    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1996, Book I)]
    [January 10, 1996]
    [Pages 30-33]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks on the Budget Negotiations and an Exchange With Reporters
    January 10, 1996

        The President. Hello, everybody. Is everyone in here? Well, first,
    let me say that we're having this Cabinet meeting to discuss the present
    status of our budget negotiations and where we are. As I have said all
    along, I am for balancing the budget in 7 years, but I want to protect
    the fundamental priorities of the American people and the future of the
    American people. We can balance a budget in 7 years, according to the
    Congressional Budget Office, without having dangerously low levels of
    commitment to Medicare and Medicaid, without having big cuts that
    undermine our commitments in education and the environment, without
    raising taxes on working families.
        Now, that's what the Congress said they wanted. I've got this letter
    here from Congress, a letter from Congress to the Speaker saying that
    the budget we submitted in fact balances the budget in 7 years. The
    differences between these two budgets are now clear. We do not want to
    fundamentally change the commitment of the Medicare program to the
    health care of seniors. We do not want to fundamentally

    [[Page 31]]

    change the commitment of the Medicaid program to senior citizens, to
    poor children, to the disabled. We do not want to adopt a level of
    investment that makes it certain that we will have to turn our backs on
    the needs of education or the environment.
        That is what this is all about. We can even have a modest tax cut
    for the American people, and for families especially, and balance the
    budget in 7 years according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's
    what this letter says. They agree now, so the only differences left
    between us are ideological differences.
        And I said in the beginning, let me say again: If the objective is
    to get a 7-year balanced budget that Congress says is balanced, we can
    do that. If the objective is to get a modest tax cut, we can do that. If
    the objective is to dismantle the fundamental American commitments
    through Medicare and Medicaid or to undermine our obligations in
    education and the environment, I will not do that. That is basically
    where it is.
        Q. Mr. President, it seems like that what's being said here today
    and also with what's being said on Capitol Hill, that despite all of the
    good will that was apparent here yesterday, this really was a breakdown
    in the talks. You're very far away, and it sounds like you're not
    getting any closer together in this break.
        The President. We're not--we're only very far away if you turn this
    into--if you insist on a tax cut which requires unacceptable levels of
    cuts in education and the environment and Medicare and Medicaid, or you
    insist on fundamentally changing those programs in ways that will erode
    the protections that Medicare and Medicaid now give to seniors and to
    poor children and to disabled people, or you insist on cuts in education
    that will cut back on scholarships or Head Start, or you insist on cuts
    which will really weaken our ability to protect the environment. If
    that's the deal, it's reconciling not only the level of cuts--it's not
    just the money here, I want to emphasize that. It's the policy.
        The Republicans--if I might, let me just take Medicare for an
    example, just for example. The Republicans and I agree that there should
    be changes in the Medicare program to encourage more seniors to have
    more options to join managed care programs. And we agree on a number of
    other provisions that should be changed that will strengthen Medicare
    and give more options to our senior citizens. I do not agree with
    changes that I think will, in effect, break up Medicare and put more and
    more seniors at the mercy of the present private insurance system so
    that the older and lower income and sicker you are, the more at risk you
    are. I don't want to do that.
        So if we can work that out, we'll have an agreement. It's the same
    thing----
        Q. Can you explain why----
        Q. It seems like what you're talking about here really is a
    fundamental policy difference that is not going to be bridged and, for
    example, can you possibly accept the idea that Medicaid would no longer
    be an entitlement?
        The President. No. No. But let me say this: More than my
    predecessors, my Republican predecessors, I have been for and I continue
    to be for giving the States far more flexibility in the way they run the
    programs. But I don't believe we should send a check, a Federal check to
    the States and say if you decide that you no longer want to provide
    health care to some poor children or some disabled people or some
    seniors who are getting it now, that's okay with us. I don't believe
    that. There is a national interest--a national interest--in protecting
    the health care of our children, our seniors, our disabled population.
    And I believe the American people believe that.
        In terms of letting the States have more flexibility to make the
    money go further, to do different things with it, to expand coverage in
    different ways, we have been on the forefront of that. That's what the
    Vice President's reinventing Government effort is about, that's what
    Secretary Shalala has done in giving all these waivers to States. We are
    willing to go much further there.
        But let me ask--I thought that we were supposed to be balancing the
    budget. We have agreed already, both sides have agreed, to far more
    savings than are necessary to balance the budget in 7 years according to
    the Congressional Budget Office. That's what this little letter says
    here. That's what their letter says. Both sides have agreed.
        If this is about balancing the budget, we could do it in 15 minutes
    tomorrow afternoon. The American people need to understand that.
    Congress now agrees. I have done this. I have given them a plan. It just
    simply does not have the dramatic changes in Medicare and Medicaid that
    I think will weaken our commitment to those folks, and it does not
    mandate cuts in education

