[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E5-E6]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            MEDICARE REFORM

                                 ______


                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 3, 1996

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends to his 
colleagues the following two excellent editorials which appeared in the 
Norfolk Daily News on January 2 and 3, 1996.

              [From the Norfolk Daily News, Jan. 2, 1996]

                    Medicare Outlays Must Have Limit

       Medicare was not conceived as a welfare program. But those 
     who now argue for taxpayers to make up any differences 
     between actual costs of Medicare and the premiums that 
     beneficiaries pay are treating it that way.
       If a similar philosophy prevails early in the next century 
     when there are too-few workers to sustain benefits at 
     projected levels without turning to Uncle Sam, then Social 
     Security will also be in that ``welfare'' category.
       It is important not to accept either of those programs as 
     general welfare obligations of the U.S. Treasury, financed by 
     taxpayers either through higher taxation or by more 
     borrowing. Social Security and Medicare were conceived as 
     programs that would depend on contributions by the 
     beneficiaries themselves, who could afford to pay the 
     equivalent of insurance premiums during their working years, 
     and, in the case of Medicare, pay modest premiums during 
     retirement.
       In the case of Social Security, that has worked. It has 
     been a struggle, however, to make sure that political 
     promises to beneficiaries were matched by legislative action 
     to adjust ``premiums''--in the form of payroll taxes--to keep 
     the system solvent. The struggle continues.
       More than a difference in total outlays is involved in the 
     contest between the White House plan for Medicare, which 
     proposes spending of $97 billion less than would otherwise be 
     projected and the plan proposed by Republicans in Congress, 
     which projects spending about $200 billion less.
       The difference is that the GOP plan puts a ceiling on the 
     outlays, and fixed specific dollar amounts that would not be 
     exceeded. That would bar further tapping of taxpayer 
     resources. The White House plan takes a different approach, 
     though also claiming to slow spending growth. It projects 
     some savings but includes no provisions to enforce them. 
     Greater demands on the system than projected would simply be 
     made up by shifting the extra costs to taxpayers at large.
       That has become the traditional way for the prevailing 
     majorities in Washington to handle federal programs: Enact a 
     formula for benefits, then tax or borrow to meet the overall 
     demand. Setting and enforcing a ceiling on expenditures has 
     been something to resist.
       If that pattern were to be followed in the future in the 
     government's other major insurance program--Social Security--
     trillions in debt limits would not be enough. The budgeteers 
     would have to begin thinking in quadzillions. Better to fix 
     limits right now.
                                                                    ____


              [From the Norfolk Daily News, Jan. 3, 1996]

                      Plenty of Blame To Go Around

       At the Social Security Administration office in the 
     Washington suburb of Woodlawn, Md., 100 of the federal 
     workers idled by the budget impasse staged a small 
     demonstration. ``Furlough Newt,'' proclaimed one of the 
     placards displayed. Another said, ``Give Newt the boot, not 
     the loot.'' Still another was less focused on the speaker, 
     but put the blame on Capitol Hill: ``Congress we have a 
     contract with America, too.''
       If the majority ruled among the elected policymakers in the 
     federal establishment, the conflict which found the 
     government partially shut down would have been resolved 
     quickly. But a congressional majority is not enough. One 
     man's veto--the President's--can mean that a super-majority 
     is needed in Congress if legislators are to work their will.
       Speaker Gingrich has attempted to use the congressional 
     majority's power to get the 

[[Page E6]]
     Clinton administration to accept a balanced budget in 2002, Medicare 
     reform and modest reductions in taxation--all of them being 
     goals which Mr. Clinton also proclaimed at various times. 
     There is a sharp and continuing dispute about the details, of 
     course.
       An objective view of the situation should lead to the 
     conclusion that the contending parties are equally 
     accountable for the failure to reach an agreement, whatever 
     the arguments.
       Why should the federal workers only blame Newt when it is 
     obvious that the president could have avoided the shutdown by 
     accepting a compromise? Of course, it would not be seemly for 
     them to be parading in front of the White House with banners 
     calling for Bill, their boss, to give in to Capitol Hill.
       Popular opinion, fed by sad stories of the lives disrupted 
     momentarily by the partial federal shutdown, seems to reflect 
     the idea that all the blame should be heaped on Newt and his 
     cohorts. Who elected them, anyway? Only a majority of the 
     voters in their districts, which is as good a claim to 
     legitimate power as the president himself has.
       A more presidential president, one willing to acknowledge 
     that there is wisdom on the east end of Pennsylvania Avenue, 
     would have found a way to end this impasse long before it 
     became so disruptive.

                          ____________________