-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/d00402e3254b9de0bd313da6da5f477c.pdf
4ee1ca126fb5454f3da28be56ef5851b
PDF Text
Text
KEY POINTS ON OUR POSITIVE ECONOMIC AGENDA
I.
Strengthen Foundation of American free en'terprise througb deficit
reduction. opening trade, strengthening Democracy
•
Deficit already cut more .than in half from $290 billion when we
took office according to both OMB ($117 B) and CBO ($115
130 B) -- 110W we will finish job alld gel to balance.
•
Continue pursuing free and fair open trade as we did with
NAFTA and GAIT
•
Continue environmental pro-growth policies
2.
Equip aU Americans with Tools and Security to Succeed in tbis Free
Enterprise System (invest in education. modernize schools. technology,
training, standards. health insurance you can take from job to job).
•
$55 billion more for education and training than GOP budget
•
$1,500 HOPE Scholarship to help make ! 4 years of education
the national norm
•
$10,000 tax deduction for higher ed.
•
School construction
•
Education Tech
•
Double funding for dislocated workers
•
Higher education standards for students and teachers
•
Kassebaum·Kennedy insurance .- so workers can take their
insurance from job to job.
•
Pension Portability
3.
Continue to Grnw Together Not Apart: Ensure that all Americans are
growing together -- with opportunity - not growing apart, fighting for a
smaller pie and subject to the politics of division.
•
Since 1992, every family income quintile from the most well-off
to the poorest has seen their real income increase.
•
Raise minimum wage to help ! 0 million working families
•
Empowerment Zones round 2
•
Browntie!ds empowennent contracting
\
�WHAT A DIFFERENCE 4 YEARS MAKES
The Facts On TI,e £conom.~ Under President Clinton
July 17. 1996
\VIH ~T
A DIFFERENCE 4 YEARS MAKES:
Deficit Cut More Than in Half
• In 1992. Tbe oeftelt was S290 biHion -- foe highest dollar level in his;;ory.
• Today. CBO (SliS-SUO billionl and O"vlB (SIIi billion) agree tilat me deficit w,lI be cut more than in
half in 4 years. The deticit is now smaller as a share of GOP than any major economy in the wond. [eso
7<'96, OMU 71%. ana DECO. 6;961
Unempto\'ment Is Down
• [0
1992. '~he unemployment ratc was above 7% during every month -- over 7.5% during 5 months.
Four years ago
~-
in June 1992 -.. me unemployment rare was 7,3 pe:rt:ent.
• Today. In June 1996. the unemployment rate
consecutive montbs. IS<lutte: BU."e3U \){ Labor .':iwislI;:S;
15
5.3 percent
~-
and has been below 6 percent for 2:!
Jobs Are Pp
• In 1992, Job growth was WC:lk and hnd sutfered from one of the worst 4-year periods: in history ~ worse
than any Administration since President Hoover during the Great Depression. If fMk ]..I months during
the Reagan Adminisrram)i1 for 10 million jobs 10 be created,
• Today. The economy hns created 10 million new jobs under President Clinton in just 41 months ~~ that's
u faster annual rate of job growth thnn any RepublicJ.n Administration since the 19205. (So~: Bt.S)
Private..Se<:tnr Growth Is Cp
.. 1981w1992. The private sector of the economy grew 2.4 percent annuaUy from 1981-1992.
Today, The private seClor of the economy has gro\vn 3.1 percent annually
a sitonger record of private
sector growth than either the Bush or Reagan Administrations, ISQun:e; Basea on data from the O¢p&tVl'letlt I)fCommetCC.
ow
Iluttllu (JI Et.OOOm)( Analvsnl
EXPERTS SAY PRESlD[t'T CLL'ITOt' DESERVES CREDIT FOR A STRONGER ECONOMY
• Forlunc. 1013/94: "[President Clinton's1 eeonomic plan helped bring interest rates down, spurring
the recovery,"
Paul Voider. Federal Reserw Buara Chairman t1979·1987), ill Audacitv. Fall 1994: "The deficit
has come down. and 1 gi\'e lhe Clinton I\dmlnistration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit
:or thaI. {He! did something about it. fast. And I think we ate seeing some benet1ts."
Alan Greenspan. 2120/96: The deficit reduction in President Clinton's 1993 Economic Plan was "an
unuue:nioned factor in ~ontributinl.! to the improvement in economic activilV that occurred thereafter,"
.
.
-
Lehman Brotben. 1110/94: "Lower deficits. (ower (ong-term rates and higher real grov.1h was the overall
promise. With the data now rolling: in for December 1993. it seems clear that President Clinton delivered
011 all Ihret~ counts... "
_
L
hl
.
�CLiNTONOMICS VS. REAGANOMICS
The FaelS On Tlte Economy Under Presidenz Clinton
July 17, ; 996
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ECONOMIC RECORD IS BETTER THAN REAGAN'S ON
:'iEARLY EVERY MAJOR ECONOMIC INDICA TOR, When Republicans claim that the Reagan
ecor.omy was stronger. ~hey point to what they conside: [he Reagan "expansion years.'" 1983 to 1989.
Bue this is cliJ.ssic case or manipulating data by choosing a seiecled time period. The Republicans give
Reaganomics ;m "A" by cropping their tWO "Fs" H~81 and 1982) and by claiming credit for someone
e:se's \\ork 0989 happens to be Bush"s tirst year in omce,I,
C/inUm
.t(lltor Economic fmiic.alOr
JOB GROWTH: Since President Clinton COOK office. 10 miilion new jobs have been creatcc
- [hat's a 2.6% annual nue of job growth vs.. a 2.0%, annual rate during the Reagan
Administration. It took ..f I manfits jor JO miiiion fobs to be crealed umier Clint01t \IS. 1./
months IIl/der Reagan. \$\luti:t: ':i:l!e(l: on (l:JIJ.l tfom ttlt aultlll of l,;llxir $l,;IUSlics. ('1Im1n EmpIoynWlt SwisUt:s sum'
PRIVATE-SECTOR .JOB GROWTH; Since President Clinton lOoK: office.. nearly 9.3 mHl:
new pnvate-sector jobS have been added .. that's a 2.')010 annual rate of job growth VS. a 2.30/.
:mnuai rare during t~e Reagan Adm,inistrarion. ;Souree: Baell en llaUi lrom Bure3\! 01 labof StalUtiti. Cutrel'!
Emo!CI'1Ient ;,i:.:uisuc:s SUl"'IC\'.!
PRIVATI>SECTOR £CONO~lIC GROWTH: Since P:esident Clinton took office. the
pnvate sector of the economy has expanded .3.! % per year <::ompared to 3.0% per year during
lne Reagan Administration. lS>}IJru: Based on dW U(\1Tt tilt Oepuunl':1U Qr Commerel':. Elurnu of Economic AnaJyti
BUDGET DEFICIT; By the C!id of this year. \he deticit will be less than half what it was fe
years ago: $117 billion now \'5. 5290 billion then. During Ihe Reagan Administration. the
deficit doubled. eXDJoding from S74 billkm to 5t55 billion. [SOIltcC:: ()~lB.J
.\tORTGAGE RATES: Since President Clinton took office. tixed mortgage rates have
averaged 7.8% -- ..:ompared to an average rate of 1:,8% during the Reagan Administration.
{Sourto/:: [)..:pAl1mml 01 lIll': Treasurv. uft1cc oj' EconomIc
Pc~ic\'.!
BUSINESS INVESTMENT: Since President Clinton look office. business investment has
incre:tsed 11.0% urmually \'s_ a J.t % annually during the Reagan Administration,
{Sowtc: Baud
JlIl.Ii Irom me Dcpanmtnt or Commerce, Bureau or" E~DOOmic .\r..uyti\.\
nOM£OWNERSHIP: Since President Clinton tOok office. the homeownership rate has
;ncreascd 10 a ! 5·year high. During the Reagan Administration. the homeowne:ship rate fell
from 63.6% to 6:;.9%, ISllur~e: 3~ on Ilau !rom U'lC Oapat'tl!'len( cf ComrmlfCC, ijmcftu (if mOl CCR$UI.I
STOCK MARKET; Since President Climon took office. the stock market has increased 14.
percent per year. aiter ndjusting for imlation. This IS mere dum twice the annual rat-c: during
the Reagan Administration: 6.6% per )Ctlf. l~"lIf:;e: D~"partrr.tm 01 the TreiUury. Otficc of Economic Policy. I
INFLATION: Since President Climon mo;.;. o:'fice. the Inrlation rate has averaged 2.8% per
Durin~ the Reagan Admini5!fation. Ihe a\"erage inriation nue \\a5 4.2%. !S~; BalCa on
; eat.
Jmlrcm U!C
Bmrau Df l;ilior
:'!laU~I(;S,1
WAGE GROWTH: Since President Clinton took office. real average hourly wages have
increased slightly, During the Reagan Admimstratlon. they jell 2% or 28 cents. tSour«: Bas.
,)A am imm 1M 61.1f~lhJ 01 labor Statistics. lal.ijU!\eg 10 De~eml)er !9?S dollars ,mosU'.c CI'I·U))
n
~tANlJFACTURlNG
JOB GROWTH: Since President Clinton mot:: o!fice. !83.0oo new
IOSf during the Reagan
Uaseg ell ella iro~ ~c B'.Ireau. or Llbor S\llUSu(S. ( .. rmlt E'mp!oyrnmt Statisttet ~.I
manuJacturing jobs have been added \"s. 778.000 manufacturing jobs
Admmistration.
[$0'.lrc~.
�"
<
.....
AMERICA'S ECONOMY IS BACK ON TOP - #1 IN THE WORLD
Tile Facts 0" Tile Economy U"der President Clinton
July 17. 1996
WHAT A DIFFERENCE 4 YEARS MAKES:
:\'IERICA'S ECONO:,\IY Is BACK 0.'1 Top OF TUE WORLD
1992: Trailed Japan. Germany. Denmark. and Switzerland. In 1992. the World Economic Forum
found that Japan. Gennany. Denmark. and SwitzerLand all had more competitive economies than the
United States.
TODAY: Most Competitive Economy In The World. For the first time in ten years. United States
Ivas declared the world's most competitive economy in 1994. The United States was ranked number one
again in 1995. beating Japan and Germany by an even larger margin than the year before. And in 1996
-- on a comparable basis as previous reports -- America was ranked the world's most competitive
economy yet again. [Source: World EconomiC Forum and IMD.I
TilE Wmu.ols .J08S LEADER
1989-1992: Weaker Job Growth. From 1989-1992. Ihe six other major economies of the world created
0ver two-and-a-half times more jobs than the United States.
TODAY: Strongest Job Growth. The United States has had the fastest rate of job growth among
major economies since 1992 and created more new jobs than the other six major economies combined.
Washington Post. -1/2/96: "[T]he U.S. economy has created more new jobs over the past several years than all
the other G-7 economies combined ...5ince January 1993. 8.4 million new jobs. swelling Ihe number of job
holders by 7.7 percent. No other G-i economy comes close (Q matching that perionnance."
THE WORLD'S AUTOMORILE LEADER
1992: Trailed Japan for 13th Year In A Row. In 1992 Japan produced:8 percent more automobiles
than America -- trailing lor the IJth year in a row.
TODAY: #1 in Auto Production. In 1994 the United States surpassed Japan as the world leader in
automobile production ~- the last time the United States \.... as number one \. . as back in 1979. And in
1995. America retained its status as the world's largest car producer.
THE WORLD'S LEADER ON DEFICIT REDUCTION
1992: Bigger Deficit Than Japan. Germany, and France. In 1992. the United States had a larger
budget deficit as a share of the GOP than Japan. Germany. and France.
TODA Y: Lowest Deficit. The .United States currently has the lowest deficit as a share of GOP of any
major economy in the world.
THE WORLD'S LE,\DER
I~ SEM1CO~D1JCTORS
1992: Trailed Japan for 7th Straight Year.
production for the seventh consecutive year.
[n 1992. the United States trailed Japan in semiconductor
TODAY: #1 in Semiconductors. For the first time smce 1985. America is leading the world insemiconductor production.
-l/
�~.
"
THE ECONOMY UNDER PRESIDENT CLINTON; THE BEST SINCE".
July 17, 1996
..
SmaUest Deficit As A Share Of The Economy [n O\fer Two Oecade. OMB projectS the deficit to
be 1.6 percent of the ~onomy this year ~~ smaller than any year since ! 974,
~
Lmvesr Combined Rate of Unemployment and Inflation Since 1968.
... Strongu Job Growth Than Any Republican_Administration Since the J9205. ~ore than 10
million new jobs added in 3 1/2 years ~~ that'S a"f~ter annual rate of job gro\\'th than any Republican
Administration since the Roaring 19205.
* Higb•• ! Sila.. Of Job. In Private Sector Sinee Harding. Ninety-three pertem of all new jobs
have been created by the private sector -- thatlS higher than the average during any other
Administranon since Warren G. Harding \\ras President 75 .'
\fears alZO.
-
~
~
Lowest [nflaUon For An Administration Since Kennedy. Inflation has averaged just 2.8 percent
per year -- Inat's the lowest rate of inflation for any Administration since John F. Kennedy was
President.
.. Stronger '\'1anufacturing Job Growlh Than Any Republican Administration Sine.: Before the
Great Depression. Since President Clinton took office. the economy has added 183.000 new
manufacturing jobs -- that's a faster annual rate of manufacturing job growth than any Republican
.-\dministration since the before the Great Depression.
..
Strongest Business rnvestment Growth ror An Administration Since Kennedy. Business
investment has grov.n 1LO percent armuaiiy -- tha(s a faster rate of business investment growth than
any Other Administration since John F. Kennedy was President.
.. Lowest Mortgage Rates In 30 Years. \1ongage rates have averaged JUSt 7,8 percent
than any olher Administration since Lyndon Johnson was President in the 19605.
~~
that's lower
n.
~
Strongest Siock Market Growth Since World \Var
The stock market has increased 14.2 perce:
per year. in renl terms ~~ that's a faster rate than during: any other Administration since Wodd War H
.-
Highest Homfownership Rate In 15 Years.
*
Strongest Construction ,Job Growth Since Truman. In just over 3 years. the economy has added
890.000 new construction johs ~~ ihat's the f:lStest annual rme of construction job growth since Harry
S Truman was President.
'vlAJORITY LEADER DOLE. BARROi'i'S, AND DRllMcGRA W-HILL AGREE:
THE ECONOMY IS THE HEALTHIEST IT'S BEEN TN 30 YEARS
\Iaiorir:· Leader Robert Dole. 1120196:
the strongest it~ s been in 30 years:"
"[t
is also true. :lS some have said. tbt Our economy is
Barron's. 3/18/96: "Clinmn also rightfulIy boasted thnt. 'our economy is the healthiest that it has
been in thirty years...·
DRlIi\lcGraw.. HiU. :\tarcn 1996: "[Tlhe normal economic indicators suggest [the economy} IS in
its best shape in decades,~'
�CLINTON "GLASS CEILING" OF ECONOMIC GROWTH
Q.
Does the White House helieve Ihal the current rate oj economic growth -- 2.3% -- Is the
best we can do? Certainly, the Republicans might be right that we should be able 10 grow
Jaster than this?
A:
There are no limits on how fast the economy C3n grow -- as long as we look to tbe
long-term. If we do the right things to make America morc productive. as the President
said. the sky is the limit.
•
The 2.3 percent growth is used for budget estimates because we believe that it
is important to be conservative. Our economic forecasts arc conservative for
budget purposes -- we should not return to the rosy scenarios of the previous
Republican Administrations.
The threshold question is: which vision of economic growth will deliver a more
productive America'!
Wrong \Vay: The wrong \\lay is 10 look for simple solutions. easy answers, and
silver bullets.
Right \Vuy: The right way is to lower interest rates Ihrough lower deficits; more
good jobs through open trade: and more high-skilled, high-earning Americans
through more and better education. In particular. we 'should make a commitment
to high-performance standards. technological literacy, and an agenda to make 14
years of education -- two years of college -- as universal as 12 years of education
is today.
Follow:
How fast do you rhink we are capable oj growing today: 3.0? 3.5%?
A:
I DON'T TIlINK ANYONE CAN TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT IS OUR
LONG-TERM GROWTH POTENTIAL. What is important is that we know the
path to higher growth is making our people and our companies more productive and
embracing the long-term growth agenda President Clinton has proposed to make it
happen.
6
�",
"
TAXES
SPECULATION ON ACROSS TilE BOARD TAX CUTS
Q,
What do you rhink aGout report" [he Senator Dole is considering a large tax cur proposal?
A:
Senator Dole wilJ have to d«ide for bim$~lf tbe policy he wants to propose., and
whether or not he will do it in a way that stays true to our commitment to balance the
budget.
•
He Still Hasn't Paid For His SilO Billion Worth of New Proposals. So far, he has
offered up about $110 billion in new deficit spending ($10 billion for school vouchers
and at least $100 billion for a Charity Tax Credit) and we are still waiting for
specifics on ho\\' he is going to pay for these two proposrus..
ALL TAX QUESTIONS SHOULD THEN PIVOT BACK TO OUR TAX PROPOSALS
AND PRINCIPLES:
THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO CUT TAXES. BUT HE BELIEVES THERE ARE
RIGHT WAYS AND WRONG WAYS TO 110 THIS.
THE RIGHT WAY TO CUT TAXES: The right way is to follow two key
principles:
I)
Tax cuts should be targeted to the middle class and towards things like
education. savings and child care - things that matter most for working
families and most for our country.
Z)
Tax cuts should be specifically paid for. and stay within the strict discipline
of our hipartisan commitment to balanee the budget
KXllmple: The Jlrcsident!g HOPE Scholarship Tax Cut met these two
principles. It was targeted to a new national standard for -our nation and for
economic srOVv'th -- that aU people should get two years of higher education _.
and it was fully paid for within the context of a balanced budget proposal. This
is thc.standard we have set for all tax cuts.
THE \V[<ONG \VA \' TO CLlT TAXES is a broad. across-the-board tax cut That is nOi
targeted to what families and our economy most need and will drive up the deticit drive up
interest rates [or lend to unacceptable Medicare und education cuts. I
•
The Republkan head of the tax writing committee. Chairman Archer has stated
that the ISo,.;, .. cross~the-board cut would cost .around S600 billion o\'cr SC\'cn
yea.l'S. or $1 trillion Qver 10 years.. and that he has no idea how it could be paid for. '
1
�-.
•
Tax Revenues Following 1981 and 1993 Tax Plans
CLAIM:
Spencer A braham and other prominent Republicans .I'llch as Steve Forbes and Jack Kemp
falsely assert that rhe 198/ (ax eIll raised revenue and the 1993 pian did no/ raise revenue.
They claim Ihar tax revenues, after adjusting Jar injlalion, increased 3.8 percent per year Fom
1981 to 1989. despite the fact thar lax rates were cut, while lax revenue increased jllst 2.3
percent from 1990 to 199j, when lhe fOp tax rale increased 50 percent.
THE FACTS:
Both the nolion that the 1981 tax cut raised revenues and the notion that the 1993 tax plan did
not raise revenue is clearly factually false according to any reasonable analysis.
Response 10 Notion #1: The 1981 (ax cut resulted in a LOSS of individual income tax revenue.
helping to explode the deficit in the 1980s. The revenue increases in the 1980s came from payroll
taxes which were raised 6 times.
•
1981 tax cuts cost tax revenuc and helped explode the deficit. After passage of the 1981 supply.
side tax .;:uts. real individual income tax revenue fell for three consecutive years. and did not
recover to their 1981 level until .1986. That is. for four entire years after Reagan' s 1981 tax cut.
real individual income tax revenue were below their 1981 level. even though it was in the middle uf
an economic recovery. (Source; Department ofLhe Treasury. (lax revenue adjusted to 1995 CPI dollars.1
Individual tax revenues grcw rapidly after 1986 tax reform. From 1981 to 1989. individual
income tax revenue grew 1.7 percent annually·· not 3.8 percent .• but even this is misleading.
From Reagan' s 1981 tax cut to the tax reform of 1986. real individual income tax revenues grew
just 0.2 percent per year. After tax reform·· from 1986·1989 .. they grew 4.1 percent per year.
•
During the 1980s, the Social Security payroll tax rate increased 6 times. To the degree that
overall tax revenues went up faster. it was due to increases in the Social Security payroll tax rate in
1981. 1932. 1984. 1985. 1986. and 1988. which increased Social Security tax revenues at a rate of
4.7 percent per year from 1981 to 1989. Therefore. revenues went up 3.8 percent per year because
of real payroll tax revenues: individual income tax revenues rose just 0.2 percent annually from
1981 to 1986 and 4.1 percent per year from 1986 to 1989.
•
1981 Tn,; Cuts helped explode the deficit. This loss in tax revenue helped explode the deficit:
Ronald Reagan's first three years in office .• when the Republicans controlled both the White
House and the Senate .. the deficit nearly tripled. increasing from $74 billion in FY80 to $208
billion in FY83. By FY 86. the deficit had increased $221 billion. [Source: enOl
In
Response /0 Notion #2: First of all, they are looking at 1990 to 1995 data to refute the President's
1993 Economic Plan. Let's look at what's happened since the 1993 plan took effect: Inflation·
adjusted individual income tax revenues have increased 4.8 percent annually since the 1993 plan.
