Conversation 486-002

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Good morning, Jerry.

How are you?

I'm fine.

How are you?

I didn't know you could get here.

Hey, go get Johnny.

He ain't busy, are you?

I'll admit that.

Sit right over here.

I got a mid-sandwich.

And, uh, don't admit he's busy, Johnny.

This is so stupid.

I bought a bargain.

He never tells me what I'm going to do after that.

Where's Greg?

He might have some work going on at the party.

He won't hurt you.

He won't hurt you at all.

He's back.

Is it packed like that?

They're kind of bagged.

I fired my old friend, uh, uh, Benson, the coach.

We, uh, would you ask the secretary to cut my appointment period?

So, Thomas, I told you it was your fault.

It's the streets across the street.

Let me add something to the agenda.

We did a really good job at Williamsburg.

It was great.

And it's needed because we're going to have trouble.

We're going to be through with that in the committee.

I think we'll be through with that next week.

What do you mean?

But we have a mixture of problems.

You've got the Liberals all the way by our side of the concern, where it's just the middle guys that we can convince, you know.

That's going to be a closer one this year, because you've got the back of the Senate.

They're turning the concept down.

Well, that's right.

No.

We never could.

get the figure unanticipated votes on the floor of the 460.

You think we'd have passed and said, John, let me say that all that darn thing is, you know, I agree.

I'm worried about his hellish nose.

He and I have talked a lot about the darn thing.

it really finally gets back to the point, what in the hell are you gonna do if you don't do this?

Nobody's got another plan right now.

Does anybody ever give me another plan?

No, no, no.

Mr. Reagan, I looked at him about half the time.

We wanted to get across the fact that there were work requirements in this system, which we got to have.

Or they didn't want to vote.

Right there, there's no time left.

No.

I don't have that issue.

Forget it.

I was wondering if they don't know us.

And Reagan has these ideas.

Have you ever talked to Reagan?

Oh, he's got some horrible examples.

Mr. President, yesterday I was in the House of Lords.

I just asked my partner, Senator Wilbur Mills, to call me over.

He said he would tell the President that the speech that he made was the greatest and best speech ever.

It's taken a long, long time.

He won us votes both in committee and on the floor of the House for H.R.

1.

And he said, please carry a message to him.

And his speech went very, very, very well.

How did they all learn about it?

I'm surprised.

No, it wasn't me.

No, it wasn't.

It wasn't.

The problem is not in the concept, the problem is getting people.

to understand the process.

When would you vote, John?

I wanted to know the moment of truth.

Well, I would take the chapter next year.

I was going to say about two weeks, Mr. President.

Oh, sorry.

Well, it won't be long in the rules committee.

It'll take probably two days in areas.

But if you get it out in ten days, it'll be on the floor.

It'll happen, I hope.

I have tea.

Tea or coffee.

I'll have coffee.

I don't know.

You want tea or coffee?

I'll have tea.

Everybody wants coffee.

I know the matter.

Yeah, the Senate committee on finance.

Yeah.

It started on Monday.

Yeah.

That's the Kennedy committee.

No, this is the long end of the committee on gas itself.

Well, isn't Kennedy having hearings around the country, by the way?

Kennedy is, uh, what was that?

It was Peter Dahlman and Ted Kennedy were sparring, and Ted Kennedy's finally lost interest in the hearing because nothing has given him so much trouble.

He's holding general hearings on the health crisis.

But that's the topic.

I'm trying to be a Christian scientist.

I don't believe in it, but I don't know about that.

No, but the general health legislation before Committee 3 is going to do something legislative.

It starts Monday with Russell Long and Paul Spence.

I appeared before Kennedy and it's the first day.

I think it was a good, it was a good opportunity at the time to lay out the total share of this draft.

But the finance is a very good job.

Well, let me get this over to you, Paul.

Okay.

Well, you can flip-flop it and you can let me talk to you about the culture.

But the money, the next money is here, is on legislation pending before San Antonio's itself.

And they have jurisdiction over our legislation, which is what it does.

Oh, yeah.

you're going to take up first.

You're on to the revenue.

You're on to it.

Well, I know you're still interested in that.

Yeah, well, I can't wait to get on it.

No, the current chairman of probation, he really promised you that he would take that up next.

I think you should, for a reason that we are catching so much hell, you know, the mayors, the governors, John, you've all heard of this, we're getting so much, I really feel it's ought to take reference sharing, you know, if you fight it or not, so that they can, I agree with you, so that they can advise us, my God, everybody blends in on one side or raises in the other, all right, let's find out.

Yeah, sure.

But I'll help.

