[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 161 (Wednesday, October 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15265-S15267]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           A MESSAGE OF HOPE

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been told, and we hear over and 
over again that we have lost the war on words on the Republican side 
and that this, what has now become known as the ``big lie'' around the 
country, is selling; that people are buying the idea that the 
Republicans are cutting Medicare and giving tax credits and tax relief 
for the very wealthy.
  Of course, this just is not true. I come here with a message of hope 
this morning, because I really believe that the American people will 
catch on. We are going to go through the same thing we went through a 
couple years ago when they were talking about socializing medicine. I 
am not nearly as distressed as other people are because we have time, 
time works in our favor, we have logic on our side, and we are seeing 
some things happening right now that I get really quite excited about.
  The other day, I picked up an editorial that was in the Washington 
Post. Mr. President, we are talking about the Washington Post now. This 
is not the Limbaugh Letter and this is not the Human Events, this is 
the Washington Post. Generally, the Washington Post is more liberal on 
their editorial outlook. If anything, they are more on the Democratic 
side than the Republican side.
  The editorial is called ``Meda- gogues.'' This is really a kind of 
neat article. The first paragraph says. I will paraphrase it:

       Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole accused the Democrats and their 
     allies yesterday of conducting a campaign based on distortion 
     and fear . . . They're right; that's precisely what the 
     Democrats are doing--it's pretty much all they're doing--and 
     it's--

  A crummy idea.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this editorial, entitled 
``Medagogues,'' printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Medagogues

       Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole accused the Democrats and their 
     allies yesterday of conducting a campaign based on distortion 
     and fear to block the cuts in projected Medicare spending 
     that are the core of the Republican effort to balance the 
     budget in the next seven years. They're right; that's 
     precisely what the Democrats are doing--it's pretty much all 
     they're doing--and it's crummy stuff.
       There's plenty to be said about the proposals the 
     Republicans are making; there's a legitimate debate to be had 
     about what ought to be the future of Medicare and federal aid 
     to the elderly generally. But that's not what the Democrats 
     are engaged in. They're engaged in demagoguery, big time. And 
     it's wrong--as wrong on their part now as it was a year ago 
     when other people did it to them on some of the same health 
     care issues. Then, they were the ones who indignantly 
     complained.
       Medicare and Medicaid costs have got to be controlled, as 
     do health care costs in the economy generally. The federal 
     programs represent a double whammy, because they, more than 
     any other factor, account for the budget deficits projected 
     for the years ahead. They are therefore driving up interest 
     costs even as they continue to rise powerfully themselves. 
     But figuring out how to contain them is enormously difficult. 
     More than a fourth of the population depends on the programs 
     for health care; hospitals and other health care institutions 
     depend on them for income; and you cut their costs with care. 
     Politically, Medicare is especially hard to deal with because 
     the elderly--and their children who must help care for them 
     to the extent the government doesn't--are so potent a voting 
     bloc.
       The congressional Republicans have confounded the skeptics 
     who said they would never attack a program benefiting the 
     broad middle class. They have come up with a plan to cut 
     projected Medicare costs by (depending on whose estimates you 
     believe) anywhere from $190 billion to $270 billion over the 
     seven-year period. It's true that they're also proposing a 
     large and indiscriminate tax cut that is a bad idea and that 
     the Medicare cuts would indirectly help to finance. And it's 
     true that their cost-cutting plan would do--in our judgment--
     some harm as well as good.
       But they have a plan. Enough is known about it to say it's 
     credible; it's gutsy and in some respects inventive--and it 
     addresses a genuine problem that is only going to get worse. 
     What the Democrats have instead is a lot of expostulation, TV 
     ads and scare talk. The fight is about ``what's going to 
     happen to the senior citizens in this country,'' Dick 
     Gephardt said yesterday. ``The rural hospitals. The community 
     health centers. The teaching hospitals . . .'' The 
     Republicans ``are going to decimate [Medicare] for a tax 
     break for the wealthiest people, take it right out of the 
     pockets of senior citizens. . . .'' The American people 
     ``don't want to lose their Medicare. They don't want Medicare 
     costs to be increased by $1,000 a person. They 