According to both the Congressional Budget Office and H&R Block. the 1993 Economic Plan did not
raise income tax revenue from 98.8 percent of working families .• it only ra.ised rates on the top 1.2
percent. A small amount of the increase in revenue .• about $4 billion a year .. comes from the
wealthiest top 13 percent of social security beneticiaries. (Source: "II&R lJIock Anlilysis of the Income Tax Consequences of
the Re~enuc Reconciliation Bill of 1993." August 1993: and "GOP Tax Issue May Fade Away: Only 1.2% Of Filiers Will Face Increase. cao Study Finds:
WllsilingfOn POll. 1/13194.J
•
Presideni' Clinton's 1993 Economic Plan has worked and has cut the deficit in half. Since
President Clinton took office. CSO projects that the deficit will be cut in half. dropping from $290
billion in FY 92 to about $130 billion in FY96. (Source: CBO. S1961
�RESPONSE TO PRESlDEI'T CLINTON RAISED TAXES ON TYPICAL FAMILIES
.,
Typical family have seen
J.
drop in their
laX
rate since 1992 -- and tax rates for
typical family lower now than in 7 of R years under Reagan
.,
•
15 million families saw lax .cut benefitting 40 million total Americans because of
President Clinton's expanslOn oftlle-Earned Tncome Tax Credit
H&R block has confirmed that only the top 1.2% of all tax payers saw rate
Increase
•
Because of the Presidenes 1993 Economic Plan, g million homeoweners have
renounced at lower rates ~~ many over $1000 a year
•
The source of the Republican ta~ Ad claiming that taxes have been raised $1.500
for the typical family has renounced the ad.
..
••
Income for two~earner family is up $6.260 since 1992 (nominal) and
people only paid more taxes because they earned more.
Retr.ernbcr. even under Flat Tax: if you earn mo,c. you pay more .
�CLAIM ON LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY.
CLAIM:
The 1993 Economic Plan contained tite biggesf fax increases in history.
THE FACTS:
1. THIS IS .rUST NOT TRUE. The attached chart from the Wall Street lournal
identifies four tax changes that were larger as a percentage of the economy than
the 1993 plan.
•
Wall Street Journal. 1Of'26194; "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
GOP~..:ontrolied
Senate was u bigger
ta.\:
bill, both in 1993-adjusted
dollars and as a percentage of the overaH economy,"
•
Washington Post, 2/l/95: "The biggest tax increase in history did not
occur in the Omnibus [judget Reconciliation Act of t 993. The biggest
tax increase in post~ World War If history occurred tn 1982 under
President Ronald Reagan:'
•
NeU! York Times. 11/3/95: "It is not true that the $240 billion tax
increase approved by Congress in 1993 at Me. Clinron 1 s behest is the
largest in American history. When adjusted for inflation ~- the only way
to make comparisons of dollar amounts from different years .~ a tax
increase engineered by Mr. Dole in 1982, when he was the chairman of
Senate Finance Committee. was Jarger."
2. The 1993 Economic PJan raised in('ome tax rates on only the top 1.2% of
taxpayers ~~ and expanded the Working Families Tax Credit, cutting taxes
for 15 million '\l'orkcrs and their families.
•
H&R Hiof;!k confirms that the 1993 Economic Plan only Increased
income !aX rates for the tOP 1 percent. while cutting taxes for "16.6%
of all taxpayers [who) benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit
Expansion. ,> (50Ilfu: 'If&R BIIX;I; Attalyll$ of the Income: T~\ Comtll\ltt\«:s o(lhe Reve~
R.::c:Ot\.C.!i;)141/i Bm of
•
1991~
AuguM 199:q
COO found that "only a sliver of tax filers .~ about 1,1: percent .. will
face a higher income tax bill on April 15 because of the Clinton
administration's economic program."
Fi,<:/'5 Will Face incrl:1I.Sc. CElO Sludy FifUh."
["GOP Tax Issue: May Fade Away: Only 1,2% cl
WrHhlllglOrt POSt, !l13i94.)
3. The average f£der-.tl income tax rate for the typical four-person family is
lower todav than wben President Clinton took office, und is lower tban in 7
of the 8 ye~rs when Ronal'd Reagan was President. The average federal
personal income tax rare for the typical four~person family will be lower in 1995
than in 1992 and lower than in 7 of the 8 years under Ronald Reagan. l~lIur~:
Tn:;ssury D¢lIanwer,t
May 6, 1996
01fl~
ofT"" Anall'sis. bastd on Cenrus l3ureau data. 4118195 I
I"
Taxes 1
�THE STOCK MARKET
DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION
July 19, 1996
Some Perspective On Recelll Movements:.'
•
Stock Market Is Up 68 Percent Vnder President Clinton. Since
President Clinton took office, the stock market has increased from 3,242
on January 20, 1993 to 5,431 (close on 7119/96) -. an amazing 68
percent increase in three and a half years.
•
The Stock Market Has Increased Faster
Than Under Any President Since World
has increased 14.2 percent per year, in real
than during any other Administration since
•
Since The Beginning Of This Vear, The Stock Market [s Up More
Than 6 Percent. Since the beginning of 1996, the stock market has
increased from 5.117 to 5,431 (close on 7119196) .. that's a 6 percent
increase (even after including recent declines) .
Under President Clinton
War II. The stock market
terms" that's a laster rate
World War II.
. Stronger Stock Market Growth Than
Any Administration Since World War II
Carter
1.6%
Johnson
Kennedy
Ford
Bush
Reagan
Eisenhower ,
Clinton I
,10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
�THE DOLE-GINGRICH ANTI-EDUCATION BUDGET
OF
1995
IN 1995, MAJORITY LEADER BOB DOLE TEAiVlED UP WITH NEWT GINGRICH TO FlGHl
FOR THE MOST EXTREME EDUCATION BUDGET IN HISTORY. The 1995 (FY96)
Dole/Gingrich budget would have CUI Education and Training by 531 billion over 7 years. ICBQ, Artltysu; Il
HR 2~9L 11/16/9$, FY96 BLldt« Rewlution COllftN:flU Agrument: fY91 Budget Report. Chart i·l}
2,5 Million Students Denied Direc. Student Loan 9pportuni'ie.. The Gingrich·Dole budge. woul,
have capped Direct lending at 10% of loan volume, denying Direct Loan opportUni.ies to 2.5 million
students in 1.350 colleges and universities. (Dole. V(lted -for H.R. 249t the. Rt:pubUean fiudgd. RecotKllWlcn Blll, 11117m)
Bob Dole Waoced To Cu« Sludent Loans Even More.. During consideration of the Republican Budget
Resolution, [he Senate passed an amendment to reduce the cut in student loans by $9.4 billion over 7 years
eliminating corporate taX breaks ~. but Bob Dole voted no. (CQ AIIUIIlX. 199~ (VQtC .231)1
•
Income-ContingcDI Loans EfTe<:liveiy Eliminated, The Dole~Gingrich budget effectively eliminated the
,ability of students to repay their loans as a share of their income. fDole voted fat HJt. 2491, the ~ Budpt
Rt«Jm:lhauon am, 1 !fl1i9$1
, 380,000 Students Denied Pell Grants. The Dole-Gingrich budget would have seriously underfunded
Pell gnmt program. denying Pel! grants to 380.000 deserving students in 1996 alone, compared to the
President's budget. (Howt·Pamo FY% LabotlHHS Appropriations fhlll
Bob Dole Voted AgaiDst 59 Billion Amendment to Prevent Pelt Grants From Being Underf1lnded. On
May 23. 1995. Dole voted to tabJe an amendment that would have restored $8.88 billion over. 7 years for Pe
Gtants in order to ensure that PeU Grants keep up with inflation,. {Dole Senllt V(ltc 1330. S.CJt 13,.5!Z$J951
• 100,000..200.000 Denied The Opportunity To Serve Their Communities While Eo","", Money
Toward College. [n [995. about 25.000 people participated in AmeriCorps. In 1996. nearly 25,000 '
participate in the program. The Dole·Gingrich budget would have eliminated AmeriCorps. denying
(based on conservative estimates) 100.000-20Q.000 youth the opportunity to serve their commwtities
while eaming money toward college over the next few years. iVnocd fY% VA/HUO ApptOP1. Bill 12111J9S1
ISO,OOO Children Denied Head Start. The Dole·Gingrich budget would have denied 150,OOO-I80.0(
children comprehensive Head Stan education. health. and social services in the year 2002. [The Sawt Bu
R~!IQn _ "'"ith Dole voted ror - !.Hamed a im::te in Hel4 Stan fu:ndmg. at 1m kYW. denying 150.000 (I~u.ies. in
Libo.rIHHS om COl Hcsd Stan In I. fundin« kvd IbI.t woliid deny I&D.OOO chi.ldml Hellll Stan ~ities in 2002. Seu:u:
HumAn Stl'Yiut, OctobeJ 25. 19951
.
200%,
The ~1Sst:tI
~ of Hnlth am.
1 Million Denied B••i< & Advan<ed Skilu AlSislance.. The Dole-GingriCh budget would have cut T
I by more than $1 billion -- I million students cut from the program in 1996. pio...' _ ............ fY%
Approps. Bill1
Goals 2000 Education Reforms [Jiminated ~- Cutting off 9,000 sclJools currently using Federal
Fuods to raise edutatiooal standards, 1I!ou.tc:-pwed FY96 L.a.bortHHS Appr;:;pt. BiIIl {Dele campaign Intcmet Web Site, 'II WI.
..'I
bad
Id~
....lIm I vou:d .,alnn
tI
in!ht Ser.Ui:. II
1$. WQNe ida I\Qw"
1161961
s.re And Drug Free Scho.l. Funding Sla.hed More Tho. In Half -. Service. Reduced For 23
Million Scbool Children. The Dole·Gingrich budget would have cut the Safe Illld Drug-Free School
program by more than 1/2 in i 996, from $466 million to $200 million. filastti on Houte.passcd F¥96 1..&bottHliS
Apptopl. Bill. DQiC wted
rot a jl% (II! in fY9S ReseiSlioo 6dl. PfC':'lhknt ClinlOll veu.\ed, Jum:
199~,1
, 4 Million ¥.urh Denied Summer Job. Opportunities. The RepobJiean budge' would have
eliminated the Swnmer Jobs program., denying about 600.000 young people work opportunities next
year and nearly 4 million over 7 years. iFY96 SenltiC Bud&« Resolution, May !99SJ
1'2..
�BOB DOLE FAILS EVEN THE
MOST BASIC EDUCATION LEADERS'HTTTT1IP TEST
.
,
A QUICK HISTORY LESSON FQR BOB DOLE: Nothing Bob
Dole says about education in a 35 minute campaign speech can erase
Senator Dole's 35 years of anti-education votes, including:
• 1996:
Voting to provide 855 billion less funding for education and
training than the President's balanced budget. lIT., 5".... """'"
Rtt<Ill,luonj
• 1995:
Voting for and leading the fight for the Dole-Gingrich budget
that cut education by 531 billion.
!fY96 BIXIgcllI.csol\ltion,
,oo(~rente ~ment. H.
Con, Rf~. r.7. FY:9% Budget ReCOflclli3lioo SilL! l/1619S1
• 1994:
Voting against Safe and Drug Free Schools, Head Start, Title I,
CharIer Schools. and Goals 2000 Higher Education Standards.
!Safc &Wi OnJ~ fw: Schooo: CQ Almanac.. 1994, {p_ 55·S; VOlt /l'l2!). Title I ana Charter Smool$: HR. 6, Q(;WOcJ
1994, S(~ ,ote "224), GoJals 1000: UR 1S04. CR., MlUT;h 26.. 1994. Vtttt: '36. Head Start: CQ Alma.c t994,
,.
Vmt:: 11'34. HRiW4. 2/5J't411
• 1993:
Voting against Ihe creation of Direct Student Loans and National
Service.
tDi",CI LCIIllrtl!!: CQ AlmanK Jl)ql (p4H1) CQ Vote IJI9(}, HR 2264:. passed 5~9. 6!Dr9).
National Suviu: CQ A!mM,c 199J. pg. 40J. CO VOlt: '231. HR 2010, p~ SII-4I, 813(9)11
• 1986:
Fighting 10 cui SI.5 billion from Pell Grants scbolarsbips and
cutting the maximum scholarship award for disadvantaged college
students from $2.400 to $2.300. ICQ ,_", ""(Yo< ''''.'1
• 1981:
Voting for Reagan's Pen Grant Cuts which set spending limits
below the operating cost of the program, ICQ Aim..." " " I,. ""I.
• 1979:
Voting against creation of the Department of Education.
IS.....
Vou:H070, S. ill). 4.'3017\11
• 1965:
Voting against creation of the first federal sludenl loans - I of
only 63 representatives to VOle against the creation of the Higher
Education Act which guaranteed federal student loans for
undergraduate college students. {CO Alman«, (96S {V\l1t '11169), IO!2S/6S,1
• 1964:
Voting against the creation of Head Start. leo Aim.,,,,. ''''I
1,
�.CHECK TIIEIR RECORDS ON SCHOOL CHOICE:
PRESIDEl\'T CLINTON HAS BEEN A LEADER IN PROMOTING
COMPETITION, ACCOUNTABILITY AND PARENTAL CHOICE
"1 challenge every stale to give ail parents the right 10 choose which public school llteir ciriJdren ~ill
allend: and 10 lei teachers form new schoois wirh (J charter fhey can keep only if they do a good job."
?residl:nt Bill Clinton. State of the Union Address. January 23. r996
l. AS GOVERNOR, BILL CLli\'TON PROPOSED AND WON PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE. .
Governor Bill Clinton proposed and si[!!!ed the lawln 1989 allowing parents to choose any public
school in any school district -- making Arkansas among the first states to have such a law.
II. AS PRESIDENT, BILL CLINTON HAS REPEATEDLY' ACTED TO PROMOTE CHARTER
SCHOOLS AND CHOICE -- BOB DOLE REPEATEDLY OPPOSED HIM:
1. PRESIDENT CLIl\'TON WON PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION TO HELP ESTABLISH
CHARTER SCHOOLS TO EXPAND PARENTAL CHOICE AND COMPEllnON. As pill
of his 1993 proposal to re.uthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. President
ClintOn proposed providing start-up funds for teachers. parents.. and others to stan charter schools
• innovative public scnools governed by teacherS. parents and oth"'" that operale free of many
distne, and state regulations but are held accountable for results through performance-based
contracts, In 1995, P~dent Clinton announccd grants to provide start-up funds for Charter
Schools in II states. including Minnesota. Michigan, California. Te:<as. and Mass,
.. BOil DOLE VOTED NO: Bob Dole voted against the Improving America's Schools Act tit
created the Charter SchOOl program. (CllqlmwnaL Rctonl IQlSfi4. Senate Vote 3211
2. PRESIDENT CLINTON YlADE CHARTER SCHOOLS A CLEAR OPTION FOR
SCHOOLS THAT DON'T PERFORM. The President's proposal to reform and reauthorize
Title I listed as a possible corrective action for low-perfannmg high-poveny schools receiving
Title i "making alternative governance arrangements such as the creation of a charter schooL II
~
BOll DOLE VOTED NO: Bob Dole VOted against the Improving America's Schools Act th
reformed Title L which helps improve 'reading and math skills. ;eR lOfSJ!j4, Sena VoID 121J
3. PRESIDENT CLINTON FOUGHT FOR AND SIGNED GOALS 2000 TO RAISE
ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND INCREASE ACCOUNTABlLlTY AND CHOICE. 48
states .• including all but twO Republican governors .- are using Goals 2000 to raise
achievement and choice. Goals 2000 funds can be used to suppan the development of charter
schools, and at least three states are aireariy doing so; Minnesota. Michigan. and l'.1assachusetts.
In Mic1tigan. 8 charter schoois were funded in 1995 with Goals 2000 funds,
_ BOB DOLE VOTED NO: Even as the Senate voted bipanisanly to pass it (63-22), Bob
Dole voted against Goais 2000: Educate America's Act. (Hit, 1804. 3126194j "rt w'as a bad idea
when I voted against it in the Senate. and it's still a worse idea now." (N- 'tork Tunes. 1151931
4, PRESIDENT CLINTON'S BALANCED BUDGET MORE THAN DOUBLES FUNDING
FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS to $40 !tUllinn in 1997, and increases funding over tho next 5
years t() fund stan-u!, COSts for up to 3.000 new charter schools. (or.m, FY9:1 Blldtet, ,J~l.it
DOLE RESIGNED AND REPUBLICANS VOTED NO: The Ho\lSe-passed FY97
Labor-HHS appropriations bill provides less than half the funding requested for charier schoo
=> BOB
I"
,
�6 QUESTIONS ON VOUCHERS
Q:
Wby Is tbe President opposed t. scbool vOllcbers?
A:
• 'The Presidentts goal is to give true choice to all parents to send their children to
good schools with high standards, competent and inspired teachers, opportunities for
technology literacy, The President feels the best way to do that is to support charter
schools, public school choice whilc supporting basic skills for disadvantaged students,
technology literacy, high performance tests for graduating from elementary school,
middle school and high school, and that we ought to provide choice and competition
among public schools that open their doors to all students.
• This plan wOllld hun the choice for millions of parents to go to quality schools by
draining the funda away from public schools that are needed to give all parents and
student. choice of. first rate education. The Dole-Gingrich budget proposed $31
billion in education and training cuts -- the most anti-education budget in history -
and now this private school injtjalive could drain another $10 bHlion away from
programs like Head Start, Pell Grants and Tide lover s.ix years.
I_ Want competition and choice among schools that open doors their to all students
not JUSt the ones they hand pick for any arbitrary reason.]
[. This is an unnecessarily divisive approach that allows schools to hand-pick winners
and losers, while the Church and State issues tend to lead to litigation that is long and
too oftcn divisive.
[e No accountability]
[. No evidence that it works. The UniverSity of Wisconsin-Madison has found no
evidence of higher academic achievement, while there is evidence of schools closing
and parents being stranded and the state being defrauded through the program,]
[Mucn will go to just subsidizing the 5.7 million who already go 10 private schools]
Follow up:
Q:
Why are private school vouchers are different from giving trajning vouchers
or Pell Grants to private sebools, the difference is tbat public school education in
this nation is nol optional and Is nol charged (or.
A:
College Is opllonal for students; all colleges charge tuition and all colleges can pick
and choose who the), want to accept or deny. In tbat environment, we decided as a
nation to help all students out regardless of whether they are going to publiC or private
schoois, Public elementary and secondary school is different, It is universal; it is
where our common values and sense of common citizenship is formed. Everyone is
accepted and no one has to pay. That is special and we should preserve the strength
of that system, When you have n Dole-Gingrich budget that cuts public education
and then calls for siphoning off $10 billion more in cuts to allow a few to pay less for
private schools, we weaken that system and weaken the ability of all students to
choose quality schools.
15"'
�Q:
A:
Is our position tbat scbool vouchers are unconstitutional?
a There is no clear cut answer there, but We know that it wises constitutional
questions and that it is guaranteed to lead to years of unnecessary litigation and
division.
Q:
The President talks about giving poor cbildren Ibe same choices in educallon as
the most well-off. They why is it okay for the President and Vice President to
send their daughters to elite pri••te scbool, but tben oppose Bob Dolo's elTort to
give millions of poor families the same choice?
A:
_ The President!s goal is to give aU Americans as much choice as possible to go to
the best schools possible. The question is what is the best way to do that. Yet, the fact
is that the President feels the best way to strengthen our economy and give every child
and every parent the choice to go a quality school is to strengthen the public schools
and not to siphon funds off public funds for private schools scholarships for a few -
especially when these schools bave no public accountability and do not open their
doors 10 all studenlS.
Q:
The President called Polly WIlliams. visionary .
A:
• The President was an early forerunner of schoof choice and competition. He wrote
Polly Williams because he wanted to offer encouragement to the exploration of tbe
few choice and competition ideas that existed at that time and he told her that he
would "have his staff analyze il." After seriously studying different choice options,
tben Governor Clinton came to the conclusions that the right way to promote parental
choice in education was through public school choice and charter schools - and not
private vouchers -- because he feared private school vouchers would siphon funds
aW'd'f from public schools and lead to unnecessary division at a time when he thought
Amc~ricans should be pulling together. He has been consistent in the position and has
acted as President to promote this view by praising public school choice efforts and
finding new funds for charter school in two separate bills GOALS 2000 and Improve
America Schools Act -- balh of which gave funds to Minnesot. and both of which
Dole voted again,r.
Q:
Has tbe Wisconsin proposal been successful?
A:
The study by the University of Wisconsin shows no academic difference between
those who are'in the program and those who are not. (Study by Professor John Witte,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Milwaukee JQurnal; February to, 1996).
Furthermore, ,as Oarence Page reported for the Chicago Tribune. "two of the
seventeen private Milwaukee schools participating in the voucher program have gone
out of business, leaving students stranded and patents scrambling to find another
�schooL Two more have been put on the critical list with severe financial troubles~"
Page also reports that 200 of 1476 students have dropped out and the director of one
school wrote $47,000 in bad checks. A state audit found that two schools have
exaggerated enrollments enough to overbill the state of Wisconsin by
$390,00Q.("Reality Check on School Vouchers," Chicago Tribune, March 13, 1996
~15
.
17
�RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS ON WHAT ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE TO
APPEAL TO PEROT CONSTITUENCY
•
President Clinton. has done more than any President to balance the budget:
Deficit cut in half $290B
10
.$117B (OMB) or $115-130 (CBO)
. 4 Consecuiive years of deficit reduction under Clinton -~ first President
to do so since 1840's '-- before Civil War
'
First President to offer CBO-certified balanced budget in 17 years.
Budget would be balanced today were it not for interest on debt created
during Reagan/Bush years,
•
President Clinton Reinvented Government -- leaner, cheaper, smarter.
1993 plan cut spending $255 billion -- one of largest cuts in history
Spending as share of GDP down from 23.3% to 21,7% after going up
under Bush
Spending as share of GDP lower than at any time during Reagan or
Bush,
Smallest government in 3 decades - cut by 230,000 workers
Closed 2.000 field offices, diminating 16,000 pages of unneeded
regulations, proposed terminating over 400 programs and projects.
•
Working for meaningful political reform
Signed law applying laws of land to Congress
Signed lobbying reform.
Called on Congress in State of Cnion to pass McCain-Feingold
campaign finance reform
Ii
�SOCIAL SECURITY Q&A
July 15, 1996
Q:
Did Ihe Presidenl open Ibe door yeslerday to supporting some experimental
••rslon of allowing. portion of So<inl'Securily 10 be privatized as I1rsl a
demonstration project?