But that would be the next one, which I would be telling you about, the Red July, that would be my third one.

Then I'll help then.

Because I understand that, John, you've got some reservations about our business.

There's this one here, tip one half thing.

Can I welcome this up to the small list here?

Because this, it's a double project.

Every time, because what you're proposing here is to put on employers generally the responsibility for furnishing policy of insurance with some contribution by the employee.

This isn't going to affect any of your big employers because they're already furnishing it.

It's down to how you treat the situation as you get into the economic effect on the marginal worker and the marginal employer.

Every time that we've done something where we've been pulled as the responsibility on the employer, minimum wage, line one and compensation, social security, we've always been faced immediately with the economic plus the political problem of what are you doing to small business, what are you doing to the marginal employee, and so forth.

Now that, again, is the case here.

To kind of even just say that you're going to, and that's just what I told you, this is my only concern with the bill.

I think fundamentally the proposition of putting, moving in the direction of saying this is an employer responsibility is fine.

No quarrel there at all.

It's just that how do you treat this middle tier?

In other words, the people that aren't working, you want to take care of.

And you're doing that today.

In fact, you're taking care of some of the marginal workers today under what we call through state and federal participation.

Then what we call the medical agents.

They're people that are working and can be working and making $4,000 or $5,000 and still get government-paid medical assistance.

But you're going to shift, in some of those cases under this, you would shift these marginal workers and the cost of that medical care to their employers.

In most cases, you will find that the employer of a marginal worker in the United States, I think it's 11, 12, 14 million of them in the country that are working today,

You're going to margin.

It's amazing.

Most of them do work for small businesses.

It's the margin of imploring.

It's the margin of imploring to get by with the lowest price you can get.

But it's a very famous thing.

One second, we've got to get to that.

People with incomes.

Now these are people that worked and inherited in all four quarters of the year.

It shows that they're earning between a dollar and, well, let's forget about that.

But you have six million that worked the least of the four quarters of the year.

earned less than $13,000 to $4,000.

$16,000,000 and $4,000,000.

Well, see if it depends on the size of their family.

Some of these are older people who are getting social security back in.

But if you count those people, I put a rank in those people over the people that are earning under $18,000.

$50,000 a year, because all we allow them, that's all we allow them, something $60,000 a day, as far as that's concerned.

What do you have?

Approximately $40,000.

that earn between $18,000 and $4,000.

Now, that's pretty close to the minimum wage.

Your minimum wage amounts to about $3,200 a year or something like that, $36,000, about $36,000 if they're working full-time.

But that's a marginal group you've got to be concerned about.

You're going to put that in responsibility for these people.

And the question is, what do you do in terms of cutting back?

On job opportunity, we've been asking employers, saying, we're going to use this additional burden, you've got to buy a policy insurance for it.

And he said, well, I'm not going to say, well, we have to have these people working.

We'll have some other people working overtime.

And the point I get to is, what have we done?

And every other time, we've always faced this as an economic problem, but also as a political one.

Because what you're doing is putting it on the small employer.

And so we've always, particularly in the start, we've always had defections under minimum wage, even today.

You saw the analysis here, Mr. President, between this and minimum wage.

You've got some three million Canadian workers that are exempt today under minimum wage.

What is the drill on voters' $2 minimum wage?

Is that something you talked to you?

No, no, no.

It was a surprise to us.

It was a surprise to you, sir.

It was a surprise.

If there wasn't this exemption of the retail and service establishments, that's the only thing that's missing.

In the minimum wage, you still have a big exemption.

On the other hand, the exemptions in your farm labor, that's still exempted.

You've still got a reason to fight that battle of irons in the house.

Your program, you come up, we'll have all those people covered.

The employer of this farm worker will have to buy a policy of insurance.

This little drug store with three employees will have to buy a policy of insurance.

And I just said this politically.

There's going to be a hell of a story.

The committee won't look correct.

We'll do some highway.

I don't know the degree to which he has been briefed on the details of the administration program.

What is the answer to people who say, well, this really isn't a comprehensive health insurance program.

See, that's what we need to take care of.

I think you could take care of it for a year.

No, I think you could have a three-tier case.

Three-tier now, where you know the government is going to take over the responsibility, and most cases we already have under Medicare and Medicaid, where the federal government is not working.

They're unemployed, or they stole it, and the government takes care of it.

You've got another tier that the employer is already taking care of, but we're saying, as a law, that you've got to do this, and this, and this, and so on and so forth.

That's the big employer, and then the big union.

You've got the smaller group that normally what we've done is exempted.

