[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11231-S11232]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I happened to be presiding this morning 
when the very distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator 
Kennedy, made a number of comments. I know that he would not 
intentionally say anything that is not totally accurate in reflecting 
upon the positions and past performances of Senator Bob Dole, but I 
think inadvertently he misrepresented his stand on a number of issues. 
I would like to just briefly go over a couple of these.
  First of all, it seems as if it has been over a year now since the 
demagoging of Medicare has taken place on this floor. I was very 
pleased a year ago today, I believe it was, to read an editorial in the 
Washington Post. And, Mr. President, I do not think anyone has ever 
accused the Washington Post of being a Republican publication.
  So, finally, I feel that they looked at this and thought this is such 
a serious thing, that the Republicans had a program to save Medicare, 
and that by the admission of the board of trustees that was appointed 
by President Clinton, if we did not do something, Medicare would have 
gone broke by the year 2002, then that was updated a year later and 
they said it really would be 2001, and the Republicans had a program to 
control growth, not cut--there has never been any intention to cut 
benefits of Medicare to the American people--but have controlled 
growth, do away with waste and fraud and abuse and install some other 
things that would make it a viable program.
  So, finally, the editorial boards around the country, that are 
normally not sensitive to Republican causes, rallied and said, we are 
going to have to do something about it.
  I would like to read the last two sentences of an editorial found in 
the Washington Post a year ago, just about now. I believe it was a year 
ago today. It was called ``Medagogues, Cont'd.'' This is the second 
one. A week before that they had one where they demonstrated very 
clearly and very persuasively that what the Republicans were trying to 
do was to save Medicare. The last two sentences are:

       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. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my 
remarks, the editorial entitled ``Medagogues, Cont'd'' from the 
Washington Post be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the second attack on Senator Bob Dole by 
the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts had to do with the 
Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, implying that Bob Dole was opposed and had been 
opposed to the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. I would suggest to you, Mr. 
President, that one thing that Bob Dole was opposed to was a single 
payer Government-run system which the President had advocated earlier 
in his administration. In other words, socializing medicine, taking 
about 12 percent of the economy of this country and putting it in the 
hands of Government because they can do it so much better than the 
private sector can do it.

  That is what Senator Dole was opposed to. He was not opposed to some 
of the reforms that were found in the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. There 
were a couple of reforms that he wanted that ended up being in the 
bill. In fact, the President said that if the MSA's, medical savings 
accounts, were added to the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, at one point he 
said he would veto it. Many of those on the other side of the aisle 
said that if the MSA's are in, it would be vetoed.
  Why were people concerned about the MSA's? They were concerned about 
them because those people who would want to have a socialized approach 
to health care delivery in this country know that once we have MSA's, 
we will never go back to that system.
  What do MSA's do? They merely allow the choice of individuals so that 
if an individual wants to shop around for his health delivery services, 
and he can save money doing so, then he can benefit and have the 
rewards of what he has saved. I think that our health delivery in 
America is the only product or service known that actually has a built-
in disincentive to save. And I am guilty like everyone else. You know, 
if I have my deductible and I go ahead and pay that, then I am inclined 
to go and get any kind of medical or health service that is out there 
because it no longer costs me any more money. That is human nature.
  We finally got a modified medical savings account system put into the 
Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. I say ``modified.'' It is only on a trial 
basis. It is going to prove itself. I heard estimates that we could 
actually reduce the total cost of health care in this country by as 
much as 50 percent just by having MSA's.
  Mr. President, there is another thing we need to do that is not in 
this bill, and that is to have some kind of medical malpractice so we 
do not have such a high defensive cost. But anyway, the fact that MSA's 
are in there now--the President had said he would veto it if they were 
in there. He did not veto it. I am glad he did not veto it. But 
certainly it was never Bob Dole's intention to oppose the Kennedy-
Kassebaum bill with the reforms in it that he felt

[[Page S11232]]

were in the best interests of the American people.
  The third thing that Senator Kennedy said about Senator Dole that I 
think was misleading, and it was a misrepresentation of his position, 
was in reference to tax cuts. It is true that Senator Dole, if elected 
President, wants to come to Congress, which I believe will still be 
controlled by the Republicans, and come with tax cuts.
  He outlined five major tax cuts. I am very supportive of all five of 
those tax cuts. People ask, how are you going to pay for them? I think 
people forget about the fact that three decades in the last 100 years 
Presidents have decided to have tax cuts, and in all three decades it 
has dramatically increased the revenues.
  It is ironic that Senator Kennedy would be talking about tax cuts and 
all the damage that is being done when it was John Kennedy in 1962, 
when he was President of the United States, who said, and I quote:

       In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too 
     high today and tax revenues are too low. And the soundest way 
     to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut rates now. 
     The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget 
     deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding 
     economy which can bring a budget surplus.

  That was what President Kennedy said in 1962. And that is exactly 
what happened during the 1960's with the massive tax reductions, and we 
were able to have revenue increases--revenue increases.
  Look what happened. The marginal rates of our tax system in 1980 
produced $244 billion. In 1990, it almost doubled to $466 billion, and 
that was during a 10-year period when we had the most massive cuts in 
our tax revenues.
  So I think that it would be good to go back and look at history and 
see that this country, when it has been overtaxed in the past, that 
they reduced taxes and had the result of increasing revenues. 
Certainly, we are in an overtaxed posture right now.
  I have often said there are three things that make this country 
nonproductive, on a global basis, and noncompetitive: One is our high 
tax rates; one is overregulation; the other is our tort laws. There is 
not time in this brief time to cover that.
  I conclude, Mr. President, by saying when Senator Kennedy assailed 
Senator Dole for talking about tax cuts, that he start realizing those 
individuals--those of us who want to have tax reductions--are the same 
ones that were trying to stop the 1993 tax increase. In 1993, when 
President Clinton had control of both the House and the Senate, he 
passed a tax increase that was characterized not by Republicans but by 
the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which was Senator 
Moynihan, who said it was the largest single tax increase in the 
history of public finance in America or any place in the world.
  I think, essentially, what we--what Senator Dole, and what the 
Republicans and the conservatives in this body and in the other body--
want to do is merely undo the damage that was done by that massive tax 
increase and actually repeal the taxes that were increased in 1993. 
Essentially, that is what Senator Dole wants to do. I believe that is 
an accurate characterization of his program.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 5, 1996]

                               Medagogues

       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 year 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 nonethless--in our judgement--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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Wisconsin is 
recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 
10 minutes in morning business, and following my remarks, that Senator 
Graham of Florida be recognized for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________