.
A:
The President made clear three points:
1. Importance of Bipartisan Process in Least PollUcal Contexl Possible: The
President made clear that he supports a bipartisan independent process like existed in
1983 to consider the steps that needed to be taken to keep the Social Security system
strong. Unfortunately. the current Social Security Advisory Council seems to have
failed - it reportedly could not reach consensus on a bipartisan plan to enSure the
program's long-tenn solvency.
Z. Opposes Privatization or Anything Ihat Would Pnt Older Americans at Serious
Risk: The President also made clear that he opposes compiete privatization because it
would not be dependable enough for many older Americans and would put them "at
'
, serious risk."
3. Willing to Siudy Ideas -- But Will Not Support Implemenllng Ide.s tb.t
Change Social Seeurily -- Without Careful Siudy, Te,lIng aud Review: We do
want to clarify that the: President does not mean to propose experimenting with
privatizing a portion of Social Security system,
,
Q:
If you look at his statemenl It seems to imply Ihal he means tbat you don't want
sw~eping changes or complete privatization uDtii you have experimented with
some parllnl pri.atization that ean be studied or tesled. Are you saying thai be
did 1101 me.n Ibis or miss poke? .
, • The President is not making any proposals, "or does he support any proposals for
any type of privatization. What he was saying was that withjn the context of a
bipartiSan commission or proc~ like the one in 1983. even new ideas should only be
considered that are carefully tested before implemented, and that jf new ideas are to be
considered he would want careful study and even resting before we take any risks with
a program that has worked so well for the American people.
I~
�•
•
PRESJI)ENT CLINTON CUT THE DEFICIT MORE THAN IN HALF -
ON THE WAY TO BALANCING THE BUDGET
Julv 16, 1996
In today's Mid~Session Review. the Office of Management and Budget projects the deficit will drop to
$1 i7 billion this fiscal year. down from its projection of $146 billion JUS! four months ago W~ far less than
the $290 billion deficit when Clinton took ofiicc in January 1993.
PRESIDENT CLINTON lIAS MORE THAN KEPT HIS PROMISES
*
))cficit Cut More Than in Half, Both CBO ($115-$13Q billion) and OMB ($117 billion) now
project the deficit to be more than cut from the record $2~ billion when C!inton took office.
'*
10 MilUon New Jobs. President Clinton promised his economic strategy would create 8 miHion jobs
in 4 years w_ and it has now created 10 million jobs in 3 1/2 years.
*
Smallest Guvernment in Three Decades. President ClintOn promised to cut tOO,OOO unnecessary
positions from the bureaucracy ~- and he has already reduced the federal workforce by 230.000.
DEFICIT CUT MORE THAN 11'\ HALf
1992:
l~econJ
neficit. The deficit was $190 billion .- the highest dollar level in history.
Today: Deficit CUI 60%. Both CBO and OM8 agree that the deficit will be cut more (hao in half in 4
years. CBO projects the deficit witl be between $115 aod $13(} billlon this year and OMB now
projects it wit! be $117 hi Ilion. leno 1196. OMB 71961
*
Smallen Deficit tn Over 20 Years as a Share of the Economy, OMB projeCts the deficit will be
1.6% of Illc economy·· lower than £loy year since \974.
•
Smallest Deficit Than Any Major Economy In the World As A Share of GOP. In 1992. the U.S.
had a larger budget deficit as a share of the economy than Japan. Gennany, ~Ild France. Today, the u.~:
has the lowest deficit as a share of the economy or any major economy in the world. [or;co, 1Zf<;l's1
~
rrcsidcnt Clinton is the first President to cut the deficit 4 years in a row since the 1840s,
BALANCING THE BunGET
• Preside-nt Clinton Is the Firsf President in 17 Years To Submit a CBO-Ccrtified Balanced Budget.
• Republican Budgets Would Not Balance Without Prcsident Clinton1s 1993 Oeficit Reduction Plap,
Without the J 993 deficit reduction plan ~- which every Republican voted against •• Ihe GOP budget wOl.lJd
not even come close to reaching balance in 2002, Rather than repeal it. Republicans depend on it.
CUTTING SI'F,NlUNG
*
Government Srlending Is (lown. President's Clinton's 1993 plan cut spenriing by $255 billion ~~ one of
the largest cUtS in history. After spending as a share ofGDP increased from 22.1% to 23.3% under
President !lush, spending as a share of the economy has now declined from 23.3% to 21.7\1jfl of GOP and is
lower than tH anv time during tre previous two Administrations. [OMB, Fiscal Year 1997 Budget: Supplement
and Historical Tables.}
ClrITlNG THE SIZE OF GOVImNMENT
• Smallest \Vorkforce in J Oecades. After increasing from when Reagan took office to when Bush left
office. the federal workforce has been cut by 230.000 workers under President Clinton to the smallest
level in three decades. Closing over 2.000 unnecessary field offices. diminating 16.000 pages of
unneeded regulations. and proposed tenninating over 400 programs and projects,
�•
•
CLAIM ON NOT DESERVING CREDIT FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION
CIAIM:
President Clinton's policies are responsible for less than 40% of the deficit reduction
between fiscal 1993 and 1996.
TIlE FACTS:
I. Any way you slice i4 tbe President's 1993 Economic Plan and tbe resulting impact on Ibe
eronomy is mponsible for the overwhelming maioritl ot the deficit reduction,
The deficit bad quadrupled in tbe previous 12 years and was projected to be $455 billion in FY2000
and to $579 billion in FY2002. Now, thanks to the President's plan the deficit. has been cut in half and
come down four years in a row under on President for the first time since before the Civil War.
2. While RepUblicans are Petty, Ibe Most Respected Republican Experts Acknowledge President'.
impact. After driving quadrupling the deficit under their watch [the first major explosion of the deficit
between 1981-1986 when the RepUblicans controlled the Senate and Dole was Finance Chairman] and
saying they were going to blame the President if anything went wrong in the economy. it is rather petty and
pathetic fot them now 10 be arguing about credit now. If you look at what the experts say - even the most
rcspected experts say -- including Republicans -- nearly aU acknowledge that the President's deficit
reduction plan reduced the deficit. lowered interest rates, and spurred economic growth:
Volker. The Deficit has come down and I give the Ointon Administration and President Clinton
himself a lot of credit for that ... and I think we're seeing the benefits." Audacity, Fall, 1994]
Alan Greenspan: "The deficit reduction (from '1993J ...was an unquestioned factor in contributing to
the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter.'! (2flJY961
CBO, January 1994:" The dramatic improvcment tn the deficit since last January is largely the result of
the enactment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation act of 1993."
3.
Rcpublka., are being hypocritical: They were .....dy to give Ibe President's Pia. 100% of Ibe
blame for burtlng the economy and Increasing the deficl~ but are not willing to give it more than
40% of tbe credit for improving the economy and cutting the deficit* They cltlim the Strong
economy is a L'Oinddence!
• Representative Newt Gingrich: "T1ie tax increase will kill jobs aud lead to a recession, and the recession
will force ~',()plt off of WQ1'k and onto unemplcymcnt and will actually increase the deficit." (Atlanta
Journal-Constitution. 816/93J
• Senator Pete Domenici: "April Fool. America, This Clinton budget plan wiU not create jobs, will 1'101 grow
the economy, and ..,m not reduce the deficit." [Dallas Morning News, 4f2!93)
• Representatlvt John Kasich: "'".We're going to find out whether we have higher deficil.s, we're going
to
find out whether we haYe (J slower economy, we're going to find OJII whlit's going TO happen JO interest rates,
and it's our bet that this is a job kifler... [GOP Press Conference. 8/3193]
ff
We will compare our records on deficit reduction and the economy any day.
President Clinton:
• Prestdent Qlnton is the first President. to cut the deficit 4 years In a row since before the CIvil War.
• Smallest Dtficlt In Ovtr 20 Yea" as a Share of the Economy.
• SlDIlUest Doflcll or Any Major Economy 1. the World As A Share or GOP.
• Republican Budgets Would Not Balance Without President Clinton's 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan.
'11
�CLAIM ON DEMOCRATS DEMAGOGUING ON MEDICARE:
Q:
Is" 't tile President just demagoguing on IHedicare. Aren't lite differences really pretty
small flOW?
'
1.
Republicans nrc still insist on excessive .\iedicare
medicare tm",,'ard second class health care.
•
2.
CUtS
that would move
4.5<'10 larger cuts. The Repuplican budget reduces Medicare
spen~jng
by
$168 biilion •• $51 billion or 44% more than CBO scored the President's
balanced budget
They are still raising costs on beneficiaries -~ but now they do it indirectly
througb even larger cuts on healtb" care providers. Rather than raising costs on
beneficiaries directly they now do it indirectly tmough even deeper cuts in
payments to the hospitals and home health providers that serve beneficiaries,
jropardizing qua!ity"and access to health services.
•
•
3.
Extreme Cuts Threaten Viability of Many Hospitals. Their S168 billion
cut could mean hospitals get lower paymems tomorrow than today~..even in
nominal terms--and will result in cost-shifting, undermine quality, and
threaten the financial viability of many rural and urban hospitals.•
According to the American Hospital Association, nearly 700 hospitals
derive 67%. or more of net patient revenues from Medicare & Medicaid.
American Hospital Association and National Association of Cbildren's
, Hospitals are "graveiy coneerned about the level of reductions
proposed" by Republicans in Medicare and ~1edicaid. [May 10, 19% letter to
Chainr.(m Roth. Archer, and Slitey from ten hospita.l associations.!
I
More than doUat'S are at stake - their damaging structural cbanges would
force Medicar<' to "wither on the "sne. n The Republican budget still contains
l:he damaging structural changes that President Clinton vetoed last year. These
changes would segment the Medicare population. leaving the traditional program
with fewer dollars and sicker beneficiaries.
Medical Savings Accounts. Republicans have insisted on the immediate adoption
MSAs that appeal to the healthIest and wealthiest beneticiaries, leaving the sickest
and most costly beneficiaries in a weakened fee-for-service program. cao
projects that MSAs will increase iv1edicare costs by $4 billion over seven years.
Over~charging
in private plans. Republican proposals permit phYSicians to
~- through "balance billing" ~- in private Medicare
plans. increasing out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries and slowly draining the
tee~for-scrvjce system of both doctors and dollars.
charge bcndidaries extra
~
4.
Hard spending cap. Republicans impose a hard cap on Medicare spending"
If costs increase faster than projected. spending would no longer keep. up ..
leading to cutS exceeding $168 billion.
I)rcsident Clinton's budget shows that their deep CUtS and damaging strudurni
(:hunges are not necessary to balance the budget and guarantee. the liCe of the
Medi~a ...e Trust Fund for 10 years -~ jus. as long as the Republican proposal.
�..
-.i.
•
August 7, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
THROUGH:
LEON PANETTA
FROM:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
GENE SPERLING
SUBJECT:
Response to Dole's Economic Plan
Attached are some of the documents produced in response to Dole's announcement
of his economic plan.
I.
6 Key Points To Keep In Mind On Bob Dole's New Supply-Side Tax Cut.
This document was produced the day before Dole's announcement
(Sunday) and given to reporters by the re·election campaign before they
entered the pre.brief for Dole's plan (Monday morning.) The impact of this
document - and accompanying phone calls to reporters •• was significant:
reoorters were well informed of the tough questions to ask about the plan and
Dole's hypocrisy, before the plan was even offiCially announced.
10 Unanswered Questions on Dole's Plan. Since the announcement of his
plan on Monday, we have worked with reporters to highlight the overwhelming
lack of specifics and answers to key substantive questions, This has been
effective, as reporters are becoming more frustrated and skeptical with the
Dole campaign's inability to answer basic questions. Today the campargn is
offiCially giving out this document in San Diego at the Dole Campaign briefing
and to specific reporters here in Washington.
IV.
•
II.
III.
•
Summary of Press and Economists' Reaction to Dole's Plan. As you will
see from the attached summary and clips, Dole's plan received harsh
criticism from newspapers and renowned economists nationwide. More than
30 major newspapers printed negative editorials on the day following Dole's
announcement.
Impact of President Clinton's Tax Cuts For Education and Child.Rearing
on Typical Families. This document shows how millions of working families
will get a significant tax cut under your plan wi/hout ballooning the deficit.
While many taxpayers will certainly do better under their plan .~ if it were
implemented and if it did not raise interest rales which would evaporate the
tax cut benefits .- families with young children will do nearly as well under
your tax cut as the Dole tax cut, and families with children in college will on
the whole do better under your tax cut
�...
•
NEWSPAPERS NATIONWIDE HAVE DISMISSED
BOB DOLE'S TAX PLAN:
•
New York Times Editorial: "Since Congress could barely muster the courage to
cut mohair subsidies, it could take until 3002, not 2002, to meet Mr. Dole's
spt:nding targets. If somehow Mr. Dole managed to defy Congressional history and
get his cuts, he would do irreparable hann to the economy." [New Y"rk Timt', Hibl<Jl>l
•
NI!w York Times Editorial: "The Hail Mary Tax Plan.... There is still no
magical supply-side elixir. Mr. Dole is caught up in another supply side
fiction, that tax cuts will not open gaping holes in the budget .... Mr. Dole's
economic adviser, John Taylor of Stanford University, once wrote that
predicting that a tax cut would be a large stimulus to employment and output
'would be contrary to the evidence.' The evidence has not changed, but it looks
like Bob Dole has." [New Yorio:; Times. 8141961
•
Washing/on Post Editorial: "The tax cuts will likely add to the deficit,
thereby reducing the savings rate on which investment depends while forcing
interest rates higher than they otherwise would be. Far from generating greater
growth, these factors would combine to suppress it." [Wuhinglon POSI, Sf4/96],
•
Business Week: "Dole may offer huge tax cuts, but they could hurt long tertn
growth.... Indeed, the bulk of economic studies suggest that a tax cut such as
the one being discussed could send the deficit soaring and cut business
investment in the long run. Ultimately, the economy's growth rate would rail
rather than rise," [Business Week., 8112196]
•
Bos/on Globe Editorial: "For all Dole's claims about the innovative ness of his
proposal, analysts said that it relies on two tried-and-troubled ideas -- spending
cuts like those balked at by the public last year, and an economic payoff largely
missing from the nation's last experiment with substantial tax cuts under Ronald
Reagan. " [Boston Globe, 8/6196]
•
Bos/on Globe: " ... a wide array of analysts criticized the proposal as, at best,
of only modest economic significance and, at worst, a recipe for political
disaster." [Boston Glube, 8/6196)
•
Baltimore Sun Editorial: "Desperation is perhaps the kindest and gemlest
explanation for Bob Dole's late-life conversion from deficit hawk to voodoo
doctor. ... What is dubious about this whole business is that it rests on huge,
unspecified spending cuts, huge revenue growth that requires a leap of faith ...
the question of the future is whether he can or even wants to fulfill an utterly
irresponsible campaign promise." [Baltimore Sun, 816/961
�•
•
St, Louis Post-Dispalch Editorial: "Back To Voodoo Economics. Though
supply-side economics is a proven failure, Bob Dole wants to try it again."
!s,
l.oub Poo-DispalCh. 816196j
•
Sacramento Bee Editorial: "Deja Voodoo ... For Dole, this is not just an issue
of economics, it's also an issue of credibility. On both counts, it's a mistake."
ISau::rame.nf.O. Beto. R/tlr,l6J
•
Chicago Tribulle Editorial: "...without specifics on wh~t:e spending cuts will
come be made and with Washington facing increasing spending on entitlements
programs, tax cuts now would almost certainly lead to bigger deficits, not
smalJer ones." .. Frankly I we liked the old Bob Dole better. n {ChICAgo Tribune, 8161961
•
Chicago Tribulle: " ... few independent experts believe Dole's [planJ could
work," [ChiCllg<j Tnbunt, 8!M961
•
New York Daily News Editorial: "Who do voodoo now? Like a drowning man
reaching for something -- anything -- to keep himself afloat, Bob Dole has
repudiated 35 years of fiscal rectitude in favor of a crackpot economic plan.
R'eaching for a life preserver, he grabbed an anvil. An anvil called tax cuts ....
!t' sad this snake oil is being offered as the salvation of Dole's foundering
presidential bid .... [Higher interest] would choke off the best job-creating
eeonomy in a generation. one that has produced 10 million new jobs." INo;:w Y,)r~
D~ily
•
Ntw$., gr619()l
Chicago SUII-Times Editorial: "The $548 billion tax cut would be paid for,
mostly, by deeper cuts in spending -- never mind that Congress has been
unable to agree on trims already proposed. In true 1980s supply-side rhetoric,
the proposal would capitalize on presumed economic growth stimulated by a tax
cut. That's an unproven assumption." !Chicago Sun-Timn, 8/6/%\
•
Philadelphia Daily News Editorial: " ... Dole offered no hard choices yesterday.
Desen first, then spinach later -- the Reagan menu." (Phibdelpbi.. Oaily Ne"'~" 8!b1961
•
Detrou Free Press Editorial: "NO FREE LU:-'CHES; Dole's lax cut would be
economic irresponsibility ... Mr. Dole would arrest this progress [on fiscal
responsibility], and return to the debt accumulation of the Reagan years ... Mr.
Dole may want to offer a free lunch. and plenty of candy for desert, but voters
already recognize how unpalatable that menu is." tDelrl)iI Ft<M l'rm, tl/fl!%j
•
Philadelphia luquirer: "...skeptics questioned whether the numbers add up."
fPhihuldpni" In'lL,,,,, ?!16!'}<>j
•
�.,
•
•
Miami Herald Editorial: "Dramatic -- and risky .... There's pixie dust in his
proposals to cut taxes $548 billion and balance the budget by 2002.... Trailing
President Clinton by 20 points in come polls, Bob Dole yesterday reached back
15 years and embraced the supply-side shamans whose advice he wisely had
spumed earlier .... it's also dramatically risky." [Miami Her-aid, 8/61961
Nwsweek: "... like Reagan's, Dole's plan risks ballooning the deficit."
[New.~week.
8f12/96]
•
S"n Francisco Chronicle Editorial: "This plan raises a great risk of reversIng
hard-won battles against the deficit, which peaked at $290 billion a year in
1992.... there is no free lunch in a nation trillions of dollars in debt." [S~n
FI1I1x:isco Chronicle, 8161961
•
San Francisco Chronicle: "If Bob Dole's economic plan were a movie, most
reviewers would be giving it two thumbs down ... "
•
[San Francisco Chro~icle, 816196)
Bloomberg Business News: "Wall Street analysts and economists were skeptical
of Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole's economic package, saying {he
proposed tax cuts and projected growth rate could balloon the deficit and drive
up interest rates." [Bloomberg,815/96J
•
•
•
••
New York Post: "Most Wall Street insiders greeted the news of Bob Dolc's
tax-cut proposals with a great gaping yawn -- about as wide as President
Clinton's lead in voter polls .... Economists question Dole's math. "This is not a
realistic plan in that it fails to explain how we will pay for these tax cuts," says
Stephen Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley ... Investors expressed fear
that Dole's tax cut proposals -- if implemented -- could widen the federal
budget deficit after strong efforts made in recent years (0 get it under cOIHrol.
Bond investors in particular, are concerned that a growing federal deflcil would
boost interest rates, driving down bond prices." [New Yo~k POSL 8161961
Newsday Editorial: "Imprudent Politics. With his huge budget-unbalancing
laX
cut, Dole undennines his solid-citizen image .... an act of desperation that
grossly -- and rather crassly -- underestimates the public's ability to see through
dection year charades .... After a distinguished career as a prudent deficit
conscious lawmaker. the former Senate leader has diminished himself
immeasurably with the supply-side witchcraft he once mocked. Dole now has
his own credibility gap and his own char~cter issue .... " [Ncwsday.8/61961
Des Moines Register Editorial: "His 'Dramatic' economic plan is wanncd over
fantasy .... it was about as dramatic as reheated leftovers." [Des Moines Register, H/Il1'l61
�•
\
.0-
,
•
Des Moines Register. "Economists, Democrats, and even some conservatives
criticized the plan. " (Des Moines Registl:r. 8/6/96)
•
St. Petersburg Times Editorial: "Dole [has] unveiled a desperate tax·cut
gambit that represents the low point of his 1996. presidential campaign <at least
so far) ... Stop running away from your record .... It amounts to a recipe for
destroying the painful progress the president and Congress have made toward
reducing the deficit over the past three years .... it is the very sort of supply·
sid4! wishful thinking Dole has properly resisted in the past." [SI. Petersburg Time~.
8/6196J
•
Arizona Daily Star: "... a legion of skeptics questioned whether the math adds
up.... Nonetheless, a summary of the plan released to reporters was somewhat
thin on details. Spending reductions were vague, unlike line-by-line estimates
that House Republicans produce to back up their balanced-budget plans.
Significant financing for the tax cuts comes from projections of higher tax
revenue due to increased economic growth." (Arizona Daily Star, 8/6/96J
•
Minneapolis Star Tribune Editorial: "In the end then, Dole's.tax cuts
promoted as a means to reduce the deficit and cut interest rates, would almost
certainly mean just the opposite: larger deficits, higher interest rates, and a less
hopeful future for the families whose interests Dole professes to champion.... If
that's what Dole means by finishing the job Reagan started, perhaps he's be
better off starting one of his own - one with a higher quotient of economic
common sense." IMinnearolis Star Trihunc, 8/6/96]
•
Herald-Sun (Durham, NC) Headline: "Dole Unveils Economics Plan; Experts
Skeptical of Tax Cuts, Candidate's Promises of Growth" (llerald·Sun (Durham. NC).
