Conversation 094-002

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

And so that question is,

how to deal with it.

The second approach would suggest that a way to deal with it is not for any of us to dig you in, certainly, as opposed to the infrastructure to identify different problems and so on, and to

to moderate the amount of the resource and preserve your options.

In fact, the difficulty for that force essentially is, in some respects, to give you the worst of both worlds.

Neither is the visible campaign of restraint on one side, nor the as solid a base for claiming credit for the benefits increased for the elderly on the other.

Third would involve your taking an affirmative, taking an affirmative resolution, but in a way that did not have adverse impact on the budget.

This kind of alternative that we suggested yesterday, we have sensed.

identified a number of other alternatives, but before we proceed to these, I think we need to address the kind of concerns that I understand you were raising, John, and I think you're really interested in today.

And these are really why, how can you justify really being, you know, the leader, much less as big one as this couple that came by.

Here, the argument would have to be, as indicated at the bottom of Table 2, that they still represent a highly disproportionate percentage of the nation's poor, whereas the 80s constitute 10% of the total population, they constitute 20% of the poor, or, viewed another way, whereas 12.6% of the total population of poor people are poor.

Further, the proportion of low-income people benefiting from private pensions is relatively small, and they would not force it from reform if they existed.

And while, as we point out here, it's true that Social Security mandates have more than kept up with rising prices, they have not kept up with rising standards of living.

As we point out, the ratio to

would, uh, mean that under this proposal, with that 20% overall increase of $12,000, this, the individual at $12,000 would be receiving benefits equivalent to 30% of his pre-retirement take-home pay.

And, uh, the ratio of

the number of people on public assistance is going to be reduced and there will be about 20% more of the other poverty.

Programmatic as well as political considerations support this.

Now, the alternatives that are set forth in the attachment to this memorandum, the first is the one I mentioned already,

And the second would be to eliminate the $1.1 billion positive impact on the budget through alternatives that will come over and increase the wage by 12%.

The next alternative would defer the increase in the energy space and defer the 15% energy increase to March from January.

The swap alternatives would be the same as the third.

That is, it would defer the 12,000 wage base increase to January, but instead of making a 15% increase, it would be a 10% increase then.

And in June, I would favor the second, just here, the liberalization of provision for a special minimum benefit for long-term contributors, which would be

a departure, really, from the Strait, as I think in a different direction that most people would feel in the Strait.

I think I'm going to have to do this on the Strait.

The last paragraph on page four.

it is possible to have a very full-fledged relationship.

It is a very positive solution.

You can marry without a relationship.

It is a great solution.

Just to explain that once again, I don't know how it comes about.

And I'm too happy for anything.

But I don't quite see it.

I was trying to study the school case.

And I said, well,

I think that is probably true.

I'm looking at my social security.

The pilot impact comes about because you recall that David proposed that we pick up the intimate now made by young people as their contribution to premium for medical insurance, which is now $5.50 and that that would be picked up by the

The funding of that going into effect on July 1, 73, thought that there would be a increase in the hospital insurance contribution rate.

January 73, that would give you about half a year's collections.

This is, this is the luster, of course, of the various extensions.

In fact, on the consolidated budget, quite narrow adjustments.

The year is the same.

It would commit an increase in the hospital insurance rate, which would be in effect for half a year.

It would be getting the increase income for a whole year, but, uh, here's kind of true for all the things that I have here.

That checks out, uh, that's for six to 73, you know, your pocket money.

That's right, that's actually going to be clouded for half a year.

We got to figure out just what that cloud would be and then send it forward.

That's a couple of other things.

First, we all, of course, we're aware of where it was.

and justice.

This is perhaps the last generation of older people that will have this problem.

And it's very dangerous.

And a lot of other things that God is going to do to make it not as accomplished and good and socially good as much.

All that's going to be done.

the fact that the voters, the citizens are what we have made a part of their propaganda.

I don't know if it's just many of them, but it's able to play a game and lead more in our direction than it would actually be a part of the others.

So much of that.

The other side, of course, that we have considered is the fact that

We're under heavy assault now for not holding the line.

Well, for an episode, it's already been a line.

And they're not holding the line.

They're just, well, they're kind of welfare businesses.

But they're very, I don't know.

But, yeah.

Also, the relationship with this, the 20% increase here to our old draft was 5.5% weight increase to 3% price increase in the year.

I ask that you all not worry about anything on race taxes and money, if y'all cares.

Second, there is some political effect the other way, however, in terms of how much of it is going on.

People who are really concerned about

you're on that point

you feel that the Senate is probably going to pass.

What are they going to do?

Are they going to hang on?

What are they going to hang on to?

H.R.

1.

H.R.

1.

H.R.

1.

H.R.

1.

H.R.

1.

H.R.

1.

H.R. 1.

So when do we face this problem?

It's simply that it's impossible to tell, really, when law will reach the income benefits question.

You don't want to make long, but you want to create a bill to say, in effect, introducing this bill.

If somebody is with what was, in effect, an invitation to the Senate, and they are one, he isn't.

He has indicated very clearly he didn't intend to try to get it through the house.

That's right.

He says that he's under the hood and all.

He is preempted to be.

I see.

Now let's try to do it.

Let's do it.

We'll use infection.

Now since all the technologies have protected it, he thinks that instead of getting 4%, he's going to capture it.

He might take 8%.

I don't think he's going to.

Mr. President, we, if you recall, we kind of had an issue in this field, and I'll take it away from you, especially on this Medicare and COVID.

My view is that as a result of the

work I've been doing out with the only person.

But this, the Medicare issue, we don't really have that issue because they're not talking with older people and get questions and answers.