    [[Page 32]]

    and the environment that are far larger than we could sustain. That
    would be--we cannot take the discretionary account down so low that we
    know that we will not be able to protect education and the environment.
        So that's where we are. We can balance the budget. It's very
    important that the American people understand that. We have agreed, the
    congressional leaders and I have agreed already, to far more than enough
    reductions in Government spending to balance the budget within 7 years.
    We already have.
        The issue here is over the policies involving Medicare, Medicaid,
    education, the environment, our opposition to raising taxes on the
    lowest paid working people and on the size and structure of the tax cut.
    This has nothing to do with balancing the budget anymore. Nothing.
        We could balance the budget, literally, in 15 minutes tomorrow
    afternoon. And the Congressional Budget Office would say hooray. The
    financial markets would say hooray. Interest rates would drop. The
    economy would start to grow. Everything would be fine. Then we could
    have an election in 1996 about whether the American people agree with
    their view of Medicare or mine, with their view of Medicaid or mine,
    with their view of our obligations in education and training of our work
    force and our children or mine, with their view of environmental
    protection or mine.
        Now, that's what we ought to do. We can do this in 15 minutes. So
    when they express pessimism, it's because they don't believe that--at
    least, maybe in the House and perhaps in the Senate as well--that they
    can pass a balanced budget program that they, their own Congressional
    Budget Office, will say is balanced but doesn't further these
    ideological goals. We ought to have an election about that.
        If we're going to walk away from the fundamental commitments of
    Medicare, we ought to have an election about that. We haven't had an
    election about that. If we're going to say that our children, because
    they are poor, are not entitled to the health care they would otherwise
    get or that middle class families that have disabled children who are
    now getting help will or will not get that help depending on who happens
    to be Governor of a given State, we ought to have an election about
    that. And if we're going to say we're going to reduce the number of
    college scholarships, college loans, investments in our education
    system, investments in environmental protection, we ought to have an
    election about that. That is not what the '94 election was about,
    certainly not what the '92 election was about.
        So let's come back here, balance a budget in 7 years, show the
    American people we can do it, get the economic benefits of doing it, and
    then have all 1996 to argue about these policies. That's the proper
    thing to do.
        We have bent over backwards to reach good-faith, honorable,
    principled compromise, and we can still do that. And I don't understand
    what the problem is. We can even have a reasonably good-sized tax cut
    and do it. But there is a limit to how big the tax cut can be, and there
    certainly is a limit beyond which we cannot go in good conscience based
    on our priorities.
        And let me just make one final statement. Ever since the Congress
    and I agreed to reopen the Government the first time, there was a
    resolution we passed--we all agreed to it. It said that, finally, we
    would agree on a budget that was balanced in 7 years, that the Congress
    would say was balanced in 7 years, that protected our priorities,
    Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, and that's what the
    resolution said.
        From the next day, all I ever heard was, ``Where is your budget that
    they say is scored?'' As if they had no obligation at all to deal with
    the other parts of the resolution. Well, here it is. This is their
    letter.
        Now, what we ought to do is honor the second part of the resolution.
    That resolution said we're going to put off the ideological battles
    until the next election. That resolution said, yes, we'll balance the
    budget in 7 years, but we will protect education and the environment and
    Medicare and Medicaid. And all I'm trying to do now is honor the
    resolution that I signed off on when we had the first Government crisis
    a few weeks ago.
        Q. Do you think they've deceived you, Mr. President, in their goals?
    Did they deceive you?
        The President. No, no. I always told you what this is about. I said
    this weeks and weeks ago, months ago. I have not been deceived. But you
    know, we don't--in a political system where one party, where even, I
    might say, one philosophy within one party does not have total control,
    sooner or later you have to ask yourself, are you going to make the
    perfect the enemy of the good?

    [[Page 33]]

        You know, when the Democrats--let me just give you an example. When
    the Democrats had the Congress in 1993 and '94, we passed the most
    sweeping education reform we've passed in 30 years. I did not agree with
    every last line in every one of those bills. But I did not make the
    perfect the enemy of the good. I said, I want the education reform.
        We passed a crime bill after 6 years of people talking about it
    before I got here. I did not agree with every line in the crime bill,
    but I said--and neither did the Attorney General. But we said, we're not
    going to make the perfect the enemy of the good. We're going to have a
    principled, honorable compromise. We passed the crime bill. We put over
    30,000 police on the street. Crime is going down in America.
        So I would plead with the Republicans to think about that, to look
    at that example. They can have an election over the biggest differences
    they have with me. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. We
    have already agreed to enough spending cuts to balance the budget and to
    give a modest tax cut. Let us do it.

    Note: The President spoke at 2:24 p.m. in the Cabinet Room at the White
    House, prior to a Cabinet meeting.