8161961
•
•
••
Portland Press Herald: "So, with the national economy prospering and inflation
under control, why id Bob Dole, the presumptive Republican nominee for
president, proposing a major tax cut? The answer is politics .... a number of
economists, including conservative experts, don't believe it.. .. It is a reputation
for fiscal integrity that Dole earned the hard way. He should not abandon it
with ease." (Portland Press Herald. 817196)
Bergen (NJ) Record Editorial: "Bob Dole's Tax Cut; Americans Can't Afford
To Pay For the Deficit. Bob Dole's massive tax cut proposal may be good
politics, but it's cased on some very shaky economics ..... Higher interesl rates
would work against the very economic surge that Mr. Dole wants to set off.
they would also make it harder for businesses to expand and for people to
borrow money for new homes." {Bergen Recoru. Rltil96)
�•~
..
" l'
•
•
Charleston Gazelle Editorial: "The sad pan is that Dole knows belter. He
knows that it's crazy to plan on tax cut, generating additional revenue, yet his
plan says that 27 percent of the cost of the cuts would be "paid for" by this
phantom boost .... Dole's tax cut will make balancing the budget practically
impossible. Dole is betraying his own deficit hawk nature to espouse this tax
cut. In the past, he ridiculed supply-siders. who say that tax cuts boost
economic activity aod produce more revenue. Now he's joining them in a
desperate attempt to energize his sleepy campaign." !CharieStOnWctn!.8161%1
•
Lexington Herald-Leader Editorial: "Grasping for a gimmick. Candidate Dole
has shed his deficit hawk ways ... candidate Bob Dole has only a passing
acquaintance with the leader once known as Sen. Bob Dole." fLut."!glonHern.!rl-L:ll.de.,
gf61'>6]
•
Tennessean Editorial: "Dole deals campaign some familiar voodoo. Deficit
hawk converts to supply-sider ... Dole's pledge to cut everyone's income tax
rate by 15% is audacious enough in its own right since it would be a giant leap
backward on deficit reduction, BUI coming from a leader with a 35-year
reputation as a deficit bawk, the pledge also smacks of an election-year
conversion.... It's a shame to see him so desperate for votes that he'll abandon
•
his: own principles, n
•
•
ITennessean,816f%l
Cauner-Journal (Louisville, Ky): -Dole's economic proposal under scrutiny;
Some question the assumptions underlying plan .. "
{Coumr·)\,UITh!!, '3161%1
LAnsing State J(JUmal Editorial: "Mega-tax cuts will only drive up deficits.
There is a shrill note of desperation in Bob Dole's sweeping plan to cut
taxes.... Even spread over six years as Dole proposes, the $548 billion tax cut
will either stop the glide toward a balanced budget -- or put such a drag on it
that it will postpone the time when Washington spends only what it takes in ....
Many economists are skeptical of trick!e~down contrivances. Dole himself has
scoffed at supply~siders, Desperation, desperation. 1I (LtMmg St~te j"U:I1Jl, ,~161%1
•
�ECONOMISTS HAVE CRITICIZED BOB DOLE'S TAX PLAN:
•
THE CONCORD COALITION - Warren Rudman, Paul Tsongas. and
Pele Peterson: "Beware the 'rosy scenarios' and technical voodoo." IC,~,",
CGaUtion. Ntw Yeti:: Times Adv.crUstmellt.1I/4/961
•
Robert· Reischauer. former Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
"[It's] a tax cut that will blow an increasingly larger hole in our hudget as the
years go by," [Cl'lN.8ISI%]
•
Robert Reischauer: "It would appear that Senator Dole's economic advisers
have been feeding their calculators perfonnance enhancing drugs." (WUhl~mn Pj,):\!,
8f6J961
•
Benjamin Friedman, Harvard University Economist: "It sounds great if you
believe In the tooth fairy. [Los Ani.el«Ttrn«, 8/6/961
II
•
•
Ahm Auerbach, University of California at Berkeley Economist: "But Alan
Auerbach, a tax expert at the University of California at Berkeley, said he
doubted whether most middle income taxpayers would end up working harder
or investing more when offered a tax cut." IS.." FJ'lI.'"KJ!iCQ ChIollide. 8161%1
•
•
David Romer, University of California at Berkeley Economist: "My overall
reaction is it's irresponsible and insulting to the voters""" Promising tax cuts
with nothing concrete on the spending side is likely to make the deficit problem
worse and that's bad for economic growth." {~Il Fl1lnc~oChmnicle, I!fli/%j
Daniel Hammermesb, University of Texas Economist: "We're talking about
a very small response, far too small to make much of a difference in GDP""
This is worse than voodoo economics, This is d'hote economics." lB:usinm w«~.
Ef12t%l
•
Norman Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute: "It takes a problem that is
a c~ronic problem and moves it closer to a crisis," {MiM!:1Iipolis Su.r Tribune. 8161%)
•
Norman Ornstein: "It's a risk to his eredibility""" We're talking about
something that might make Arthur Laffer blush,"
•
William Schneider, American Enterprise Institute: "This destroys Bob
Dole's credibility on the deficit. ... It is a radical solution to which there is no
problem,"
•
•
fMinnel1pulis Star TriNflC, Slb!"fll
IChrbtiau Sr;:i~ncl!; !>illullor, 8,6:961
Sung Won Soho, Chief Economist at Norwest Bank: "My concern is that if
anything the short-term impact could be very negative.
If
JUSA roday, 1"5r%;
�"
.'
•
Martba Pbillips of tbe Concord Coalition: "This will not work, It will blow
a gigantic hole in the budget and it will set us back rather than lead us
forward." [ABC N~$. &141961
•
Allen Sinai, Global Economist at Lehman Brothers: "There's no way you
can say that this program is a plus for raising the long-run growth of the
economy." IWashingmn Post, 8161961
•
JO<'J Prnkken, Cbainnan of Macroeconomic Advisers: "Fanning this economy,
which grew this spring at an annual rate of 4.2 percent, with massive £ax cuts,
Prakken said, could qui,kly ignite inflation, forcing up interest rates enough to
throttle economic growth. not stimulate it." {S!. Louis Posl.Disj»fGti. H!&%l
•
Stepben Roacb, Chief Economist at Morgan Stanley: "This is not a realistic
plan. in that it fails to explain how we will pay for these £ax cuts"" [Dole] has
done nothing to address the effects this could have on deficits in corning years,"
IBhll.IDtbcts, 8;5;%]
.
•
•
Robert Dederick, Chief F..conomist at Northern Trust Bank: "Frankly, it
leaves me quite uncomfortable"" We have to be concerned about what this
could do to deficits and. as a result, interest rates." !IJloombJ!rg. B15!%1
•
Tom GaUagher, Lehman Brothers: "If this were a budget document. you'd be
pretty skeptical ... ~ (BkJumbecg, 8J~f96J
•
Diane Swonk. Economist at First Chicago: "(t's an election year offering, to
be financed 70 percent out of spending cuts that haven't been named yeL",
This is a tax cut that tends to bolster consumption. not investment. I' [ChiCQllO SUII
TImn, g!6!96J
•
Josepll Isenberg, University of ClIicago Tax Law Expert: "It's a lot of
supply-side dogma." IChiugo Sun·T:mes, B16f%1
•
Robert Reischauer: "(t would require very deep cuts in programs the
American public balked at cutting last year when the cuts \vere much smaller"
[Botron Globe. 816/96;
•
Mickey Levy, ClIief Economist al Chase Securities: "Too much of this
proposed reduction in spending is unconvincing, " {New Ymk Dally Ncw~. 816/96)
•
David Wyss. Chief Financial Economist of DRItMcGraw Hill: "You're
sacrificing long term growth for the short tcrnL" !B\!sint~ Week. Sfl2i')61
•
.
�,
,
•
•
Ron Miller, Columbia University Economist: "They're pulling this out of a
hat.. .. Of course it's possible on paper, but it's just not credible -- the money is
not there, We heard it in the late 1970s and again in the early 1980s -- that's
where our huge debt came from." [MSNBC, 8/4196]
•
Jack W. Germond and Jules Witcover: "But the question is where would the
money come from to pay for a reduction of $600 billion over six years .... The
answer appears to be blue smoke and mirrors." [National Journal, AugU$[ J. 1996)
•
Bill Barnbart of the Chicago Tribune: "The so-called supply-side assertion
that sharp cuts in income tax rates pay for themselves by stimulating economic
growth was so convincingly discredited in the 1980s that it's amazing anyone
would propose it now.... there is no evidence in a complex economy that a
generalized, large tax cut would produce the effects supply-siders claim to
want. It could easily produce excessive consumption, inflation and debilitating
increases in interest rates" [Chicago Tribune, 8/5196]
•
B),ron Wien, Chief Strategist at Morgan Stanley: "I'm not convinced, and I
think Dole is on the ropes and is coming up with a plan that is extreme, ... I
don't think it will add up, and I think it's inconsistent to have some features of
this plan and try to balance the budget by 2002 .... Do you think Bob Dole sat
down with spreadsheets and added this up? I don't., .. There isn't enough
spending cuts to get there without more dramatic ems." [Bloomberg, 8/5196]
•
William C. Dudley, Director of U.S. Research at Goldman Sachs: "I would
say that at this point the credibility of the plan is not very high .... To cut taxes
and balance the budget. until you actually specify the spending cuts. and do so
in detail, the credibility is lacking." {Bloomberg, 815196]
•
Kathy Jones, Director of Futures Research at Prudential Securities:
"[Market fears about Dole's plan would grow] if it looks like there's a ghOst of
a chance that he'll win or the Democrats respond with a similar package. ",
•
[Bloomberg, 815/96]
•
David Dunslow, University of Florida Senior Economist: "If this goes
through, long-term interest rates would go up, and it would probably prompl
the federal reserve to raise short-term rates ... We would have to pay higher
mortgage rates for houses, higher rates for cars, and credit-card rates might rise
a bit. [Sun-ScOIincl (FOil Lauderdale), 816/96J
II
•
•
J:omes Annable, Chief Economist at First Chicago:' "My real objection is lhat
we're getting the desert up front and setting aside the vegetables .... But if
you're going to cut taxes, cut spending first." [Herald-Sun (Durham, NO, 816/96)
�'
.,
•
•
•
Neil Harl, Iowa State University Economist: "We have been down this road
before .. , It's a road of immense danger."
{Des:MoincsReg;lmr,8J6!961
David Lawrence, Drake University Economist: It's not going to work. The
Republicans have got a big problem with the economy and that problem is [he
economy is 100 good." (Des "We have been down this road befors ... It's a
road of immense danger."
•
(
•
.
[Du Maint-S Regi$ter, 816/%)
�CLlNlO~ • GOR~ 'S.'
6 KEY POINTS TO KEEP IN MIND ON
BOB DOLE'S NEW SUPPLY-SIDE TAX CUT
1. Initial Reaction to Dole's Retreat from Deficit Reduction Has Been Hlgbly Unfavorable.
•
•
Martha Pbillips, the Concord Coalition. "This wHi not work. It will blow a gigantic hole in the
defil:it." (ABC Ntwi, 8141%1
Wan'cn Rudman, Paul Tsongas, and Pete Peterson: "Beware the 'rosy scenarios' and
technical voodoo." [Concord Coalition, New Yolk TImes Advertisement, 8J4I%]
•
2.
*'
Sung Won Sobn, Chief Economist at Norwest Baak. "My concern is that if anything the
term impact could be very negative." (UM TtJ<hy. Kf5I96J
sho~.
Dole's New Economic Plan Relies On More Supply-Side Growtb Assumptions than the
Reagan 1980 Campaign Tax Cut.
•
Wall Sireet Journal, 815/96: "[T]he need for boldness has forred Mr. Dole to adopt more
optimistic assumptions aboot the revenue-genern.ting impact of his policies than even Ronald
Reagan used in offering his own supply.side tax cuts during the 1980 campaign,"
•
Dole says: his pian assumes 27% of its revenues from increased growth. The fact is it is closer
to 40%. Either way, it is more than the Reagan 1980 campaign tax cut proposal which relied on
less than 2~1o of its revenues from increased economic growth (NeW$week 9!20!S1>, New York Tlnm
91121110, MArtin Anderson -RevohJdon: 1988]
3.
•
RepUblicans Have Previously Rejected Supply-Side Economic. and Just Last Year Shut
Down the Government Over Using Conservative Economics.
•
"
Rep. Bill Archer, 6/3/96: "We Republicans are committed to a balanced budget by 2002. It is
difficult to see how we could enact u massive tax cut that's being talked about for the Dole
campaign.... We're not going back to dynamic scoring. We Republicans: are committed to budget
analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. It jSacfOmtnl" Bu, Jllne 3, 19%)
Rep. Newt Gingrich, 11/15195: "We1re not open in any way to fudging the figures or getting to
I~shirlgtoo Post 11I1519S]
a phony number."
4.
Conservative Economists Have Dismissed Supply.Side Gimmickry.
•
Robert E. Hall and John B. Taylort Advisor to Bob Dole: "A prime selling point of the
supply~side policies put into place in 1981 WIlS precisely this incentive argument. But a cut in
income taxes also makes people better off, which depressed labor supply. The net effect of a
simple tax cut could therefore be quite small, . , ,A prediction of large stimulus to employment
and output from tax cuts would be contrary (0 the evidence," (M!croeOOnOlrtics! Theo!y, 1>erfOfl'!'l/lIlCll, fII'Id
Pnlicr, Second !;.diligll. 19-8.8, p.)7J)
5. B"b Dole Has Always Been Against Snpply.Side.....••. Untii Now.
•
SenntoT Dole: "I've been through the
supply~side
years. 1 never believed in that either." JRemat1l.s
10 the National Association of Business Economlsll, 3I13191l
6.
•
President Clinton Has Proposed Responsible Ta. Cuts Targeted At Education and
Cbild-Rearing and Fully·Pald For Within Balancing The Budget.
•
San Francisco Chronicle: "Hurray for College Tax CrediL.the government could hardly make
a better investment in the nation's future. ,.. And'the President deserve.s praise ~ not Dole's
knee~jerk political sneering. .- (ot s~Hing oul precisely how he would pay for the pilln without
incn'''l<dnli! the deficit" '''_
L. _ _ . . .\t,
..... \(
.....
'%1
�I~ARLY
REACTION TO THE BOB DOLE TAX PLAN
HAS BEEN LESS THAN FAVORABLE:
•
•
THE CONCORD COALITION _ Warren Rudman, Paul Tsongas, Bnd Pete Peterson:
IIBeware the Iros y scenarios' and technical voodoo." (CorWord CoaliliOft, New Volt runes Ad.~ement. 1f4i%)
• New York Times Editorial: "The Hail Mary Tax Plan ....There is still no magical supply-side
elixir. Mr. Dole is caught up in another supply side fiction, that tax cuts will not open gaping
holes in the budget.... Mr. Dole's economic adviser, John Taylor of Stanford University, once
wrote that predicting that a tax cut would be a large stimulus to employment and output
'would be contrary to the evidence.' The evidence has not changed, but it looks like Bob Dole
has." [New ymt: 11mes, 8/4J96]
•
Sung Won Sobn, Chief Economist at Norwest nank. "But 'My concern is that if anything
the short-term impact could be vet)' negative.' ...[Financial Markets] would be skeptical of
Dole's promise that spending cuts and better economic growth would offset lost tax revenue
and keep the deficit from growing.... Fearing thaI the government would soon be borrowing
heavily to cover it deficits, traders would demand higher returns for bond. The result:
higher interest rates and a weaker economy as home sales, business investment and other
activity slowed. And if the economy ran into such trouble, that eouJd mean Dole's long-term
objective of balancing the budget would never be achieved, economists warn. One or two
years of slower~than~expected economic growth} or a recession, could push deficits up
sharply and put Dole years behind in balancing the budget."
[USA ....",.
"""'I
•
•
Martha Phillips of the Concord Coalition: "This will not work. It will blow a gigantic hole
in the budget and it will set us back rather than lead us forward." [ABC N,~. 8141961
•
Busilless Week: "Dole may offer huge tax cuts, but they could hurt long term
groWlh... .Indced, the bulk of economic studies suggest that a tax cut such as the one being
discussed could send the deficit soaring and cut business investment in the long ruo.
Ultimately, the economy's growth rate would fall rather than rise," IBusines:s Week, U12I96}
•
Ron Miller, Columbia University Economist: "They're pulling this out of a hal. ... Of
course it's possible on paper, but it's just not credible ,- the money is not there. We heard it
in the late 1970s and again in the early 1980s •• that's where our huge debt came from."
[M5NBC. :814196)
•
Daniel Harnmermesh, University of Texas Economist: U\Ve're talking about a very small
response, far too small to make much of a difference in GOP .... This is worse than voodoo
economics. 'l11is,is doodoo economics. I! [Business Wuk, 1!!!21'96]
,
•
David Wyss, Chief Financial Economist of DRIlMcGraw Hill: "You're sacrificing long
tenn growth for the short term, II [OIl51rn:~s W<:d::, YI2N61
•
Jack W. Germond and Jules Wit.over: "But the question is where would the money come
from to pay for a reduction of $600 billion over six years .... The answer appears to be blue
·
smake and nurrors. " fNlltinnal Journal, Augl.l$l ), I9%J
•
�"
B'oB DOLE'S PLAN RELIES ON MORE SUPPLY-SIDE ASSUMPTIONS
THAN REAGAN'S SUPPLY-SIDE TAX PLAN
•
REPUllLICANS ARE NOT BEING STRAIGHTFORWARD WHEN THEY SAY THAT BOB DOLE'S
ECONOMIC PLAN USES ONLY LIMITED SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS. Bob Dole's economic plan
claims to rely on feedback estimates of 21 percent The fact ls, their feedback estimate is approximately 40
percent. Either way, Dole assumes a larger feedback than Ronald Reagan's economic plan in 1980 that
assumed less than 20 percent of his tax cut would be paid for by increased economic growth.
• Bob Dole';; Economic Plan Assumes That Increased ECQnomic Growth Would Pay For 27 Perc:cnt
or His PhlU'S Total Prioo Tag. Bob Dole is proposing a tax cut that he says will cost $548 billion over
the next six years. His plan projects that increased economic growth will pay for $147 billion ~~ or about
27 percent -- of the cost of the plan .
Ronald Reagants Economic PJan Assumed That Increased EcoDomic Growth Would Pay For Less
Than 20 Percent OfHis Plan '6, Total Price Tag:
.,
.. Wall Street Joumof. 8JSI96: 'TT]be need for boldness has forced Mr. Dole to adopt more optimistic
assumptions about the revenue-generating impact of his poHcies. than even Ronald Reagan used in
offering his O\\'{l supply~side tax. cuts during the 1980 campaign. Mr. Reagan's assumption then,
subsequently disdained by Mr. Dole himself throughout the 19805. was that economic growth resulting
from ~£ross~the·board tax: cuts would generate' nearly one~fifth of the revenue needed to cover their
costs. The fonner Kansas senator's plan assumes that an ninc'ome-growth effect," both from tax
reductions and his other domestic proposals. would cover at least one-fourth the cost of the tax cuts,"
..
..
•
As Newsweek reported .on September 22, 1980. tbe Reagan Economic Plan assumed that just
13.7 percent of its tax cut would pay for itself: "By last week, Reagan and his aides were
t;onceding that the $53 J billion in tax cuts tbey were proposing over the next five years would
stimulate only enough grov-th to produce $73 billion in new taX revenue," [Saur1:e: Newsweek, 9122180J
A Senate Budget Committee table from August 27, 1980 - printed in Martin Anderson's'
Revoilition - sbows tbat Reagan was assuming tbat just 17 percent of his tax cut would pay for
itself. The table shows that the Reagan Economic plan proposed tax cuts of S531 bHlion over five
years and assumed increased economic growth would pay for just $92 billion of the tax cut ~~ or 17
percent. [Source: Martin AfI&rwu, &",,{ulwlY, p_ 135.}
• Tbe Feedback Estimate in Bob Dole~s Economic Plan -Is About 40 Perecut For Two Reasons. The
first reason is that in addition to the $147 billion, Dole's plan assumes that revenue changes are about $25
billion higher than currently projected, That means that in sum, Dole's supply-side assumption is
approximatdy $170 billion, The second reason is that the tax cuts that Republicans claim are "growth"
tax cuts cost between $420 billion to $450 billion. (For example, the GOP don't claim that' the child tax
credit increases economic growth.) Therefore. Dole's plan assumes a feedback of about $170 billion -- or
approximately 40 percent.
EVEN THE: CHIEF ARCHITECT OF DOLE'S ECONOMIC PLAN HAS STATED THAT TAX
CUTS WILL NOT BE A LARGE STIMULUS TO THE ECONOMY
•
•
John Taylort Chief Architect of Dole's Economic Plan and Professor of Economics At
Stanford Univcl'$ity (with Robert Hall): "(O]ne might expect that a cut in income taxes would
stimulate work by improving incentives. A prime selling point of the supply-side policies put into
pJa1:c in 198 I was precisely this incentive argument. But a cut in income taxes also makes peopJe
better off, which depressed labor supply. The net effect of a simple tax cut could therefore be quite
small.... A prediction of farge slimulw to employment and output from fax culS would be contrary
to the evidence." jSource: MlIcfQl:SOOjm\h;:s: TheO!)', I'm'tmnanee. lind Polk"", 1*88. ~ )-1.)1
�.
.
;,;WHAT REPUBLICANS USED TO SAY ABOUT SUPPLY·SIDE TAX CUTS,
GIMMICKS, AND ROSY SCENARIOS BEFORE THEY GOT DESPERATE:
•
CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS REJECTED SUPPLY-SIDE
•
Rep, Bill Arcber, 6/3196: "We Republicans are committed to a balanced budget
by 2002. It is difficult to see how we could enacl a massive tax cut that's being
talked about for the Dole campaign .... We·re not going back to dynamic scoring.
We Republicans are committed to budget analysis by the Congressional Budget
1:','"
II
0 tHee.
