposes. By fiscal
1995.fivedollars out of every nine were devoted to these pursuits.
The critical dimension of this shift in the nature of federal spending is the preponderance of
transfer payments in this rapidly growing sector. The negative economic disincenrive effects associated
with income transfers have been well documented.' An increasing emphasis on income transfers exerts
a "drag" on the economy and goes far in explaining the statistical results reponed earlier. The rapid
growth in the American welfare state has been depressing the level of national output for some tunc
1
For example, see Sheldon Dannger, Roben Haveman. and Robert Plotnick, "How Income
Transfer Programs Affect Work, Savings, and Income Distribution: A Critical Review," Journal of
Economic Literature, September 1981. They conclude that the cumulative effect of income transfers
in the United States, at that tone, had been to reduce the total supply of labor by 4.8 percent Similar
effects were observed in Lowell Gallaway, Richard Vedder, and Roben Lawson, "Why People Work:
an Exammarion of Interstate Variations in Labor Force Participation." Journal of Labor Research.
Winter 1991, pp. 47-59.
�Policies 1
�3/1/96 - POLICIES 1
CLAIM:
The President even wants to add new obstacles like a minimum wage hike —
putting the bottom rung of the economic ladder of success out of reach for
millions of unskilled workers
THE FACTS:
AND THEY CLAIM TO B E FOR RAISING WORKERS' WAGES?
Between 10 million and 13 million workers would benefit from the President's
proposal to increase the minimum wage: An estimated 10 million hourly workers
earn between $4.25 and $5.14 and would directly benefit from the President's
proposal. Research indicates that an increase in the minimum wage to $5.15 could
have a "ripple" effect on the more than 3 million workers who earn within 60 cents
of the new minimum wage.
Within a year, if the minimum wage is not increased, it will fall to its lowest
real level in 40 years. Indeed, the value of the minimum wage is now 27 percent
lower than it was in 1979, and has fallen 45 cents in real value since its last
increase in April of 1991. The first half of the President's 90-cent proposal simply
restores the minimum wage to its value from the last increase.
Raising the minimum wage primarily helps adult workers ~ most of whom
rely on their minimum wage jobs to support their families: Nearly two-thirds of
minimum wage workers are adults (63%); almost two-fifths of all minimum wage
workers (39%) are the sole breadwinners in their families; the average minimum
wage worker brought home half of his or her family's earnings. Thus, a 90-cent
rise in the minimum wage means an extra $1,800 to a full-time minimum wage
worker — that's enough for the average family to pay for over 7 months of
groceries.
4.
Empirical evidence shows the President's proposal can increase wages without
costing jobs: Over a dozen empirical studies ~ a majority of those published in
peer-reviewed journals in the last five years ~ have found that moderate increases
in the minimum wage would not cost jobs. These studies include state-specific
research that shows that higher state increases in the minimum wage did not result
in significant job impacts. As Nobel Laureate Robert Solow stated: "[T]he evidence
of job loss is weak. And the fact that the evidence is weak suggests that the
impact on jobs is small."
The last minimum wage -- also 90 cents — garnered strong bipartisan support.
In 1989, the minimum wage was passed by votes of 382 to 37 (135 Republicans)
in the House, and 89 to 8 in the Senate (36 Republicans) and was supported by
Senator Dole and Rep. Gingrich.
�STUDIES THAT CONCLUDE A MODERATE INCREASE IN THE
MINIMUM WAGE HAS AN INSIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT
Burdett, Kenneth, and Dale Mortensen. 1989. "Equilibrium Wage Differentials and Employer
Size." Discussion Paper, no. 860. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Center for
Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
Card, David. 1992. "Using Regional Variation in Wages to Measure the Effects of the
Federal Minimum Wage." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 46:22-37.
Card, David. 1992. "Do Minimum Wages Reduce Employment? A Case Study of
California, 1987-1989." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 46:38-54.
Card, David, and Alan Krueger. 1994. "Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study
of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania." American Economic
Review, 84:772-93.
Card, David, and Alan Krueger, Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the
Minimum Wage (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995).
Dickens, Richard, Stephen Machin, and Alan Manning. "The Effect of Minimum Wages on
Employment: Theory and Evidence from the UK." NBER Working Paper No. 4742,
Cambridge, MA, 1994.
Freeman, Richard. 1994. "Minimum Wages - Again!" International Journal of Manpower,
15:8-25.
Grenier, Gilles and Marc Seguin. 1991. "L'incidence du Salaire Minimum sur le Marche du
Travail des Adolescents au Canada: Une Reconsideration des Resultats
Empiriques." L'Actualite Economique, 67:123-43.
Katz, Lawrence, and Alan B. Krueger. 1992. "The Effects of Minimum Wage on the Fast
Food Industry." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 46:6-21.
Klerman Jacob. 1992. "Study 12: Employment Effect of Mandated Health Benefits." In
Health Benefits and the Workforce, U.S. Department of Labor, Pension and Welfare
Benefits Administration. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office.
Lang, Kevin. 1994. "The Effect of Minimum Wage Laws on the Distribution of Employment:
Theory and Evidence." Unpublished paper. Boston University, Department of
Economics.
Lester, Richard. 1964. Economics of Labor. (New York: Macmillan).
Machin, Stephen, and Alan Manning. 1994. "The Effects of Minimum Wages on the Wage
Dispersion and Employment: Evidence from the U.K. Wage Councils." Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, 47:319-29.
�Siskind, Frederic. 1977. "Minimum Wage Legislation in the United States: Comment."
Economic Inquiry, January: 135-38.
Spriggs, William. 1994. "Changes in the Federal Minimum Wage: A Test of Wage Norms."
Journal of Post-Keynsian Economics, Winter 1993/94, pp. 221-239.
Wellington, Allison. 1991. "Effects of the Minimum Wage on the Employment Status of
Youths: An Update." Journal of Human Resources, 26:27-46.
Wessels, Walter. 1994. "Restaurants as Monopsonies: Minimum Wages and Tipped
Services." Working Paper. North Carolina State University.
Zaidi, Albert. 1970. A Study of the Effects of the $1.25 Minimum Wage Under the Canada
Labour (Standards) Code. Task Force of Labour Relations, study no. 16. Ottawa:
Privy Council Office.
�Policies 2
�Policies 2
�3/1/96 -- POLICIES 2
CLAIM:
He wants...the government to choose "winners" and "losers" by redirecting
pension funds into "social investment. "
THE FACTS:
1.
President Clinton Kept Ronald Reagan's Policies! The Clinton
Administration has done absolutely nothing new in this area. The
Interpretive Bulletin the Labor Department put out last summer (No.
94-1) merely brings together 20 years of Labor Department opinions
on the subject:
Robert Monks, who was responsible for ERISA in the
Reagan Administration, confirmed that, in Monks' words,
"Interpretive Bulletin 94-1 sets forth a policy that is consistent
with the policies announced by DOL during the years that I
had principal responsibility for the ERISA program." (Letters
attached.)
The ETI Clearinghouse that the Saxton bill proposes to
defund was the outgrowth of the November 1992 Report of
the Work Group on Pension Investments, appointed by the
Bush Labor Department, that found that "economically
targeted investments (ETIs) exist which constitute prudent
investments under traditional financial criteria, but which
also create collateral economic benefits."
2.
This Is The Same Group That Passed A Corporate Raid On
Workers' Pensions. Their budget would have allowed corporations
to raid pension funds, risking pensions for millions of workers.
�
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
Setting the Record Straight on the Economy, February 29, 1996 [Binder] [2]
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-Seg2-048-015-2015