[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.

                          ____________________