•
(5:acramenJO Bell, lune
Rep* John Kasich, 10/19/95: "We didn't use dynamic scoring, we didn't use
smoke and rnirrors.11
•
•
•
1. 1996J
[National
Pn:u Club Debate
with Alice Rivlitl, OctolH:r
10. 1'9%1
Seu. Pete Domenici, 11116/94: "... we never tried the dynamic system. but we
understand there are very major flaws in it." [MacN<:illLehttt NewsHout. 1ll16J94j
. Sen, Spencer Abrabam, 12121195: "Too often in the past, we relied on rosy
economic projections to make it appear as if we were taking action. whether it was
in deficit reduction or in any other area of Federal Government activity, only to
see those rosy scenarios uruealized. For that reason. it is in our interest to have a
budget office that scores our legislation on a conservative basis." [Congressional Reoord.
Dtumber 21, 1995, p. 5(90)0]
•
LAST YEAR, REPUBLICANS SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT
OVER THEIR INSISTENCE OF USING CONSERVATIVE ECONOMICS:
•
•
Rep; N(.''Wt Gingrich, 11120195: "What will not happen under any circwnstance is a
political deal where we make up a phony number for Washington political purposes to
buy off the pressure so we can claim victory." {St, Lou!' Post·Dispal<;/!. NO'IOO1bef 20, 1995}
Rep. Newt Gingrieh, 11115195: "We're not open in any way to fudging the figures or
getting to a phony number."
•
f~ Post,
l1n5J9S1
Rep. John Kasieh, 6/18195: "[W]e're not going to use rosy scenarios, We're not
going to cook the books, and we're not going to get there on a hope and a prayer!'
{NBC Meet the P:e$$. June 18, 19951
•
Rep. Dick Armey, 11123195: "We have no need for smoke and mirrors., we have no
use for econo~magicians, and we don't date Rosy Scenario." tDaJ1a$ Morning News, N~
23, 199[,1
•
Sen. ])ete Domenici, 11/14195: "(All) we ask is that the president commit to a
seven~year balanced budget using real economics. n IKulcil & Dtxneniei preu oonf~f('nce, Ftrkral
Nel+'! SefVict',
•
Ntwtmher 14, 1995.1
Rep, Bill Archer, 11/19195: "We"", making the toughest choices, based on the
toughC'st forecast That's what the American people want. They don't want a rosy
scenario and then wake up seven years from now and we don~t have a balanced
4It .......b.u.d.ge.t•.. .In... . . .a.m<.'.w.'.W.~.N.~.'~.'.I••.•'w' I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
" . ~
.
..
�WHAT CONSERVATIVE ECONOMISTS SAY ABOUT SUPPLY-SIDE TAX CUTS,
'\
GIMMICKS, AND OVERLY OPTIMISTIC GROWTII ASSUMPTIONS
e·
Robert E. Han and Jobn B. Taylor, Senior Advisor t. Bob Dole: "(O)ne might cxpect that a
cut in income taxes would stimulate work by improving incentives. A prime selling, point of
the supply-side policies put into place in 1981 was precisely this incentive argument, But a cut
in income taxes also makes people better off, whieb depressed labor supply, The net effect of
a simple tax cut CQuid therefore be quite small. . , .A prediction of large stimulus to
employment and output from tax cuts would be contrary to the evidence."
Cttf91J!1!l!l9i. and Poli¢y.
St200d
Ed1!jpn,
(M6CI'O<:COTl9mic" D!<wy.
1988, pj7J)
•
Paul Voleker, former Federal Reserve Chairman, 1/10/95: "If Congress switches to
dynamic scoring, I won't believe any of the numbers anymore" [Oral testimony before a joint
hearing (If the House and Senate Budget Committees, January to. 1995. p. 1261
•
Paul Valeker, 1110195: "There can be no doubt, however, of the skeptical judgment that the
market as a whole will make about dynamic revenue estimates resting on weak and highly
controversial assumptions about the effects of tax reduction on productivity growth or the level
of economic activity a
January to, t995. p. 78]
•
•
•
few years ahead." (Testimony before the House and Senate Budget Committees,
Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Chairman, 1110/95: "Should financial markets Jose
confidence in the integrity of our budget scoring procedures, the rise in inflation premiums and
interest rates could more than offset any s.tatistical difference between so-called static and more
dynamic scoring." ~Testimon)' before hearing of the House and Senate Budget Committees. January 10, 1995J
Business Week Editorial, 12/12194: "Jt [dynamic scoring] may be the most dangerous thing to
hit Washington since politicians dIscovered how to print money." {Business Week, December 12,
1994, p. 126]
Robert Rcischauer, Former Diredor of the Congressional Budget Office, 1/15/95: "It
[dynamic scoring] could be used as: a ticket to lie and cheat and exaggerate." ICblcf<gq TribufW,
1115,
95]
•
Martin Feldstein ProfeSS{)r of Economics at Harvard University and former Chair of the
Council of Economic Advisors under Ronald Reagan: "The experience since 1981 has not
been kind to the claims o~ the new supply~side extremists that an across~the-board reduction in
tax rat€;s would spur unprecedented growth. reduce inflation painlessly, increase tax revenue,
and stimulate a spectacular rise in personal saving, Each of those predictions has proven to be
VIrong,"
•
(Am«kan Economic Review,
t.tay
19&6, fl. 19)
HcrbcI1 Stein, American Enterprise Institute and former Chair of the Council of
Economic Advisers under Richard Nixon: "We had one Ronald Reagan; I'm not sure the
country can afford another one.... [Supply-side economics] is just a fringe movement. AU the
evidence is against them, , .. It appeals partly because people wanl to believe it and partly
because they don't care jf it isn't true. They don't care about deficits."
(The Washffigwn
~ Marth 11.
1996)
•
e
William A.. Niskanen, Cbairman of the Cato Institute and former member of the Council of
Economic Advisers under Ronald Reagan: "Supply-siders ".should consider why the reduction
in tax fates has not (yet) increased economic growth.... What is left of supply-side economics?
... the experience since the tax law of 198L.refuted the irresponsible conjectures of some sllpply
side' polemicists that a general reduction in tax rates would substantially increase economic growtll
and might increase tax revenues, (Reof,lY'omfcs: An Insider's Account of~ PQ{ifies ftfId tJK, f'eop!(':, 1988. l',;US. )26)
�W.~T
..
BOB DOLE USED TO SAY ABOUT SUPPLY-SIDE GIMMICKS:
w.,hinglpn pm
•
Senator Dole: "I never really ooderstood all that supply-side business."
•
Senator Dole: "I've been Wough the supply-side years. I never believed in that either."
to the NatfOruil A$&ociation of BLlSineU
•
E~.
_I
iR""""
31131911
Senator ])ole: "What I could never understand is why, if you just cut taxes, you'd have this
big. big revenue increase. You know, more jobs, mOre opportunity. And you didn't have to make
hard cboi_ about spending. That was the philosophy back in the Eighties, particularly with
Newt and the House Republicans:, Don~t make any painful decisions. Just cut taxes. In the
we
to be fine.' Well.. .!! wasn>t." I
,...... _ _..
....,;1_
BOB DOLE ON CNN',. LARRY KING LIVE. 11/4/92
supply~side
Caner:
[H]ave you changed your views on
Sen. D.l.:
J never was in that camp, if you go hack and look at the record.
economics?
used to tell the story that somebody lold me - a good-news-bad
nev~'s joke. The good news is that a busload of supply~siders went
over the cliff, The bod news was tbot there were Wee empty
seats. So, you know".
•
King: [laughs]. You were never. supply-sider.
Sen. Dole:
I'm a traditional Republican who believes that you 9ught to
restrain spending jf you're gomg to cut taxes. I dontt think you
can just cut taxes alone and get gain witbout pain •.•.
King:
Sen. Dole:
..
And you bove long argued",.
That's been my ... you know, my firmly-held belief.
Senator Dole:
Supply~side
economics was "something fve never understood;1 and 'Iit's had
a fair chance to work," and it failed. Dole concluded. "My view is that there isn't an easy
way."
JVIIa:;hingl.9fl Post, 11/9/87)
to years now for growth to get us out of the deficit." (Reulef$,
•
Senator nole; "I waited
..
Senator Bole: "l 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."
1011619iJ]
[CQrumoos O:spal9/:'!, 4116193]
•
,
Sen. Bob Dole, 10/1193: "We have to talk as honestly as we can to the American peopJe ~¥
no rosy ~narios. no smoke and mirrors. no juggling the books:' I./:M-f Meine.> ~g!.>ter. OctOOtr I, 1993]
�"
PRESIDENT CLINTON HAS RESPONSIDLE, TARGETED TAX CUTS FOR
EQUCATION AND CIIII.D-REARING - PAID FOR iN HIS BALANCED BUDGET
salt Frandsco Chronicle:
"Hurray for College Tax Credit".the government could hardly
make a better investment in the nation's future ....And the President deserves praise ~~ not
Dole's knee-jerk political sneering - for spelling out precisely how he would pny for the plan
without increasing the deficit.1! ISM ~ Clvoolcl!:", 615196]
,
•
TARGETED TAX CUTS FOR EDUCATION, SAVINGS, AND CHILD-REARING -. WHILE
BALANCING TIlE BUDGET. These responsible tax reforms encourage investment in education and not
just physical capital, & they are fully paid for with spending cuts and c1o,ing corporate tax loopholes in a
budget certified by CBO to reach balance by 2002, CBO: "The President's budget proposes policies that
CBO estimates would balance 'the budget by 2002." fTtslimony cfCBO Dlrmur June- O'Nelll, April 17. 1996J
•
$1,500 HOPE Scholarship Tax CuI For College Tuilion, $1,500 refundable tax credit for tuition in
the first year of college and for the second year if the student earns at least a B average in the fU'S!
year, This $1,500 tax credit will make the .verage-priccd community college free and provide a
". downpayment for more expensive scbools for families with incomes up to $100.000.
•
$10,000 Tuition Tax Deduction for Education and Training at Any Age. Families with incomes up
to $100,000 could deduct up to $10,000 in tuition, providing a tax cut of up to $2,800 per family, This
deduction could be taken for education and training at any time in order to encourage life-long learning.
•
$500 Child Tax Credit for Children Under 13. Phased in $500 per child tax credit for families
with incomes up to $75,OOO~ providing tax relief to 19 million families with 37 million children,
•
•
Expanded IRAs for Education1 Retirement, First-time Homeowncrship. Double the income
limits for IRAs to make 20 million more families eligible for tax-deductible IRA contributions, and
allow penalty-free IRA. withdrawals for education, first home purchases. and major medical expenses
as well as retirement.
Family Earning $40,000 Wltb Two CbUdren!
2 and 8
T.."" Cut SI,OOO ($500 per child
tax credit)
Ta... Cut $2,000 ($500 child tax credit and $1.500
HOPE
I
Family Earning MO.OOO With Two Children:
6 and 21
seniol'" - S5000
Taxes Cut S1,250 ($500 child tax credit and Tuition
Tax
'
Millions Of Families Have Already Saved Between $1,000 • $2,000 A Year
In Lower Mortgage Rates, Due In Large Part To President Clintonts Deficit Reduction Plan
Money Maga"!.;"e: "Following the President's early drive to lower the deficit. the Federal Reserve Board cut
short-term rates while bond traders drove down long~term rutes... .!" aU, the rate rollback allowed some 10
million homeowners to save as much as $25 billion by refinancing their loans, according to David Lereah, the
chief economist at the Mortgage Bankers Association," {J.fam:y. August 1996}
t:
cw York Times: "The low interc.;;t rates not only generated a boom in business investment bu't put more
money in the pockets of ordinary Americans, In 1993 atone, six million homeowners, most of them solidJy
middle class. refinanced theiT mortgages· because of the lower rates.".On a standard 30-year fixed~rnte
m('rtl!a~e of $100.000. for example, the monthly saving was $139 II month, or $1.668 II year. [NIT, 8131%)
�CAN BOB DOLE REALLY CLAIM TO BE:
"ONE OF THE COUNTRY'S GREATEST TAX CUTTERs" ?17
..
.:
THE NEW DOLE FOR PRESIDENT WEB PAGE SAYS "BOB DOLE IS Ol'>'E OF TIlE
COUNTRY'S GREATEST TAX CUTTERS", BUT MEMBERS OF IDS mVN PARTY
SAY THAT TInS ISN'T TRUE AND DOLE'S 35-YEAR RECORD AS A TAX HIKER
SHOWS HrM TO BE ANYTHING BUT A BIG TAX CUTTER:
'"
Jack Kemp, 2111/88: "Bob Dole never met a tax he didn't hike. II
•
Newt Gingrich, 11/19/84: Bob Dole is tithe tax collector for the welfare state,"
[St, l'f:/ushurg TII1M'I, 2/111&8]
(WwhIIlRl(m Pwt.
111191841
•
Steve Forbe., 11117195: "The majority leader, for example, the Majority Leader has voted
for 16 tax increases in the last 14 years -- almost a trillion dollars worth. SI5,OOO... $15,000
per family and that is the problem. It [CNN, 11/17.19SJ
'"
Steve Forbes, 2129196: n ••• Senator Dole has voted for 16 tax increases totaling almost one
trillion dollars.... Raising taxes on Social Security -- some loophole closing. Raising taxes
on incomes of working Americans *~ some loophole closings... You voted for tax increases
across the board.. , 'When no one's looking. you vote for tax increases." [CNN, 1I2.9i%)
•
Lamar Alcxllndert 2129196: "Senator Dole ... while I
keeping taxes Jow, you raised
taxes. Why don't you say that, if you want to talk about records?lI [CNN,2/29196}
,
..
Bob Dole, 1/29/83: jilt's not much filll to finally become chainnan .of the Finance Committee
and find yourself constantly raising taxes. tl {NBC Nightly New$., 11291a31
was
". •
BOB DOLE CAN'T RUN AWAY FROM A 35 YEAR RECOIID OF RAISING TAXES
•
•
Dole voted to triplc the gas tax in tbe 1980s, raising it by over 10 ccnts. Dole was
such a strong supporter of raising the gas tax that on December 23. 1982. he wrote his
colleagues in the Sen·ate and said that "\VhUe an increase of 125 percent in the fuels tax
may appear to be oneroust it shOUld be noted that this will only amount to a 4-percent
increase in gasoline prices.,,"
•
•
Dole authored the largest (ax increase in history in 1982. According to the New York
Times (1113195): "It is not true that the $240 million tax increase approved by Congress
in 1993 at Mr. Clinton's behest is the largest tax increase in American history. When
adjusted for inflation ~- the only way to make comparisons of dollar amounts from
different years -~ a tax increase engineered by Mr. Dole in 1982, when he was the
Chainnan of the Senate Finance Committeel was larger."
Dole has voted to raise social security payroll taxes (or tbree decades. Dole's votes
led to increases in social security payroll taXes in nine different years: 1969, 1971. 1973,
1978, 1984, 1986. 1988, and 1990. And Bob Dole has also voted numerous times to
increase the Social Security wage base.
•
Dole !:Ilso voted to increase taxes and fees on Medicare, He voted for a to-percent
suI1a:x on corporate and personal incomes. And in the midst o( the worst recession
since the Great Depression, he voted to retroactively raise income taxes on families
receiving unemployment benefits.
�,
'.
•
1.
Top 0 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
1
WITH BOB DOLE'S ECONOMIC PLAN
The Republican Budget - Supported By Bob Dole - Included A Child Tax
Credit That Cost $122 Billion Over Six Years. Who [s Dole Going To Deny
The Tax Credit To Since The One He Proposed Costs Only $75 Billion?
THE FAmi
'-",<
•
Bob Dole's Fact Sheet. Restoring the American Dream, states that his plan contains a child tax emill
that costs $75 billion over six years. The Dole plan says that"A $500 credit for every child 18 years
of age and younger will be provided to low- and middle-income families ..," ISo=; Bob Drut for P~sidem..
FJCt Sheet; Rr.ftQrIIrg fM A-:rn:an DN'dm, Aug\l$t 5, 1996]
•
However~
the $500 child tax credit for every child t8 years of age and younger in the Republican
budget costs $122 billion over six years. ,s~; Joint Tax Committee. t 1116195. analy!is of Rerom:ililltion Bill !HR 24<#1)
Cmuniure R-:P<,'!rt on the FY97 Dud8(t 1k50lution, 61961
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, The Dole Campaign Says That This Is Because of An
Inter-action Effect With The 15% Tax Cut. How Can The Interaction Explain The
$47 Billion Drop In Cost When The Largest The Interaction Effect Could Be Is
15% -- Or $18 Billion?
•
*'
The Dole campaign claims that the interaction between the child tax. credit and 15% taX cut explains
the drop in the cost of the credit. But this can Dot be the only explanation; the most this can n:dl.lCc
tne cost of the credit is 1S percent -- or $1& billion -- which is far less than the $41 hiHion Bob Dole
asserts.
..
for example. suppose a family of four had a t~ bill of $1.000. With only the child tax. credit {hey
would get a tax break of S! ,000. Since the credit is "nonrefundable", with both tax cuts. the fam ill'
would get the 15 percent tJX cut $1 SO ~~ and then the child tax credit of $850, In [his •• 1he most
()xu-eme possible case -- the interaction reduces the cost of the credit by 15 percent
u
2.
Why Does His IS-Percenl Across-The-Board Tax Cui Cost Only $406 Billion
Over Six Years? Even The Most Conservative Estimates or His Proposal
Would PUI The Cost At At Least $450 Billion.
THE FACISj
•
•
Rep. Bill Arcner. Chalrmnn of the Ways and Means. Committee. "puts the cest of a 15% cut at $90
billion a year." [Source: USA Toduy, 613/':161
•
Bob Dole's Fact Shect. Rescoring the Amer£can Dream. says that this 15 percent tax CUI will be phns
in over three years in three equal steps, Taking the most conservative approach. this proposal would
should seem to cost ot leas.t $450 billion" If we take Rep, Archer's estimate of $90 billion per : ,,(1f,
then. Dole's across-!he~board lax: cuI should COSt $30 billion in 1997; it should cost 560 bil!iVll HI
1998: and it should COSt $90 billion per year from 1999·2002. If. instead. we (ook accoun! of the fa.
that the economy grows over time. the revenue loss should be :)1 !east S500 billion. ISuurce; 11«0 UJle 1<11
Prtsidetl1.. Faci SlItcL ReJlrm".~ ,/it Amll'wc'l O,'~. Augull S, 191)6'
�•
Does Bob Dole Really Expect Us to Believe He Can Cut Another 5150;$180
Billion on Top of the 5298 Billion in Discretionary Cuts Already in the
Republican Budget? Will Bob Dole Really Cut Non-Defense Discretionary
Spending By 40 Percent In Real Terms'r Would Cutting The Number of FBI
Agents or Air Safety Inspectors Be "On The Table"?
\
•
The current Republican budget already contains $298 billion in discretionary cUts, measured from
CSO's April Capped Baseline, Dole now proposes another $150-S180 billion in non-defense
discretionary cuts in addition to those in the budget. {Soun;es; FY91 Budg(t !U:soh.ruor. Confen:1\CC Agfttmmt atId
CBO'$ ~lromlC crui Bud~1 Ol.ll/txlk. May !9906. SHO·SI!\) billioll .. S211 m\liQII in cuts ~ $34 bi!lifID spc~U'\Im - \lit 10
(tltillem=n! salfl1"lgs from 1% lClt\sNlu:-bot11l tuLJ
•
no billIon in
The $lS0~$I80 billion in cuts Dole proposes - coupled with the current $298 billion in cuts-- require
about a 40 percent real c~t in non-defense discretionary spending in 2002 compared to 1995 levels.
For comparison, Republicans are already having difficulty making the 4 percent rea! cut in this year's
budget.
Senator Pele Oomen1ci said of me discretionary cuts Republicans currently propose for
this year: "We are shortchanging investmems.".This can't continue. We've got 10 find
some way to increase appropriations," ISo~:WC.fhl"gl¢4 PM!. July 22. !99bj
•
•
'When politiCians call for huge cuts in discretionary spending, they often claim they can achieve them
without cutting things people care about. But discretionary spending includes environmental
protection, federal prisons, NIH. NASA. and agriculture. and excluding any of these items from \:U{s
emly increases the depth of the cuts in the remaining areas.
Even if Dole could make {hese cuts without cutting these items, it WQuld still Jeave :mother $293
billion in cuts in Ihe budget resolution to be made in the remaining items. such as Head Start, Pell
Grants, the FAA, FBI. border patrols~ food safety, veterans medical care, and Social Security
administration.
4.
How Can Dole Take Both CBO's $254 Billion Bonus From Using ConserVative
Estimates to Balance The BUdget and His $147-$172 Billion Supply-Side Bonus
From Using Optimistic Estimates?
THE FACTSj
TIle current Republican budget already assumes
;1 $254 billion "fiscal diVidend" from bu;ancing t'le
budget using CBO's conservative economic assumptions, which CSO projec:s will lower lIHCrC5! r:llC$
and increase real GOP, reducing. interest costS and increasing revenues. l.suun.~: ~uo. t.."""",,, ,If'" U",j".;'
OJ.,fI(JO\. ~1ay 1996. p. J3!
,
•
Dole then take Ihis dividend from using conservative assumptions at lhe same ::me ~hat he is taklf'w '
S147·$172 bHlion bonus from using optimistic assumptions about the increased c-conom;'"
tax revenues his tax cutS would proouce. {SCIl~CC: CRO. £COttl31l>'C attd ekdgtr O"lioo", ).:3, :
�s.
.
•
Wbat Happened To Bob Dole's $102 Billion Charity Tax Credit That He
Proposed On May 23, 1996?
On May 23. 1996, Bob Dole said: "To this end. ! will propose a charity tax credit, which over ;ime
would allow taxpayers to eannark a portion of their annual taxes to private and religious cnarities ~.
faith~based or not - that spend over 7$ percent of their money on poverty relief. This credit wlH be
tip to $500 for individuals and up to $1,000 for couples." 1$.;Jurcc:: rrt.pared Remark! by Bob Dole: at 1M CarnQh~
•
PTe"
•
~iation
AnnlIllJ CO!'lvcnlion, Philadelphia,
P~IVV!i&.