They're talking about this 20%.

It's looming.

Yeah, they, well, they know this one business and it's looming as a, as probably as indicated, we can't handle this in the sense of only the 23%.

I think we can dig in on it because we tend to go beyond that.

We can't do that without providing additional reference.

In other words, I think we could hold our ground on that.

Now, 174, I'd like to see us take a look at that and see...

Just what would be fairly minor adjustments we could make on the rate it's necessary to offset so that we don't get too heavy a burden on the 74 budget.

And I think that can be done.

The Social Security people indicated that this morning.

have to go up from 4.6 to 4.9 on those 70 percent of the present time in the contributions.

By moving that up a little and not doing it a little earlier than 70 percent, we could conceivably affect the 74.

In other words, I'd like to

uh the uh 1970 warhawk convention we've got something here as far as 73 is concerned and not only will not complicate the unified budget but it will put us in coverage

Well, I have a feeling that if you take vigorously here,

language for a message, which makes it clear that you're known as far as you give.

We can go and maintain customer responsibility that we have an awfully good chance of digging in on that and holding them.

I don't know if that's been discussed with Long.

Has Long taken the view, or has Long taken the view, or has either taken the view that perhaps they ought to have some way of not having this adverse effect on 20%?

Dr. Mills about this once was the day he introduced the bill.

At that point, he indicated that he hoped the outcome would be some split in the 20% from the portion that it would go into effect on July 1 of this year and the balance going into effect at a future date.

The problem may well be that if we don't make the fight to do that, nobody will.

And that they won't make a cent what it's long to make.

What it's long to make.

I haven't dared pursue it as far as now you'd like to.

Without it, without it, without it, then this is what your position is.

Have you talked to him, Tom?

No, not about this.

You've talked to George and to both of them, period.

Right.

This is very opposite to searching for these administration positions.

I just have a feeling as far as what we're doing.

We might very well be able to work out 100%.

I'd like you to come around and talk with me about my bill.

I haven't done it because, for the same reason, I want to get her to take the session.

But if we could do that, then I think we could hold the line on this so that you wouldn't be confronted with something in your bill that would add substantially to the deficit.

Yeah.

And, uh,

so that we could stall it perhaps some, if he gets to it, he could any day of the week before we're ready.

The other is that the undue testify, which was originally intended to be next Tuesday, but we have got deferred to the 21st, that was Bradman's subcommittee on the 18th now.

The bearing of that is that we've really got to have

up there by that time on legislation on the administration of the ADA.

I'd like to submit a message on the ADA.

It would be useful to have it in person today.

It's a real, real outside day now, I think, the times are certain.

And we think that there isn't enough new to say the message of aging in the light of the visibility this issue has had.

Unless you can...

I know it's nothing you can ever say anyway, that's enough, but... Well, you made a great speech.

Your speech was very successful and had a message that did have...

There's nothing we can really add to that speech, and that I wouldn't.

Let me see.

Uh, what I'd like to do...

And I don't know how would that .

in a totally confidential way, and to break the code.

I mean, I suppose we have to, I think it's important to know where we are, and if we're in a situation where you get, let's say, 385 is 28 or something like that, and they're talking in terms of leadership, which is the key thing, as they say.

And this one is .

This presents .

And also presents .

A lot of particularly analyzed .

We didn't have to wait.

We were able to use the mover.

It went to place.

Yeah.

And raise.

Yeah.

It's a little more balanced.

Yeah.

What do you do in that field?

Do you make a proposal?

In effect, you're giving it to the opposition, as I see it.

At the moment, I think that, uh, I think that the United States, I think that it might be too long to get to an agreement, but you have an obligation to kind of follow the price cycle closely with the movement, and you're able to do that if it's a problem.

The political judgment is

that it's starting to move, actually moving in a certain direction.

That, as Mr. Henson said, he said, he said, he said, it's like, it's like a boat.

You hear, you have to guide with the waves, you know, it's a bird's eye.

What we have to do in that case,

I'm over that direction.

That would mean that the president would act.

And he'd stand up and say, I veto this bill.

I veto the bill, and so on, and so on.

I don't understand.

I veto it.

I don't understand.

in terms of the inflation response and so forth and so on.

Despite the presidential review, it's still bad.

And that, therefore, shows the leadership to be irresponsible.

It's like the Constitution and us.

The question is whether it can be effective.

What I'm saying here is this.

The legislative process is going to come out in a certain way.

Then we've got to consider whether it are taking another position.

a different position, a modified position, this whole line, might guide that legislative result, any result, then we would have a 3.5 percent.

And I'm sure what Arthur, and I think Arthur, and Kelly, and others, and I understand this thing, is that they only took a very strong, possibly leadership position

or the numbers and so forth and so on so that it does not have a detrimental effect on the 73 special that we could prevent.

And that's what we ought to do.

Of course.

There's no other way to stop it.

But I think we need some political input from the House.

Don't keep us asking, because the moment you ask, the whole thing is they don't want to hear about Christmas.

Don't ask me what I'm going to be holding.

We will not do that.

I know that the House is going to be irresponsible, but I'm going to stand up and be brave.

Sometimes you do that too.

It's the second position you described there also would maintain the height feeling if you're lifting.

Well, we do appreciate your time.

We'll think about it.

We will.

We can decide sometime next week.

I don't want to.

I just don't want to.

I don't want to do it in here.

I don't want to do it here.

Shifting around your athletes.

I got a question about the race.

Yeah.

Thank you.

There's no time.

Thank you.

There's no time.

I'll step up.

I'll step back in and sit down.

Thank you.