[[Page S 15266]]
     don't want to lose the choice of their doctor.''
       But there isn't any evidence that they would ``lose their 
     Medicare'' or lose their choice of doctor under the 
     Republican plan. If the program isn't to become less generous 
     over time, how do the Democrats propose to finance it and 
     continue as well to finance the rest of the federal 
     activities they espouse? That's the question. You listen in 
     vain for a real response. It's irresponsible.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is what is going on around the 
country. I just feel very strongly that the people are not willing to 
buy this.
  I wish I had a blowup of it, but there is a cartoon that has been 
sent out, I guess, into all the districts by the Democrat senatorial 
committee that depicts us as individuals who are trying to cut taxes 
for the superrich and we are going to be cutting Medicare. The things 
are just outrageous. It says: ``Inhofe feasts on tax cuts for the 
privilege while children go to bed hungry.''
  This is something that is, in my opinion, so extreme that the 
American people are not going to buy it.
  It was not long ago, just a little over a year ago, that the 
Democrats were trying at that time to sell to the American people a 
program where the Government would run the health care system and 
discard a health delivery system that has been the most successful 
system in the history of all nations, of all mankind, and it was one to 
adopt a program that was similar to what they have in Canada, or the 
age-old failure in Great Britain or the Scandinavian countries; and 
that is, all presume that the Government can run things better than the 
private sector.
  We were all so distressed at that time. Keep in mind this is just a 
year and a half ago. Even the American Medical Association bought a 
full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal and said they were throwing in 
the towel, raising the white flag, ``We surrender.'' For a few crumbs, 
they were willing to give up this system and take Hillary's health care 
system, and that was only a year and a half ago.
  I had an experience a couple weeks ago that drove home to me what a 
great system we have now. I have a close friend, Mr. President. He is 
an ear, nose, and throat surgeon in Tulsa, OK, one that has a very, 
very fine reputation among his peers and nationwide. I was talking to 
him and shared with him in casual conversation, about 20 years ago, 
that I lost my sense of smell. He said, ``Come around sometime and I 
will examine you.''
  I went in and he said, ``You need to have surgery.'' It is called 
endoscopic nasal surgery. It is a really yucky thing to talk about. But 
nonetheless, this is 2 weeks ago. Today, I am walking around and I have 
characterized this, Mr. President, as the most significant non-
Christian experience that I have had or change in my life. I now have 
had this restored, and I have a sense of smell. This could not have 
happened in any other country, where you have a choice of practitioners 
to go to, you have the state of the art and a degree of professionalism 
that none of the other countries have. It happened to me.

  Now, a year and a half ago, we were willing to give that up. And now, 
if you surveyed the American people, they know that we are making 
changes, that we need to do something about medical malpractice. They 
know we are going to come up with medical savings accounts and improve 
the system we have now. But the Government is not going to take it 
over.
  Well, this is what we are going through right now. By the way, this 
is, I think, unprecedented for the Washington Post to do. They came out 
with another editorial, and this was on September 25, called 
``Medagogues, Cont'd.'' I will read the last two sentences:

       The Democrats have fabricated the Medicare-tax cut 
     connection because it is useful politically. It allows them 
     to attack and to duck responsibility, both at the same time. 
     We think it's wrong.

  Again, that is what the Washington Post said.
  I ask unanimous consent that at this point this editorial be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 25, 1995]