May 2J. 19%1
The Sf, Louis Posl-Dispatch reported that "Dole spokesman Nelson Warfield said Dole would not
introduce the legislation as a senator, but it would be part of an economk package he would submit;
elected president." (SOIlt"«: SL !..mIis PO$l.o'1p\U&t!, 5/l41'\l61
This proposal is l::l!lI. in Dole's Economie Plan announced August 5, 1996. ISoutu: Bob Doll! for Prtsident.
Faa. Shttt: Rrswmg ~
•
A~ncq1f DJ'tD1JJ,
•
j,
1996}
Dole campaign officials said that this proposal would cost $17 billion a year·· or SI02 billion over
six years; privafe analysts put the revenue number far higher. iSO\Irct: D4rtu. /,fornmg Nrwl. 5i'z4IVb: .<"'"""w,,
l'J'tn. 1!l1J%: W.uhmgtmt Pasf,
6.
Autm:t
~i2gf961
Considering The Importance of This Issue, Why Would Boh Dole Make A
Proposal That Would Shorten The Life of Tbe Medicare Trust Fund by Four
Months and Not Mention This Fact At All?
tUb fAm;
•
President Clinton'S 1993 Social Security provision helped push back the date of insolvency of the
Medicare Trust Fund hecause aU of the revenue raised went iota the trust fumL ISc()I~t, Omflibu~ Sudp:
Rn.,m"ili=ion A(:t of WH. HR 2164}
•
BuL, Dole's proposal to repeal the 1993 provision would cause the Medicare Trust Fund \0 lose $27
billion over the next six years, shortening Ihe life of the Trust Fund by four momhs. tSouICe: \le<l1J1l Ca«'
F1l;llldng: Admini.Jncioo, 6(1196J
..
Dole's Economic Plan does l:iQI mention this fact at aiL (Sour«:
Amurt<l" Dna,", A"Il"li! 5, 1996]
•
Hoh Dole tOl
Pctsidenl. fa!;\ Sl:~~!"
R~s""'''f i"~
�.. 7.
•
How Is Bob Dole Going To Pay For His "Star Wars" Proposal? His Economic
Plan Does Not Provide Funds For His Missile Defense Proposal •
THE FAgS;
•
On June 18. 1996. Bob Dole said that: "In my Administration". we will build a. defense for California
and America against missiles." {Source! Tn,nscript 1)( Bob 1);)1,'5 R¢ma!'l(S 10 Lo.:hlIud Martin. 6118!9bl
•
On June 25, 1996, Bob Dole stated that: "When t am President. we will deploy an effective national
missile defense. We can afford it. We can do it. We should begin now," [Sou;u.: Bob Dole's Web \'uge:
hnp:l/www JWIc%.comincwlhf»ccbtWspjWllS96.1IUnl1
~
This proposal is fi.QI included in Dole's Economic Plan announced August $, 1996. {Soutte: Boo Dole lOt
~sidem.
F:KI S!w:i:c B.-Mort"!: fM
Amt~1CWI
Dntml. AugUSl S, 1996J
•
'The Congressional Budget Office initially estimated that this would cost from $31 bitHon to $60
billion to build a ground~and-space-based missile defense system by 2010. ISoU1ce: A.U~l(.tfld f~l1. Sfl2i961
..
In early June. eBO then said that a limited, ground-based national missile defense system could be
built for between $4 billion and $14 billion by 2003. [Souro:: ChrUfUJIl SciMI:e J.f{llfliiW". 719196; A:W!(;wud FTt'll.
6111961
~
According to Deftnse Daily, Dole's missile defense pian would cost 514 billion over the next six;
years.
•
8.
[SOtIt«:
&for~t'
Dally, Sf}lf<)61
What Happened To Bob Dole's S12 Billion Estate Tax Cut?
THE £",15;
•
5
On July 24, ! 996. Bob Dote proposed an estate-taX exemption in East Prussia. Pennsylvania: "[Wle're
going to give an estate (ax relief to small businesses and women and ranchers and f.:trmers and its
about time you got It break. lSo~: TfWl~cnpt of Boi> l)Q1(;'~ P.cmarn in €~ Prussi.... P,>\. 7r.!4196!
As of this moment, Bob Dole's Web page still ::atltes that" As Presidem:. Bob Doie wilL cut the
estate tax to ease the tax burden on family businesses." !Sottt«: Utlb Oolc', Wtb P3gc:
_ w.dotc96 eoml.gtndlli~WC:$I\.a)lt:uwstand.h1m11
..
This proposal is t:1.QI in Dole's Economic Plan announced August S. 1996. {$(lute<!; £Jot Dole l"¢.l Prelhxflt.
ftct Sl;cet: ikMQFmg II!( Amrnca/T DrtG"'. August S, 19%)
~
•
The Dole·Gingnch 1995 budget included all estate tax prOVision that
. six years. {Source; foiOl Tao!. Comminte. 11I16!9S1
cos~
$11.9 billion over the neXi
�9. What Happened To Bob Dole's $7 Billion "Marriage Penalty" Relief and $1
•
,
BiDion Home Office Deduction??
"
•
As of this moment, Bob Dole's Web page states that "As President. Bob Dole wilL eliminate the
'marriage penalty''' and "As President, Bob Dole wilL restore a meaningful home office deduction
•
the tax code." lSoun:;c; Bob Dote's Web i>tgc: www.dolc96.eomlqendllifiSU(s/axwtllSWid.btml lJI.ll Bob Dole's Web Page:
www.doIc96.C<Jtfile.gencWl$luWbll$incnlNnd.h1mI}
•
As Bob Dole said on July 24. 1996 at McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania: "I will restore 3 meaningful
home office deduction in the tax code. More and more of Ameri~'.s. small businesses·..e;speciaUy th(
owned by women-are home-based. The borne office tax deduction was severely limited in 1993 by
Supreme Court ruling that must be overturned by new legislation," {S<.lUtU' 8ab twits Wt:b PIg<:;
http://v.ww.dme%.oomInewsltpeeclteflspjul24%.htmlj
•
These proposals are li.QI in Dole's Economic Plan announced August S, 1996.
PmUltnl. Fad Sheet: RulCll'ing fM
•
A~,*,,1f
[S~; Bob DOlt
for
Drtr(V'(t, August S, 1996.1
The Dole~Gingrich 1995 budget included marriage penalty relief that cOSt $6,9 billion over the next
six years and a home office deduction that COSt SLl billion over the next six years. !5.'<Un::lI. )..,1111 T;p.
Committee, 1\1161951
10. What Happened To Bob Dole's $3 Billion 100% Health Care Deduction For
The Self Employed?
•
•
As of this moment, Bob Dole's Web page states that "As President, Bob Dole wilL [increase] the
deduction for health insurance for the self-employed from 30 percent to 100 percent." tSll\lr~: Bol.> Oole's
WeI.> Page: www.dole96 ernnt~entWi~neulsandJnrnll
•
As Gannert News Senl'ce reported on July 24, 1996: "Dole would". give the self.employed a 100
percent tax deduction for healrh insurance. ~ {Sout«: G~n Nt:.u St:rvl~. 6/24196\
•
This proposal is t!!JI.ln Dole's Economic Plan announced
August
5. 1996.
tSoUf!;t: Bob o<»~ (0; fl(til.l~t'\\.
Flit! Sheet: Rt:$I"'II'Ig; 1M tI_ncan Dnrlm, Aucun:5, 19%.)
•
•
As a conservative rule of thumb. every 10 percent increase in the deductibility of health care costs for
the: self employed causes n revenue loss of about $200 million. If Bob Dole phases the deduction in
so that if rellches 100 percent by FY2002, it is estimated that it would cOSt $3 billion over the next six
yeafs. \$cur~e; Based ¢f!levulUC tll!mll!t~ fr:Jm ~ Jeiru TillI C!Jrnffutlc~ •• 11$1961
�PRESlm:NT CLINTON HAS RESPONSmLE, TARGETED TAX CUTS FOR
'EDUCATION AND CHII,D-REARING - PAID FOR IN HIS BALANCED BUDGET
i
San Francisco Chronicle: "Hurray for College Tax Credit..the government could hardly
make a better investment in the nation's future.... And the President deserves praise -- not
Dole's kn....jerk political sneering - for spoiling out precisely how he would pay for the plan
without increasing the deficit." {San F1ancisco Chronide, 61SN6)
•
(
TARGETED TAX CUTS FOR EDUCATION, SAVINGS, AND CHlLD·REARING - MIlLE
BALANCING THE BUDGET. Tbese responsible tax refanus encourage investment in education and not
just physical capital, & they are fully paid for with spending cuts and closing corporate tax loopholes in a
budget certified by CBO to reach balance by 2002. CBO: "T/w President's budget proposes policies that
CBO estimates would balance the budget by 2002." fTt$UmooY QrCBO Dirtettlt' June:: O'Neill. April 17. 19%1
•
$1,500 HOPE Schol....hip Tax Cut For College Tuition. SI,SOO refundable tax credit for tuition i
the flISt year of college and for the second year if the student earns at least • B nverege in the flISt
year. This SI,SOO tax credit will make the average-priced community college free and provide a
downpayment for more expensive sehoul. for families with incomes up to $100,000.
•
S10,OOO Tuition Tax Deduction for Education and Trairting at Any Age. Families with mcotne3 up
to $100,000 CQuld deduct up to S10,000 in tuition, providing a tax cut of up to' $2,800 per family. This
deduction could be taken for education and training at any time in order to encourage nfe..long learning,
•
5500 Child Tax Credit ror Children Under 13. Phaand in $500 par cmld tax credit for families
with incomes up to 575,000, providing tax relief to 19 million families with 37 million cmldren,
••
Expanded IRAs for Education, Retirement t First..time Homeownership. Double the income
limits for IRAs to make 20 million more families eligible for tax-<ieductible IRA contributions, and
allow penalty-free . IRA withdrawals for education, flISt home purchases, and major medical expenses
as well as retirement.
Family Earning S40,OOO With Two Childrt:n:
Ages 2 and 8
Tax.. Cut $1.000 ($500 per child tax credit)
Family Earning $40,000 Witb Two Children:
Ages 6 and 19 (lst year college studeut)
Tax.. Cut $2,000 ($500 child tax credit and $1,500
HOPE Scholarship)
Family Earning $40,000 Witb Two Children:
Ages 6 aod 21 (college !eoior 55000 tuitiun)
Tax.. Cut 51,250 ($500 child tax credit and Tuition
Tax Deduction)
Millions or F.milies Have Already Saved Between 51,000 • $1,000 A Year
In Lower Mortgage Rates, Due In Large Part To President Clinton's Deficit Reduction Plan
Money Magazine: "Following the President's early drive to lower the defici4 the Federal Reserve Board cut
shorHenn rates while bond traders drove down long~tenn rates ... Jn aU. the rate rollback allowed some IV
million homeowners to save as much as $25 billion by refinancing their loans:, according to David Lcrcah. thf
.chief economist at the Mortgage Bankers Association." [MOfIl!')', Augutt 19%1
•
New York Tima: "The [ow interest rates not only generated a boom in business investment hut put mor
money in the pockets of ordinary Americans, In 1993 alone. six million homeowners, most of them soF
middle class. refimmced their mortgages because of the lower rates""On a standard 30-year fixed-rate
mortgage 0[SI00,OOO, for example. the monthly saving was $139 a month. or $1,668 a year. I....rr. itt
�•
IMPACT OF CLINTON TAX CUTS FOR EDUCATION AND
CHILD-REARING ON TYPICAL FAMILIES
Family Earning'$40,000;:\Vith 2.Young Children:. Taxes.Cul. $1,000
[Family,offour.with one 3-year old'and one 8-year old]
Federal Income Tax Under Current Law
Clinton $500 Tax Credit for Each Child
Total Income Tax
Total Clinton Tax Cuts
$3,390
,$1,000
$2,390
,$1,000
NOTE: Under the President's expanded IRA proposal, this family could also make tax-deductible IRA contributions
and could withdraw savings penalty-free for education, to purchase a first home, or to pay for a major
medical expense. Parents could also deduct up to SIO,OOO for education and training tuition for themselves.
Assumes itemized deduction equal to 18% of income.
,,"
Family,Earning $40,OOO'With·.HyoungChild and'! College. Freshman: Taxes Cut $2,000
. ; ...... [Family' offour with .one,3'year· old and· one 19-year .old' college freshman]
Federal Income Tax Under Current Law
Clinton $500 Child Tax Credit
Clinton $1,500 HOPE Scholarship
Total Income Tax
Total Clinton Tax Cuts
•
$3,390
-$500
-$1,500
$1.390
-$2,000
NOTE: Under the President's expanded IRA proposal. this ramily could also make tax-deductible IRA contributions
and could withdraw savings penalty-free for education, to purchase a first home, or to pay for a major
medical expense. Parents could also deduct up to $10,000 for education and training tuition for themsclves.
Assumes itemized deduction equal to 18% of income,
I:.';: ,"
Fa'ririlyEarDing.$40,OOO~Witb\'i'iY;'Uri[thiid .:mhCoilege:Senior: Taxes Cut $1,250
1(,. ' [Family
of four with one 3=year' old::"~d one 21-year· old' college senior with $5,000 tuitionJ
Federal Income Tax Under Current Law
Clinton $500 Child Tax Credit
Clinton Tuition Tax Deduction
Total Income Tax
Total Clinton Tax Cuts
•
$3,390
-$500
$750
$2,140
-$1,250
NOTE: Under the President's expanded IRA proposal, this family could also make tax-deductiblc IRA contributions
and could withdraw savings penalty-free for education, to purchase a first home, or to pay for a major
medical expense. Parents could also deduct up to $\0.000 for education and training wit ion for themselves.
Assumes itemized deduction equal to 18% of income.
�•
•
•
Family Earning 548,630 With I Young Child and 1 College Senior: Taxes Cut SI,950
[Family of 4 with I child in her 1st year of college and I college senior with $3,000 luilionl
Federal Income Tax Under Current Law
Clinton $1,500 college tax credit
Clinton $10,000 tuition tax deduction ($3,000 tuition)
Total Income Tax
Total Clinton Tax Cuts
$4.452
·$1,500
·$450
$2,502
.$1,950
NOTE; This family also would be eligible to save tax·free under the President's expanded IRA proposal and to
withdraw savings penalty·free for edU(8.1ion. to purchase a fim "ome, or to pay for a major medical
expense. ltemi7.ed deduction assumed to be 1S% of income.
;,,""'"
•
• <f
"i"'>:-:t.":<:,"
"" '/"
"".' _"
'<:", .. -;-/"'-',.-----
.,,,'
,~: Fa!';!iIY;J!:lii;9.Uig,$3S,OOO,~i!!'FY()U~~l9'"~~d l<~il,nege,i"reshnum: Taxes Cut 52,000
():[,:
; "":,,,;[fljijillyof. four WltlLone 3-year?oldl'and'one' 19-year;old';college, freshman]
•
Federal Income Tax Under Current Law
Clinton $500 Child Tax Credit
Clinton $1,500 HOPE Scholarship
Tota! rhcome Tax
Total Clinton Tax Culs
$2,715
·$500
·$1,500
$715
·$2,000
NO'ffi; Under the President's expanded IRA proposal, this family could also make lax-deductible IRA contributions
and eould wichdraw savings penalty~free for education. to purchase a first home. or to pay for a major
medical expense,
Parems could also deduct up to $10,000 for education and training tuition fot themselves.
Assumes standard deduction.
Familr,Earning,$35,000Witb 1 Young <;:hild and;ICoUege Senior,' Taxes Cut $1,250
," [Family"of''four with ooe ):year old and one,21-year old, college senior with $5,000 tuition]
Federal income Tax Under Current Law
Clinton $500 Child Tax Credit
Clinton Tuition Tax Deduction
Total Income Tax.
Total Clinton Tax Cuts
$2,715
·$$00
$750
$1,465
-$1,250
,
NOTE; Under the President's expanded IRA proposal, this family could also make tax-deductible IRA contributIOns
and could withdraw savings penalty-free for education. to purcna.o;c a first home, Or !o pay for a major
medical expense, ParentS could also. deduct up to $10.000 for education and training tuition for themselves
Assumes standard dcduCllon.
•
�THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 12, 1996
"
MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
FROM:
GENE SPERLING
SUBJECT:
Medicare and Budget Tough Q. and A. for Meet the Press
Attacbed. please find the following tough Q. and A. for your appell11!llCe on Meet the Press
this Sunday:
.
Pages
I.
Expl1UUltion of why Dole hru! to eut Medicare more,
and what CBQ says the implication WQuld be.
I
II.
Overall Tough Medieare questions framework.
2
III.
Means-testing framework.
3
IV.
Q. and A. on Medicare premiums.
4
V.
Q. and A. on Seeretary Shalala's reeent coniments
On Medicare Commission.
4
'l,
VI.
Q. and A. on $80 billion in "unspeeified cuts" in our budget
"
"
-.
5
VII. Q. and A, on the size of cuts in unon.priority areas"
under Our budget.
5
VIII. . Q. and A. on our 1992 promise to cut spending
6
3% across-the-ooard in every agency.
•
IX .
Key Jacts and Q. and A. on our 1992 "Putting People First"
investment promises.
. 7-8
�"
,
CBO ANALYSIS OF WHAT A
$300 BILLION MEDICARE CUT WOULD MEAN
•
DQle's Plan Would Require Deeper Medicare Cuts. As Business W~ and
0' Amato have said, to pay for hi. $550 billion risky tax scheme, common sense tells
you that Dole would have to cut Medicare much more than he did last year to pay for
• tax ,:ut less than half the s;;"" 83% of economists surveyed by The Economist also
said tbat Dole would bave to cut Medicare and defense in order to pay for Iii. plan.
•
eBO ,Analysis of 5300 Billion Medicare Cut. In August of this year, the'CBO
released an analysis of wbat a 5300 billion Medicare cut would mean and said it
would have "draconlan" effects, A 5300 billion Medicare cut would he just 530
billion more than the 5270 billion cut in the vetoed Republican budget. Here i. what
CBO ,aid • 5300 billion Medicare would mean:
•
The reduction in payments in the traditional Medicare program "would b.
draconian."
"
•
"[W]ould lead to an aclual reduclion in hospital payments rather than • slowing
in the rate of growth... II
•
"[B]eneficiaries would probably find their awn costs rising substantially."
•
"Access to particular"proViders and services plus the overall quality of care in
Medicare might be threatened.."
I(
[Source: CBO, August 1996, RedUCing the Deficll: Revenue and Spending Optlonr,]
NOTE:
While CBO's $300 billion cut is over 6 years and last year's $270,blllion cuI
VilIS over 7 years, it is completely fair to say the Dole' plan would require at least
• $300 billion cut over 6 years. It is fair because if Dol~distributed the, ~',
additional cuts needed to pay for his tax cut across cutitleinents i'; the sa~-' Way
as in the current Republican budget, 'he would have to cut Medicare-Iii $305
billion over 6 years (S168 in CUtTen! plan plus an additional $137 ,billion in cuts,
for a total of $305 billion over 6 years),
�TOUGH MEDICARE
Re«>rd;
We have a resPonsible balanced budget plan that strengthens the Medicare
Trust fund for 10 years without raising premiums and without damaging
Possible Russert
Questions
structural change.!) in the Dol(>oGingrich budget President Clinton vetoed
that would have segmented Medicare, causing it to wither on the vine. We
oppose cutting Medicare harshly in order to pay for a risky tax sclleme.
Headline:
1. MediS=.
1. The Doic..Qingrich 1995 budget. "Would have cut Medicare by $270
billion, 3 times the largest cut in history,
It IS wcllwdoeumented that they propesed $270 billion in' Medicare cuts: just
becaus~ that's what they needed in order to pay for their S24S billion tax
cut. Helping the fund WtlS just lin afterthought. And most of tbe mOney
from their Medicate cut did not go to Trust Fund.
•
•
Under the Dole-Gingrich budget. a couple would be paying $208 more this
year for a dnunat!eally weakened Medicare program.
*
In the Senate version. Dole would have" more than d~btcd the dedu.ctible
and raised it SO% in 1996 alone,
•
The American Nursing Association. the Catholic Health· Associati()tl, and
AARP. say the Republican plan would ti<wastate Medicare.
•
hmerican Hospital Association said that 700 of the most vulnenilile
hospitals get 2/3 of their funds from Medicare &. Medicaid, would be at
rbk if their plan had passed.
..
Their plan included damaging structural changes such as Medical Savings
Accounts" other provisions that 'allowed doctors to overcharge in the new
private plans, and,hard spending caps that wouldn't allow ndjustmet1t$ for
need or medical costs.
.
[Optio,nal] 2. For a short time, some Republicans cut thetr tax cut to $122 billion so
that they could limit their Medicare reductions to $168 billion.
..
But thllt was still $50 billion more than we proposed to extend the Trust
Fund for a decade.
And mey still insisted on aU their damaging structural clumges in the Dole-
Gingrich budget that would bave segmented Modlca:re., driving out the
healthiest and wealthiest beneficiaries Sr.. [eavmg a weaker MediCare:"'
Dolo Plan:
3. Dolels plan caUs for a $550 binion tax cut - 4 ll2 time more than the
current Republican budget and over twice as large as their'tax cut when
they had' a $210 billion Medicare cut. Common sense says that they
would have to' cut Medicare more to pay for a twice as large tax. cut
as ;Business Week and Doie's steering C<H!haif At D~Amato have said.
KEY POINT; If their spending cuts are distributed in the same way as
their recent budgets, Dole's new plan would require over .$300 billion
in Medicare cuts. A recent CBO analysis says that ·$300 billion in
Medicare cuts would be "draconian" and "actual reduction in hospital
paymt!l1ts rather than a slowing in the rate I?f growth."
