[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2917-S2918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GETTING OUT FROM UNDER THE REDTAPE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, the freshman class of the
U.S. Senate made a trip around the United States to talk to different
groups, different gatherings. We went all the way from Philadelphia to
Knoxville, to Minneapolis, to Cheyenne, WY. One of the things we talked
about, probably more than anything else, was welfare reform, changing
the system as we have come to know it since the 1960's.
The Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, was with us during this.
He came up with some evidence from the State of Missouri that I thought
was quite remarkable. He was talking about the administration of the
Medicaid program, how they have been able to file and get out from
under the red-tape of the Federal Government. The year prior to their
being able to administer the Medicaid Program with the amount of money
that they had, they reached some 600,000 families throughout the State
of Missouri. The next year, or the year following the year that they
were able to take over the total jurisdiction and control and
administration and come out from under the redtape of the Federal
Government--and this was done, I might add, under a Democrat
administration, a Democrat director of the department of human services
for the State of Missouri--they were able to use that same amount of
money and reach 900,000 families. In other words, 50 percent more
services were given to families just by eliminating the unnecessary
trip and expense and redtape of the Federal Government.
I believe it has been our policy to get as many of these things back
to the local level. Having served myself in the State legislature,
having served as a mayor of a major city, Tulsa, OK, for three terms, I
can tell you that the closer you can get to the people at home, the
better a program will be administered.
On welfare, we spent some time looking at the welfare system. The
President of the United States, when he ran for President, when Bill
Clinton ran for President of the United States, he had a pretty good
welfare reform system. In fact, the welfare reform system that
[[Page S2918]]
he advocated during the time that he ran for President of the United
States had work requirements, had elements in it that were precisely
the elements of the welfare reform package that passed the House of
Representatives and then passed the Senate by a vote of 87 to 12. It
was a shock to everyone, even on his own side of the aisle where 60
percent of the Democrats voted to support this, when he came out
and vetoed it. I would like to think that America woke up during the
demagogy of the Medicare reform. I know that many----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notifies the Senator that his time
has expired.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BRADLEY. One minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me just comment that many editorial
writers around the country that normally are more of a liberal
persuasion came out and editorialized in favor of the Republicans and
the fact that we recognized that we have a system that was going into
bankruptcy. I ask unanimous consent that these be printed in the
Record, the two editorials from the Washington Post that made this very
clear. The names of the editorials are ``Medagogues'' and ``Medagogues,
Cont'd.''
The last sentence of the second editorial reads, ``The Democrats have
fabricated the Medicare-tax cut connection because it is useful
politically. It allows them to attack and duck responsibility, both at
the same time. We think it's wrong.'' And America thinks it is wrong.
There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 18, 1995]
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 gusty 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 the 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 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.
____
[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 our
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 Medicine. 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 to 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. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Chair recognizes the Senator
from New Jersey.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
____________________