                           Medagogues, Cont'd

       We print today a letter from House minority leader Richard 
     Gephardt, taking exception to an editorial that accused the 
     Democrats of demagoguing on Medicare. The letter itself seems 
     to us to be more of the same. It tells you just about 
     everything the Democrats think about Medicare except how to 
     cut the cost. That aspect of the subject it puts largely out 
     of bounds, on grounds that Medicare is ``an insurance 
     program, not a welfare program,'' and ``to slash the program 
     to balance the budget'' or presumably for any purpose other 
     than to shore up the trust fund is ``not just a threat to . . 
     . seniors, families, hospitals'' etc. but ``a violation of a 
     sacred trust.''
       That's bullfeathers, and Mr. Gephardt knows it. Congress 
     has been sticking the budget knife to Medicare on a regular 
     basis for years. Billions of dollars have been cut from the 
     program; both parties have voted for the cutting. Most years 
     the cuts have had nothing to do with the trust funds, which, 
     despite all the rhetoric, both parties understand to be 
     little more than accounting devices and possible warning 
     lights as to program costs. Rather, the goal has been to 
     reduce the deficit. It made sense to turn to Medicare because 
     Medicare is a major part of the problem. It and Medicaid 
     together are now a sixth of the budget and a fourth of all 
     spending for other than interest and defense. If nothing is 
     done those shares are going to rise, particularly as the 
     baby-boomers begin to retire early in the next century.
       There are only four choices, none of them pleasant. 
     Congress can let the health care programs continue to drive 
     up the deficit, or it can let them continue to crowd out 
     other programs or it can pay for them with higher taxes. Or 
     it can cut them back.
       The Republicans want to cut Medicare. It is a gutsy step. 
     This is not just a middle-class entitlement; the entire 
     society looks to the program, and earlier in the year a lot 
     of the smart money said the Republicans would never take it 
     on. They have. Mr. Gephardt is right that a lot of their plan 
     is still gauzy. It is not yet clear how tough it will finally 
     be; on alternate days you hear it criticized on grounds that 
     it seeks to cut too much from the program and on grounds that 
     it won't cut all it seeks. Maybe both will turn out to be 
     true; we have no doubt the plan will turn out to have other 
     flaws as well.
       They have nonetheless--in our judgment--stepped up to the 
     issue. They have taken a huge political risk just in calling 
     for the cuts they have. What the Democrats have done in turn 
     is confirm the risk. The Republicans are going to take away 
     your Medicare. That's their only message. They have no plan. 
     Mr. Gephardt says they can't offer one because the 
     Republicans would simply pocket the money to finance their 
     tax cut. It's the perfect defense; the Democrats can't do the 
     right thing because the Republicans would then do the wrong 
     one. It's absolutely the case that there ought not be a tax 
     cut, and certainly not the indiscriminate cut the Republicans 
     propose. But that has nothing to do with Medicare. The 
     Democrats have fabricated the Medicare-tax cut connection 
     because it is useful politically. It allows them to attack 
     and to duck responsibility, both at the same time. We think 
     it's wrong.

  Mr. INHOFE. Finally, Mr. President, I feel confident that the 
American people are not going to buy into this lie. I know it is a very 
short message. I know the Democrats are rejoicing. They think they 
fooled the American people into thinking that the Republicans are going 
to cut Medicare in order to have tax cuts. There is no connection, as 
far as tax cuts are concerned.
  I hope that anyone in America that is looking at that and saying ``we 
do not want tax cuts'' will stop and remember what happened in 1993. In 
1993, President Clinton came out with the largest single tax increase 
in the history of public finance in America or anyplace in the world. 
These are not the words of conservative Republican Jim Inhofe. These 
are the words of a Democrat on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  I suggest to you that anybody who was opposed to that major tax 
increase that we did not need in 1993 ought to be supporting a tax cut. 
All we are trying to do is repeal a lot of the damage that was done to 
the American people in 1993. We may not be able to get by with this, 
until we change the personality in the White House. Nonetheless, we 
should not connect what we are trying to do to save Medicare with the 
fact that we would like to have tax relief for the American people--not 
the superrich, we are talking about the American people and child 
deductions and that sort of thing.
  I feel confident that we are going to be able to sell that message 
because it is right and honest. We are getting more and more support 
around the country from liberal editorial boards who are saying: ``That 
is enough; we are not going to perpetrate a lie on the American people 
such as the Democrat leadership is trying to perform.''
  You know, it was Winston Churchill who said, ``Truth is 
incontrovertible. Panic may rescind it, ignorance may deride it, malice 
may destroy it, but there it is.'' 

[[Page S 15267]]

  I think we will find truth and truth will prevail.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.

                          ____________________