..
Agenda:
I. Balance budget & protect Medicare trust fund for another 10 years.
We need a bi-partisan commission. but it has to really save Medicare.
not to pay for a huge. risky $550 billion tax cut.
End:
Balance the budget in a way that's cO'nsistent with our values: protect
Medicare, and strengthen the Trust Fund for future generations ~ but d{)n't
cut morc just to pay for risky tax cuts..
2. Isn't it true that you
are exaggerating the
differences between
you and won't this
make it harder to do
the right thing after
the election?
�.
Headline:
Record:
MEANS-TESTING
We proposed fair and prudent entitlement reforms as part of our
199J plan that extended the Mediwre Trust Fund into ~o 21st
century.
L In 1993, we did ask the top 13% of Social Security recipients
to contribute a little more to help protect the Medicare Trust
Fund while 87% of Social Security recipients didn't pay a
penny more. We aloo asked fhe top 1% to pay more
[Medicare payroll taxes J in order
Poteniinl Russert Question!
1. You an~ the President have
attacked Dole for Ilskh18
higher income seniors to pay·
more in premiums.
However. you included a
'0 strengthen the Medicare
similar provision in the
health care hill. Isn't this
jus< another "tempt to pl.y
political games aod frighten
the elderly?
Trust Fund.
2, In our health c.are plan we were willing to ask higher.jnoome
beneficiaries. to a little more - but only in the context of
overall reform, and beneficiaries would. have received
additional benefits including prescription drugs and long~temt
care benefits iIi return fur their increased contribution. ~
,
2. Politics
aside~
don't we have
to start means~testing if we
are gomg to save
.
entitlements.
, Regublican RroDOsa( wgyld bayS! mised I2remium~ ~§§
highsr this year ![ooe - without m new benefits,
3. On principle - we are opposed to Medicare premium iocreases
of .ny type <0 pay fur reoI:less tax cuts.
Agenda:
J. first thing we should do is ftC~ieve it common ground balanced
budget pian that protects the Medicare Trust Fund for a
dC<llde.
.
2. That gives us time to have a bi~partisan commission, but it has
to be to reaUy save Medicare. not to pay for a huge, risky
$550 billion tax ""heme. We do not 'Wallt to allow Medicare
to be a bank to pay for reckless tax cuts.
DolcJKemp
I. Ifthi,y had to pay for a $550 billion tax scheme. common
sense tells you that they will have to go beyond $270 billion in
.
Medicare cuts they needed just last year to pay for a $245
bHlion tax cut
2. In fact. if'the Dole-Gingrich plan had passed, a couple would
be paying $268 more this year for a dnunatioaUy weakened
Medicare progriun. Most Americans think that when you pay
more and get less, that's a eut. (Dole would have more than
doubted the deductible and raised. it 50% in 1996 alone).
3, The American Nursing Association. the Catholic Health
Association. AARP. say the Republican plan would devastate
Medicare. The AmS[ican HQI$Uital A~sociati2!l said that 700
hospitals were at risk of closing if their plan had passed.
4, Dole's current risky scheme would require even deeper cuts
than called for in the Dole-Gingrich budget. Business Week
and even their own campaign steering co..chair At D'Ama10
says they would have to cut Medicare more to pay for it. And
white they say you can't get economists to agree on anything,
all independent analysis: by The Economist found that 83%
agree they can't pay their risky tax scheme without cutting
, Ml..-dicarc.
End,
Bridge to the 2bt Century. We have to balance the budget and
strengthen the Medicare Trust Fund in a way that's consistent
with oUl'values.
"
" ~ :;;=
=-:: ,
.
-':'"
.
.
�',.
MEDICARE j'REMIUMS
Q:
Isn't it true that the difference in the Republican and your Medicare premium proposals
about $4 to $7? Meet the Press claimed this last year.]
A:
•
r
•
~
only
The difference was always more than $4 to $7 when an "apples to apples" comparison' was
. made. (OMB vs. CBO baSelines)
But Olere is no longer any debate. Under the Republican plan the President vetoed. Medie:au:
beneficiaries rodi/V would be paYing $11.20 more per month than thev are today ($53.70 v§.
$42,50) and than they would bave been paying under the President's plan. That's $134 IDgu:
this year afone for each older American and $268 more per couple.
.
•
And that's just this year. Over 7 years, Medicare beneficiaries would have had to pay
at least $1,700 more than under the President', plan. ICBO estimates of the plans.]
•
That may not sound like a lot to some people, but iUs. lot of money to the typical Medicare
beneficiary. , Three-quartetS of Medicare beneficiaries have incomes under $25,000.
•
And not. penny of their premium increase went to strengthen the Trust Fund - it went to
pay for tax cuts. [CAVEAT: Republicans ultimately dedicated .11 of the revenues from the
premium increase to the Trust Fund~ but this was just·an accounting gimmick. They cantt get
around the fac! that they would not have bad'to cut Medicare $270 billion if they had not bad
to pay for their excessive tax cut.]
SECRETARY SHALALA'S RECENT COMMENTS ON MEDICARE COMMISSION
Q:
The Washington Post repOrted this week that Secretary Sbalala proposed passing a SIOO billion
Medicare cuts to extend the Trust Fund ror ten years from now and then proposed a bipartisan
commission to address the longer term Medicare financing issues. Do you support her proposal?
A:
There was no news. She was merely restating our long-standing position" We have said all along
that we should pass the common Medicare' savings in our budgets, Which WQuia eXteiii.lclhe life of
, the Trust Fund for 10 years from now, and then establish. bipartisan process~'address the longer
term issueS that none of the current proposals would solve.
.
The President has stated clearly that we need a bi~oartisan CQl)1mission. but it has to be to really
fi_ave Medicare~ not tQ gay:_ for a hugs. risJex $550 bil1i9n tax S&heme. We do not want to allow
.
Medicare to be a bank to pay for reckless tax cuts-
�.
,.
CLAIM ON SllO BILLION IN UNSPECIFIED BUDGET CUTS IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
Q: You are out there calling for Bob Dole to explain how he will pay for his tax cut. But your own
budget has $80 billion in unspecified cuts -- a huge magic asterisk' - because your budget only
specifies all the cuts under OMB assumptions not under CBO assumptions. What are you going to
cut in oroer tiJ pay for your plan?
A: •
Our balanced budget plan provides all the detail required for the CBO to certify that it would
reach balance in 2002. We beHeve our nroieetions are correct. Every year the deficit has been
lower than we projected and growth has been hjgher,
• And every time we have made a new propesaj - such as our $1,500 college tax credi~ school
construction, reading challenge aud our plan to help move people from welfare to work _. we '.
have said how we would pay for i~ line-by-line and dime-by-dime.
• But Senator Dole's plan contains billions of unpaid-for promises. And while Newt Gingrich
said gn this shgw Ihl!t h. would ·@l'Jllutely· ask cao to evaluate the QQle Ill@. Ibey have nol.
[When Dascltle ani! Gephardt asked CBO to evaluate it. CBO refused saying it did not analyze
campaign proposais, but Gingrich could have introduced the Dole plan as his own and asked
CBO to evaluate it]
.CLAIM ON OUR BUDGET REQUIRING AS DEEP CUTS IN
DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS AS DOLE'S PLAN
Q: You say Dole's plan would require 40% rcal cuts in domestic discretionary programs, but isn't it the
case that after you get down protecting your priorities - such as eduestion, the environment, and
law enforcement ~~ you would have to cut the remaining areas by 30 to 40% as well.
A: •
..
•
No, that's not the case. Dole's plan contains twi.. as deep cuts in discretionary spending as the
President's balanced budget [CBO scored the President's budget at $228.billion and Dole has
$468 billion - $305 billion from the GOP' budget resolution and another $163 billion 'in the
Dole plan].
and law enforcement.-we"-will have
It is true that after we protect education, environment.
to
make significant cuts in some nOfi*priority areas, But we've proven that we can do so through
reform and REGO.
.
.
• Even after we protect our priorities like education, the environment, and law enforcement, the
real cuts would be less than half as deep as in the Dole plan's across-the-buard cuts. If Dole
\\ranted to protect some programs from cuts~ he would have to cut the remaining programs much
deeper than 40% in 2002. Por example, if be wanted to protect some areas such as tile FBI.
DEA, US attorneys and marshals, and the NIH and Centers for Disease Control, NASA and
FEMA. it could require a 57% in the remaining programs. such as education and training, the
Crlvironment. national parks, INS border patrols. and fAA air traffic controllers.
�1992 PROMISE TO CUT SPENDING 3% ACROSS-TIlE-BOARD IN EVERY AGENCY
Q;
In 1993. you came on this show and promised to cut spending 3% across--the..board in cadi agency.
Did you keep that promise?
A:
•
We did better than that. We didn't cut across·the·boerd, we took at careful look at each
program and cut or eliminated those that were unnecessary or low:-priority and increased those
that were good investments, programs such as Hood Start. WIC, technology, and training for
dislocated workers. W. cui fonding in real lerms in 9 of the cabinet agencies,' while Increasing
fondlng for the Justice Department and the VA.
•
Our 1993 Economic Plan cut spending $255 billion while investing in people, skills, and
tecboology .
•
REGO: and we've reinvented countless programs, for a total savings of SIIS billion.
•
Speeding last yeM was already lower as a shore of the economy than any yeM under Reagan or
Bush.
•
Spending' growth hllS boon' slower under this Administration than under either Reagan or Bush.
• We've more than kept our promises: 10.5 million jobs, deficit cut 60%f cut nearly 250,000
fewer federal workers, 100,000 COPS, etc,
-
-
.,
�1992 PROMISES'AND PurrING PEOPLE FIRST
Opening Line: In 1992, we promised 8 million jobs, cut the deficit in half. reward work,
open trade, make our communities s.a.fur with 100,000 new cops on the street 'and bans on
assault weapons, while investing more in education. We have fulfilled these major
promises and often surpassed them. For example, we have cui the deficit more than in half,
created 10.5 million ~~ not 8 million ..- new jobs, and eut the 'government by nearly
250,000, not 100,000. An independent Knight-Ridder analysts found that.we had fulfilled
two-thirds of our promises and that it would have haeo 79% success rate if several <if my
legislative proposals had not heen blocked by Congress, .'
~nsw..
Points:
•
•
Deficit and Economy: We promised to cut the deficit in half and cut it by 60%; an
economy with S million new jobs. We have 10.5 million jobs.
.
•
Spending: Promised. to cut 100,000 from the workforce, and we have brought!!
'do,," by near 250,000, the lowest since Kennedy
•
Trade: We promised to open markets and we opened ·!lllIlloots iil Japan and passed
two largest trade ag!:eements,
.
•
Reward Work: We raised the working famlly tax credit - cutting taxes for 15
million people, raising the minimum wage for 10 million and refonning the welfare
system as we promised, Empowennent Zones, Community Development Banks.
•
Crime: 100,000 cops as promised, Brady
•
.
An indepcnden\ Knight-Ridder analysis found that we had fulfilled two-thirds of
our promises 8nd that it would have been. 79"'10 Success rate if several of my
legislative proposals had not haeo blocked by Congress,
Education: Head Start up 29"/c~ refonned student loans for millIOns; new national
service, new school-to-work programs;
.
bin and assa..dt
-
wea1x>ns.
-":"'
�,.
,.
..-'
".
Attock 1:
In 1992, you proposed a "Putting People First" Agenda thaI called for major
investments with little emphasis on the deficit. Yet, when you were eJec/etj you
really changed your emphasis. How do you explain the change?
Facts:
The projected deficits were higher when we t.ook office than d~ing the campaign
and this meant more careful targeting. of some of our investments, but we have an
extremely strong record in fulfilling the promises in Putting People First.
An independent Knight-Ridder analysis found that we had fulfilled two-thirds of
our promises and that it would have been 7~A success rate if several of my
legislative proposals had not been blocked. by Congress.
Our promise for Putting People First. was to cut the deficit in half while
more in people. reward work and open trade. Consider our record:
investi~g
(See above "Key Answer Points'')
Attack 2:
Yet, isn't it the case that on your main investing in people proposals, you have been
reduced to small) incremental gains?
Facts:
Certainly, the deman~s of deficit reduction forced us to target our new initiatives
carefully, but' we have passed major legislation to give millions and millions of
people ·morc opportunity and reward work and family.
Consider the following:
Family and Medical Leave
12 million utilized
(WweC) Nutrition for Pregnant Women
and Children
wencreased to over 7 million.
New National Service
Larger tiwU'eace' Corp:' .Already 45,000
have participated -"'"
New Student Loan Reform and Direct
Student Loans
,
10 million students have benefited from
lower costs and over the next several
years millions will benefit from direct
loans pay as you can repayment pl~.
EweTC Rewarding Work Tax Credit
,
, largest increase ever: cut taxes for 15
: milHon hard pressed families
New School Rcfonn
New School-tn-Work
,
,
,
,
i
,
Over 8 1000 schools benefiting
I
40 States now have programs.
I
,
Empowerment Zones
105 Zones and Communities:
Community Policing
100 1000 new cops
o~
the way.
,
,
i
�/.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 24. 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
GENE SPERLING
CHRIS JENNINGS
SUBJECT:
Use of Validation on Medicare
Over the last
weeks, the Republicans have made a vigorous effort to attack the use of
validation of the extremism of the Dole..Qingrich Medicare cuts, It is important to their critique
of us to establish that we are demagagogues on Medicare, and the strength of OUf validation
undermines that attack,
two
As the basic strength of our validation is unassailable ~- their argument has centered
around stating that we have slightly rnischaracterized a source or validatQf. One would not
nomlaHy think that the media would give much credence to such marginal complaints, but we
have three factors working against us: one, most ·of the press has been extremely critical of the
Dole campaign~ s tax cut and their misuse of facts. and are looking for ways to show that they are
evenhanded; second, most of the eUte media does not take the Dole plan seriously, and therefore
assumes that the flreal"Republican Medicare plan is $168 billion -- and therefore not far from
OUTS. Third, there is still a general feeling that the more Medicare "pain" you cali for the '!norc
responsible you are, and therefore, any critiques of the Republican plan involve us scoring
politically at the expense of the "responsible" Republican proposals.
We feel there is no reason to back~off from our use of validation for our points ~- as you
will see below our side on each of the disputed areas is very strong. Furthermore, other groups,
like the Catholic Health Association. called to thank us for citing their oppOSition to the Dole
Gingrich Medicare plan. Yet, jn light of the environment we are in, it is worth being clear on
. what has been disputed an~ what is beyond dispute.
.'
. ,
�."
American Hospital Association:
Ollr Statemenl! The American Hospital Association says that 700 vulnerable hospital could
close under the Dole-Gingrich Medicare cuts.
Complaint: The AHA never said explicitly said thill, In response 10 pressure from Republicans,
the AHA stated thaI they had only said that "700 most vulnerable hospitnls" dependent on
Medicare and Medicaid "were at risk" or "on t11e financial edge,j and that
"some would certainly be faced with clOSing their doors."
Facts:
•
TIle AHA ran newspaper advertisements in 1995 stating that the Dole..Qingrich
Medicare budget "N~ed hosnitals in rural or inner:eity communities could 12e
for~d to shut 1beir doors. period."
•
They further wrote that: "Particularly hard hit will ha communities with hospitals
serving a large proportion of Medicare and Medicaid patients ....AlmQst 700 of the
most vulnernble bosgitals derive two thirds or more of their net patient revenue
from Medicare and Medicaid."
•
Further they wrote Dole personally on October 1995 stnting that in tenns of
hospital payments under their plan U[Rjeducations of that magnitude would result
not in a reduction in the rate of growth, but in a !~!!l~ut."
the AHA
Indeed, even the most recent clarification
gave hardly undercut our
statement. that 700 hospitals "couid" close. They stated that they had never
estimated. that aU 700 «at~risk" hospitals could close their doors, :
"some of the 700 hospitals would have to cut some services like trauma care, burn
units, and some things they do for the elderly would be severely affeqte4 ..... othcr
programs would be trimmed, and in some rural and inner city areas, there would be
hospitals faced with closing doors. We didn't say that 700 hospitals would close
their door, but we did say that of those 700 hospitals that are on the financial edge,
some would certainly be faced with closing tlleir doors."
,
Best Statement for Future: According to the Ameri£Wl Hospital Association. the Dole-Gingrich
budget would have put 700 of the most vulnerable hospitals at risk, with needed rural and urban
hospitals being forced to close their doors."
"The Catholic H,;alth Association and nearly every state hospital association in (he nation stated
thal these Medicare and Medicaid cuts would "jcopardir.e the ability of hospitals and health
systems 10 deliver quality carc."
Note: The AHA can be used as a valldator that they \\'TQte Dole in 1995 thal his Medicare plan
would lead to a rca! cut in hospital paymcnL').
[While overall, OUf statement seems valid and powerful, I rGene). still should have been more
careful tll putting this in tbe debate materials and r:tpologizc [or forcing us to deal with this at aU I.
�MRP: Republicans have also put great pressure on the MRP to dispute the Vice President'.
claim on Meet the Press that the AARP said that "their plan would devastate Medicare." This has
been more of a misunderstanding, than a factual dispute,
Our Statement: When asked about why our Medicare savings in our health security plan were
okay but the DOle-Gingrich budget was too extreme. the Vice President used as validation that
the MRP had supponed our plan and relt the Republican Medicare cuts were devastating. This
is essentially (;orrect. The AARP was generally supportive of our health security plan [though
they stopped short of endorsing it] and supportive of the Mitchell plan, and they did call the
Republican budget resolution "devastating" while Inter asking the President to veto their
reconciliadon bill.
Complaiot: Republicans at first convinced the AARP that we were saying that MRP supported
our current Medicare plan and felt the current Republican budget resolution ($168 billion) was .
devastating. Leon Panetta and Cluis clarified this with the MRP, and MRP reacted by simply
writing a letter scolding. both campaigns and asking that neither of us politicize them during the
campaign, Barbour~ of comse, immediately interpreted the 'etter as a victory for them and made
such a public statement
Facts and Background: When the Republican budget resolution first came out the AARP '
responded harshly saying that their plan would "devastate" Medicare as the Vice-President stated
and that it would lead to hospital closing.
•
In June, 1995. AARP "-Tote: "[The] Congressional Budget Resolution Could
Th!va§.!iU.~· Medicare Beneficiaries," Dole voted for this budget resolution \.vhich
cut Medicare' by $270 billion ~~ same as the vetoed budget.
•.
•
In June. !995. AARP wrote: "Spending cuts could limit access to providers. [M)any
hospitals across the country .~ particularly in rural areas - would be forced to close."
•
In November. 1995, AARP wrote tl1;3t the Dole-Gingrich $400 billion cuts from Medicare
and Medicaid '''do not meet thc fairness test."
,.
TIlCif statemcm further stated that "Millions of American families depend on Medicare and
Medicaid for their basic health care coverage, for protection against the high oost of [ong
teml care and for financial security. J11ese p~~§tionlLi<}r Americans of all age:;, arc D.QW
at ri~"
-
On Medicaid cuts: "Frail. older Americans, most of whom are single, elderly women who
have worked hard all of their lives, and children from lOW-Income families would be
hardest hit by these drastic euts.
li'uturc Statements: "Ibc AARP urged the President to veto their budgel, stating that their
Medicare and Medicaid cuts "did not meet the fairness test," put protections for nil Americans at
risk" and included "drastic cuts" in Medicaid, tbat would hit hardest "frail. older Americans" and
"children from lov,l~incomc families."
�The Coneorll C;o.lition;
Our Statement; Appearing on Meet the Press two weeks ago, the Vice President mcluded. the
Concord Coalition in a list of souroes that he said had stated .that Dole's plan would require
"extreme" Medicare cuts.
Complaint: While we had used the Concord Coalition to validate 40"10 cuts in domestic spending
and other groups to validate Medicare cuts. the Vice President's statements were in fact easily
supported by various comments by the Concord Coalition that Dole-Kemp could not possibly pay
for their tax cuts \"Iith only discretionary cuts. Sen. Rudman. however. is tmder considerable
pressure frQrn Dole and Republicans because of their repeated harsh criticisms of their tax cut
plan and the C.oncord Coalition does support deeper Medicare cuts from both sides. They put out
a statement clarifying that, they have never said that the Dole plan would require extreme
Medicare cuts.
Facts; While it is true that the Concord Coalition supports harsher Medicare cuts, their
statements make clear that they do believe that the Dole plan would lead to deeper MediCare cuts
as the Vice President implied. While the Concord Coilition has not specifiea1ly' said that the
Dole plan would require deeper Medicare cuts, they have explicitly indicated that Dole's plan
can't work without deeper cuts in entitlements:
•
'ICan't we offset any revenue loss by cutting federal spending? Possibly~ but not
by following the Dole Plan's strategy, which' promises to derive nearly all the
needed savings from unspecified cuts in "discretionary" outlays."
•
"(The Dole plan's] proposed outlay cuts are politically if not mathematically
impossihle!>
•
If Republican priorities were protected, "most puhlic services to the young and
poor win have to be defunded entitely."
•
"The Dole people will maintain with straight faces from now until November that
the nece~ cuts win be anonymous, painless reductions that
or anyone you know."
win
not affect you
•
"Congress would have to slash this [domestic discretionary] spending while
.
phasing in large tax cuts and while leaving the vast lll1d still-growing senior-cittzen
entitlement edifice (in Dole's words) 'off the tahle.' It's hard to see how leaders
like Dole and Jack Kemp ... could square this circle."
•
"Dole's f<lct sheet on his economic plan specifically states that Medicare. Social
Security, and Defense prognuns nrc 'off-thc~tablc.', .. 8xcmpting these three huge
areas puts all enormous burden on the remaining arcas of the budget."
Future Statement: The Concord Coalition has stated that the Dole plan '''>,lilt blow a gigantic
hole in the budget" lead to 34%-41% cuts in tbe area of the government that funds education,
environment, law enforcement. Their budget is "politically, if not mathematically impossible" and
if they proK"<:t all of their priorities "most public services to the young and poor win have to be
defunded entirely."
�•
VALIDATION ON IMPACT OF
DOLE-GINGRICH MEDICARE CUTS
AARP: "Millions of American families depend on Medicare ami Medicaid for their basic health
coverage. for protection against the high cost of laag-term care ami fur 'fmancial security. These
protectiotlS. for Americans· ofall ages, are IWW at risk. Cutting S 164 billion from Medicaid over
the next seven years is far more than the program can shoulder....!e s a shame that a veto is
necessary, but Unfortunately, there is no other alternative. IMRi'.IW6I'J51
•
In June, 1995, AARP wrote: "!The] Congressional Budget Resolution Could pevllState
Medicare Beneficiaries. U
•
{MRi'.
&951
In June, 1995. AARP wrote: "Spending cuts could limit access to providers. [Mjany hospitals
across the COWltry -- particutarly in rural areas -- would be forced to close.'~ [AARP,6!'95J '
•
. American Nurses Association: "The American Nurses Association is strongly opposed to current
proposals calling for deep cuts in the Medicare program and we urge Congress to act responsibly to
overt the dangerous consequences ofsuch reckless legisJaJion... .it is simply not possible to curtail
the growth in Medicare QlI:tlays to this level. To do so v.ilI diminish borh rhe quality and
accessibility of care for those who depend on Medicare." [ANA, 10II1,>;15j
•
Catholic Health Association, American Hospital.Assoc:jatiOll, 47 State Hospital Associatio.ns,.
and Voluntary Hospitals of America: 'This legislation.. .ls not in the best interest of patients,
communities,. and the men and women who care for them.... the reductions in the conference report
·will jeopardiZe the abiHty of hospitals and health systems to deliver quality care, not just to those
who rely on "Medicare and Medicaid, but to all Americans .... tAme:i.::a Hospital AnQciatioo, Catholie Ikajtl:1
Ano<;iatiQll, and Volllntary Haspitllls <.If America, .t:Id Swc Hoiflital A$ro.:iAtioru: (rom 47 ,tAla, Novtmbet 17, 1995j
•
_.
American Hospital Association: The Senate Republicans budget "would result not in a reduction
in the rate of growth. but in a real cut. That means per beneficiary spending for hospital care grows
less than the rate of inflation ....{these] reductions will seriously joopardize the ability of the hospiml
community to continue to provide high quality care. not only to seniors, but to all our citizens, n
IAmcriC.lh I{ospiui A:;ooeiation, lette! to Senator Ocle, 10I16/95)
~
The AHA ran newspaper advertisemenl'; in 1995 stating that the Dole~Giogrich Medicare
budget "Ne.~ded.J!~ihlIEl!l.J:!lr~L9f inner~city SOI!1m],lI!i!i~JL9in!ht be fQrct?~L!o shut their
Qoors. period,"
[AHA, ~I!m""ler, 1995J .
'
"Particularly hard hit will be communities with hospitals serving a large proportion of
Medicare and Medicaid paticnts'"HAhnQ.~t 700 of the most VUlnCfi,l.pic hospitals derive two
thirds or more of thcir net piHient revenue from Medicare and Medicaid." {AHA, tim}
•
American College of Ilhysicians, the American Nursc.~ Association and the ~~tionar
Association of l'ublic UQspituls: "Weighing ali the elements of this bill !I·louse and Senate
Republican Medicare proposalsj, the American College of Physicians., (he American Nurses
Association and the National Ass()cialion of Public Hospitals, believe: that the total package will
oeharmfuJ to patients, physicians, hospitals, and the health care system as a whote ... .This legisialicm
will reverse the gains in the health Siafus of Ihe elderly t!tat Medicare Iws achieved in ifS 30 year
his!ory.".711e [JUdget CUiS in litis package.... fln nat S(lve or preserve Medicare. they simply shift costs
ii·()m jiovernment 10 patient.. . anti provider.,"" lAmtfi.;:a:l C(li.l¢t.( "U'hy,it:ia.M. 101111951
�•
TWO AITACIlED VALIDATION LEITERS:
•
Frank Pepper Letter: As you know, Bob Dole bas often used • letter from Claude
Pepper to support his position that be can be trusted to deal with entitlements like
Medicare and Social Security, Recently, Claude Pepper's brother F1'!Illk, released a letter
he sent to Bob Dole criticizing him for using his brothers name to support Medicare cuts
that are excessive,
•
American Hospital Association on tlCuts u : Also attached is the letter from the AHA to
Dole in whieb they specifieally state that !he impact on hospitals of their $270 billion
savings would be a "real cut ll not a reduction in the rate of growth,
�P.02
OOT-16-96 WED \7: II
,
.
Frank Ptlpper
1020 Merritt Drive
Tallahassee f Florida 32301
October 16, 1996
The Honorable Bob Dole
Dole for President
~lO Firs~ Street, H.E.
Washington, O. C.
20002
Dear Senator Dole:
have repeatedly referenced a note of gratitude from my late
brother, Claude Pepper, about your work on the 1983 social security
Commission. It appears to me that you are doing so to 'support your
~ou
assertion that you would never do anything to hurt Medicare or
other senior programs.
Using my brother's fine name r sterling
record of support for programs to benefit seniors, and his memory
for this purpose is inappropriate. claude Has appreciative of your
and all the Social security Commission members' work; however, your
using his personal note about this experience and applying it to
the current Medicare debate is wrong.
It he were alive today, claude Pepper would be the first in' line to
stre1)gth~n the f1edicare and Social Security
programs. You have not supported many ot: the provisions he would
regard as strengthening the progran/ such as incorporating long
term care and dental care. Just as he rejected the t~ELDERCARBIt
alternative to Medicare (which would have left millions of elderly
uninsured) that you are still praisin9, he would have strongly
rejected your past and current proposals for excessive cuts and
dctr imenta 1 pol icy changes, such as Modica 1 . Savings Accounts f to
both the Medicare and Social security programs . . 1" have to believe
you understand this and find it surprising that you "Would engender
his name to provide some sort of politically expedient cover for
the policy changes you are advocating for the: Medicare program.
take action to truly
My brother respectao your. dGcades or service to our nation.
However, I must ask yO~l to please res ist what must. be advice from
political advisers to in~ppropriatcly ~se your relationship with
Claude.
~
D
01~~:r;Y'}
~l1k pepper1r""'
"P.d /
cc:
President [3i 11 Clinton
�. I
.,
October 16, 1995
The Honorable Bob Dole
United States Senate
141 Han Senate Office Building
WashingtOn, DC 2OSlO
Dear Senlttot Dole:
.
.
You and your Senate colleagues are about to make public policy ~sions of trUly hi.torie
proportion.. Your debate and action on Ihe Fiscal 1996 budget reeoncill.!Ion bill,
particularly where MedlCllre i. concerned, will affect the live. of aU AmeriCllnI.
That's why Ihe American Hoopltal Anociatlon;on behalf of 114 5,000 member. in Ihe
community delivering cate every day, wants to make you aware of a repurt by-Lewln.VHI, It
respected reseoreh firm. It analyzes the effect of Medicate &pending reductions on hospitals.
,
!
T.!}.. bill now before the U.S. SeDAte coli. for reductions of $86 billion· in hospital service..
The principal fUldlng of thb analYlb 1.1 thst reductions of the.! magnirude would fOIUU not in
• reduction in the rate of growth, but in It real S!U. That mean! per beneficiary &pending for
~o.pl:a! care er('ws Je•• than the rate of inflation,
: epeatedly, me American pe¢ple h!.ve been assured uta: the Medicare program would not
R
'.uffer teal cuts. This is • promlse that mll>! be kept. Eighty six billion dollars in reductions
will seriously Jeopudize the ability of the ho&pltal community 10 continue to provide high
quality care, not only. to _10[1, but 10 all our cltizens. This i, the potential impact of the
current Senate proposal.
In lu conclusion. Lewin·VHI, Irw., states: "The potential for payment reductions to rO$ult in
decline In ho.pital spending over the next seven years should Indicate to policymake"
real
the need to carefIJIly con.ider the impa.c,'s of potentiAl Medicare change. on the different
categoric. of he.a.1th care providers, •
,
. This is what the na<ion's hospital, uk of you and your colleagues in the critical day' aliWt.
Sincerely.
�,
,' ,
r ,
, ,,~
\
December 9,1996
MEMORANDUM TO HILLARY RODHAM CUNTON
FROM:
Chris Jennings
REt
Children'. Health Care
ISSUE
Ollidren who lack access to health care are more vulnerable to health problems. Additionally
the lack of health insurance for children may impact health care costs for the entire health
care system. Today, an estimated 10 million children are uninsured and millions more are
underinsured.
BACKGROUND
The Genera! Aerounling Office estimates that 10 million children (almost 15% of all children
under age 18) were without health insurance -- the highest level of children uninsured since
1987. Millions more children are underinsured. These Children have limited access to
preventive and primary care and may lack the insurance or other resources needed to access
care.
"
..
Additionally th" number of children with private coverage has decreased. The decline in
private health insurance among children may largely be attributed to an erosion in employer
sponsored health insurance due in'part to the shift to more part-time work and more
outsourcing to smaller firms.
As private insurance coverage shrinks, Olngress has expanded kids' health coverage through
Medicaid. Slate Medicaid expansions have extended coverage to millions of children,
including children under the age of 6 whose family incomes are 133 percent above the federal
poverty level. Each year a new age group of kids is "phased in" so that by 2002, all poor .
children under age 19 will be eligible for Medicaid. This will increase Medicaid eligibles by
r
1 million child,en.
Despite greater reliance on Medicaid, many eligible uninsured children dQ not enroll in
Medicaid, According to a recent study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a
variety (}f fact"'s influence children'. enrollment in Medicaid including: the scope of
coverage under a state's welfare program, the uninsured ra1e in the state, and steps a state has
taken to make the Medicaid program aceessible to diverse populations,
�. The Democratic Leadership (Senator Daschle and Representative Gephardt) have a &erion'
interest In developing a health care initiative for children. Even before they had real policy
options, the Leadership included a proposai to expand coverage by requiring insurance
companies to offer lower-cost "kids-only" policies. They included this proposal as part of
Ihe "Families Fitsl Agenda,' akin to the GOP's 1994 "Contract wilh America.' White House
and HHS slaff have provided technical assistance 10 Democratic staff to evaiuate oplions.
OPTIONS
There are several options to improve access to health care for children. These options range
from expanding federal funding of health care services or coverage to promoting states'
development of child health initiatives to encouraging the private sector to provide mOre
comprehensive .:overage 10 children. Five of the major options are discussed below.
Option 1: . Create a b.alth subsidy for chndren. This option would require ail insurance
companies thaI. do business wilh Iherederal government 10 offer "kids-{)n1y" policies and
provide premium subsidies to help families afford health care coverage.
Opllon 2: Provide tax Incenllves tn Improve coverage for cblldren. Simllar to option 1,
option 2 would expand access to health care coverage by making families eligible for tax
credits for their children's "kids-only" health care policies.
Option 3: Expand chUdren's beallb coverage under Medicaid. This option would employ
an effective outreach initiative to expand coverage to the estimated 3 million children
currently eligible for Medicaid who do not have coverage.
Option 4: Enhance plIrtnershlps wllb states 10 expand coverage for children. This
option would provide grants to slates to support innovative programs to insure children.
Under this option, the federal government would provide matching funds to expand the
number of states participating in such programs and to increase the number of uninsured
children who have access to such programs. For example, Ibe Children's Health Insurance
Program (CHIP) of Pennsylvania is a state-supported program aimed at providing
comprehensive health care services to children up to 14 years of age. The program is funded
by a two cents per psek state tax on cigarettes.
Option 5: Expand access to community-based services. This option would make sure
kids receive needed health care through clinics and community health centers. Through a
public health approach, the federal government could enhance existing networks or create new
partnerships of providers to provide health services to underserved populations of kids. One
possibility is to require the 650 federally funded community health centers around the country
to locate uninsured kids and notify their families that the centers are there to provide
. treatment at nominal cost.
�RECENT REPORTS
In the past year, several reports on health care coverage for children have been released.
Following is • i:ummaty of four of the most sigoificant reports.
TAB 1.
Health Insurance For Children: Privale Insurance Co.erage Continues 10
lleleriora!e, GAO, June 1996
This report demonstrates that the number of children without health insurance
coverag", 10 million children, was greater in 1994 than at any time ill the last 8 years.
Additionally private health insurance for children decreased primarily among children
of poor families. Health care coverage remained relatively stable among non-poor
cl!i1dren.
This report also finds that Medicaid continues to be an important source of Insurance
for children in working families. However, in 1994, approximately 3 million children
who were eligible for coverage under Medicaid (30% of tbe total number of
uninsured) did not email in the program.
TABl.
MIlllons of Uninsured and Underlnsured Children Are Eligible For
Medicaid, Center on Budge! Bnd Policy Priorities. flecember 19%
This study finds that about 3 million children who may b. eligible for Medicaid were
not enroUed in the program. A variety of factors Influence children'. enrollment io
Medicaid includjng: the. scope of coverage under a state's welfare program. the
uninsured mte in the state, and steps a state bas taken to make the Medicaid program
accessible to diverse populations. The authorS continue In report tbat welfare law
changel:: are Ukely to result in even lower Medicaid participation rates in the future,' .
unless states revamp their Medicaid application procedures and outreach strategies.
This study concludes that the Medicaid program has the potential to provide health
care coverage to a large number of children who. arc uninsured or underinsured.
TAB 3.
Uninsured Children of the South, Southern'Instltute on Ch!ldren and
Families, November 1996
This report finds that the number of uninsured children in the South is
disproportionately high. Of tbe 9.4 million uninsured children in the United States, a
total of 4.1 million (43%) live in the South even though only 36% of all children live
in this region. More than 100,000 (20%) o.f all children in Arkansas are uninsured.
States vary in their use of Medicaid to expand health care coverage for uninsured
children. Arkansas is one of three states that has not expanded Medicaid eligibility
beyond Federal minimums to cover children. To reduce the number of uninsured
children in the South, tbe authors recommend that states: (1) mise Medicaid age and
income eligibility levels, (2) eliminate the Medicaid assets lest for children, and (3)
use outreach to enroll eligible children in ·Medicaid.
�TAB 4.
lIeaUh Insurance for Chlldren: State and Private Programs Create New
Strategies to Insure Cblldre~, GAO, January 1996
This report highlights six health insurance programs initiated by staleS and private
organizations (in five states; AI., PA, NY, FL, and MN) to increase health care access
for children. By 1995. 14 staleS and at least 24 private-sector otganizations had such
programs. The number of children enrolled in the six programs studied ranged from
more than 5,000 to more than 100,000 and focused primarily on low-income,
uninsurt<l children not enrolled in Medicaid. These programs were funded by various
nonfederal sources~ such as dedicated state taxes and private donations.
�POTENTIAL CHILDREN'S HEALTH INITIATIVES
1.
Base Proposal: Premium Assistance to Families witb Workers in
Transition
Our FY97 Budget proposal builds on the Kassebaum-Kennedy law by providing
premium assistance to temporarily unemployed workers
their families for up
to 6 months. Recipients have to have had employer-provided health insurance.
be receiving unemployment insurance, and have incomes below 240% of
poverty. It is a 4-year demonstration grant program to states, under which
states would have flexibility in using the funds, such us through COBRA, a
private: insurance product, Medicaid _buy-ins. or state high risk pools.
and
Cost and Number Benefiting: About $2 billion per year. Our FY97 Budget
assumc:d about $9 billion over 4 years. Our FY97 Budget proposal was
estimated to help about 3 million people each year, including 700,000 children.
Funding the program for 5 years would increase the number of adults and
children helped, but would cost about $3 billion in 2002.
1.
Target tbe 3 Million Children Now Eligible But Not Receiving Medicaid
Under this proposal, we would try to enroll the 3 million children currently
eligible but opt enrolled in Medicaid through a variety of administrative and
legislative proposals. These proposals include changing the law to let states
more easily accelerate the OBRA90 children's expansion, working with states
administratively to simplifY their enrollment process and eligibility
requirements, and expanding outreach through agreements with states, schools,
providers, and federal grantees.
Cost and Number Benefiting: $500-$800 per child per year, so expanding
coverage to 1 million of the 3 million eligible but not enrolled cost the federal
government $500-$800 million a year. Additional costs from administrative
actions would show up in the baseline. The actual scoring could depend on the
timing and credibility of the proposal andlor agreements with states. There
would also be a cost to states.
3.
Add State Options to Further Expand Coverage.
This proposal would allow states, at their option, to expand coverage to
children. For states who had voluntarily expanded their coverage of children up
to .133% of poverty, this proposal would allow states to develop Medicaid buy
�in programs for children of families up to 1850/0 of poverty. This program
would be cost-effective for states because it would permit family contributions
to help offset costs and allows states to limit the number of children covered -
as was done in TENNCARE. This proposal would also allow, at the state's
option, to extend eligibility. from one month to 12 months. thus increasing the
number of children covered and the lengt~ for which their covered.
Cost and Number Benefiting: Unknown at this time. but states and health
plans would likely be very interested in pursuing this approach.
4.
Grants to States to Develop Innovative Partnerships to Insure Children
This proposal builds on existing innovate state programs to insure children by
providing matching grants to states to provide insurance coverage to children.
States would have tremendous discretion.
Cost and Number Benefiting: Flexible. A $100 million per year federal
program could provide preventive service insurance for 2 million children or
traditional insurance coverage for 180,000 children. So, for example. a $550
million investment could provide traditional coverage to about 1 million
childnm. The proposal could be a demonstration program involving 5-10 states
or a national program.
5.
Healtb Care to Children in Targeted Communities Through Health Centers
This proposal provide uninsured children in targeted high-n'eed communities
with health services (not insurance) through school-based or school-linked
health centers and/or consolidated health centers, which have strong support on
the Hill, by providing targeted increases in their funding.
Cost and Number Benefiting: Flexible. Each $100 million a year could
provide services to 500,000 children though school based health centers or to I
million people including 440,000 children though CHCs each year. Medicaid
would cover some of the services.
6.
Set-Aside Funding to Expand Health Insurance or Services to Children
Through Medicaid, Grants to States, and/or Tax Credits.
This proposal would not specify the mechanism by which insurance and/or
health care services would be provided. Instead, the budget would set aside
between $1 billion and $2 billion each year to expand health care to children
�through Medicaid, outreach, grants to states, health centers, andlor tax credits.
This proposal would make clear the President's strong commitment In expanding
children's health care while providing additional time to develop the specific
proposal in coordination with Congress.
Cost and Number Benefiling: While Ihe number of children benefiting varies
depending on the specific proposal, providing comprehensive health care
coverage through either Medicaid or grants In states will cost at least $500 per
child. Therefore, a $1-$2 billion a year proposal could cover as many as 2-4
million additional children per year.
�
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
Clinton Administration History Project
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cinton Administration History Project
Council of Economic Advisers
Department of Commerce
Central Intelligence Agency
Department of the Interior
Department of Defense
Corporation for National Service
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Justice
Domestic Policy Council
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Emergency Management Agency
General Services Administration
Small Business Administration
Social Security Administration
United States Agency for International Development
National Economic Council
Office of Management & Budget
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Office of Personnel Management
Office of Science & Technology Policy
Office of the Vice President
United States Trade Representative
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-2001
Description
An account of the resource
<p>The Clinton Administration History Project describes in detail the accomplishments of President Clinton's Administration for the period 1993-2001. The records consist of the histories of 32 agencies or departments within the Executive Branch. In general, each organization associated with the Project submitted a narrative history along with supporting documents. These narrative accounts are primarily overviews of the various missions, special projects, and accomplishments of the agencies. The supplementary records include substantive memos, press releases, briefing papers, and publications illustrated with photos and charts.</p>
<p>Agencies:<br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Council+of+Economic+Advisers&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Council of Economic Advisers</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Central+Intelligence+Agency&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Central Intelligence Agency</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Commerce&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Commerce</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+the+Interior&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of the Interior</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Defense&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Defense</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Corporation+for+National+Service&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Corporation for National Service</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Council+on+Environmental+Quality&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Council on Environmental Quality</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Justice&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Justice</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Domestic+Policy+Council&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Domestic Policy Council</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Education&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Education</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Energy&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Energy</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Environmental+Protection+Agency&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Environmental Protection Agency</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Federal+Emergency+Management+Agency&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Federal Emergency Management Agency</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+General+Services+Administration&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the General Services Administration</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Health+and+Human+Services&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Health and Human Services</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Housing+and+Urban+Development&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Housing and Urban Development</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Labor&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Labor</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+National+Economic+Council&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the National Economic Council</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Office+of+Management+and+Budget&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Office of Management and Budget</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Office+of+National+Drug+Control+Policy&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Office of National Drug Control Policy</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Office+of+Personnel+Management&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Office of Personnel Management</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Office+of+Science+and+Technology+Policy&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Office of Science and Technology Policy</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Office+of+the+Vice+President&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Office of the Vice President</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Small+Business+Administration&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Small Business Administration</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Social+Security+Administration&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Social Security Administration</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+State&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of State</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Transportation&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Transportation</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+the+Treasury&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of the Treasury</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+United+States+Agency+for+International+Development&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the United States Agency for International Development</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the United States Department of Agriculture</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+United+States+Trade+Representative&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the United States Trade Representative</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+of+the+Department+of+Veterans+Affairs&range=&collection=21&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">History of the Department of Veterans Affairs</a></p>
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36051">Collection Finding Aid</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
1474 folders in 111 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
NEC – Balanced Budget Act of 1995 [5]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
History of the National Economic Council
Clinton Administration History Project
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-2001
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 39
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/Administration-History-finding-aid.pdf">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/1497354">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
6/24/2011
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
1497354-nec-balanced-budget-act-of-1995-5
1497354