What you say there is for these employees working for this type of an employer, what we're talking about is a smaller employer, use something like it.

The $2,500,000, or I just told them anything they wanted to do.

Because here, this would have three participants.

Government, employer, and employee.

Because you are getting some, this employer has some room.

In the fact that this cost, this cost, because a lot of these guys are marginal as far as that goes.

or anything, they aren't like the other businesses where deductions mean something.

I had a meeting with a movie producer the other day, and one of the things, like a cash driver, you know, one of the other deductions, and he said, you know, I'm going to do this job, I'm saying, but,

And then the other, he was treated, there were 20 of them around the table.

And this is quite relevant to your point.

The other side of the table said, that ain't gonna help us.

We're losing money.

But it probably doesn't mean enough where the deduction is not going to mean enough.

Well, I understand.

Well, that's right.

Because he's still got, he's got a forecast.

He's got a forecast of this line around some place between 12 and 14 cents an hour.

Does he?

Yes, sir.

Fiscal 7-8-4, it will be between 11 and 12 cents an hour.

Going at today's price of fiscal 7-8-2, we're talking slightly under 10 cents.

But you're also talking, but you're not talking, unfortunately, and that's why you've got to be moved.

You're not talking about what medical care is going to cost, what medical insurance is going to cost.

You're talking about what medical care is going to cost, what medical insurance is going to cost.

the plan for government employees cost about 12 to 14 cents an hour.

Now, at that time, how are you going to say that that plan is going to be, I'm saying, a lot of cost for three years from now.

But really, what's the, what are your, well, we have to, we thought, we checked the top hat for the effective date, and it's live on that, too.

which would be about $370 for the tax.

If you were to check right now, it would be about $270.

But you haven't even checked it out with the insurance people.

You haven't even checked it.

And they said, no, they're not.

But this had nothing to do with the point that I'm trying to make.

A lot of people in Montreal, we went through a lot of this problem with cops and smugglers and so on.

At a much earlier stage, when both Tom Cretty and Maurice Stans were concerned about it, one of the things we did then was to cut back the package.

In order to bring it to this 270-pound level, at that time, both Dan's actuary and ours and outside people were involved in putting the foundation together.

Well, you've got to back something up.

You've got to back a domestic worker.

But you're still going to say, hey, anybody that hires a domestic and works them 20 hours a week

that they have to, in the 20 hours a week, we're 20, that they have to raise a policy of insurance for that.

Now, what's that gonna mean as far as some of these women with children that are on welfare now, or potentially welfare cases, who are going out and doing domestic work?

John, do you think that we have two gals that work

Two or three days a week.

But our policy is what we can employ.

If you've got an employee that's working more than one hour, which on an eight-hour day would be, if she's working three days in eight hours, you've got to start writing a policy.

This is not just economic.

This is policy.

You don't see what the hell goes on.

The committee will correct it.

Mills will be the champion of the little guy in the next year or the second year, because they don't have this big burden that President Nixon was going to put on them.

My point is, clear up this aspect of it first, and then if there's some more revisions, what the hell does that mean?

You have to try to put this burden, you have to think, because there's problems in the agricultural work under this program.

But the big thing is this problem with the guy up and down Main Street, the previous visit, the best friend the Republican had, either at the grocery store or the little thrash shop or the drugstore or something like that, or the guy that runs the motel and he had to hire some cleaning ladies to come in and clean up those rooms.

And he pays them at the minimum.

That's all he can afford.

So what does he do?

He's just one kind of dad.

He's been putting me out of business.

He's been letting me hire these employees.

That's the kind of thing we used to talk about.

Sure.

Or how would you do it otherwise, John?

Well, that's a plan.

I told them in the third tier, this tier in here, where you put the mechanics of that.

But you say that for certain employers, the federal government would also participate.

How do you have, what is it, 65 to 35, 75 to 25?

In other words, the employer is 65 to be given by the employer 35.

Have a formula.

And those conservative cases that are related maybe to the jobs and gross income, but they have some plans, Mr. President.

They should have been working on it.

I think they have, from all the information I have.

I have some alternatives as to how you take care of it.

I suggested to him that I thought you would get by with this if you said it.

Yes, we're going to put a burden on each lawyer.

We're going to put a burden on each lawyer.

But the government will also assume some.

That's for the people.

These people have to be in the early transitional office.

Because we're going to have to really economicize that.

And you get it in the minimum wage.

I don't think in the long run you reduce job opportunities after three or four years, but the first two or three years of a change in the minimum wage, and I think, and I've heard in this study, you do get a reflection of job opportunities because the employers this morning, the employers look over their list and say, you know, we're going to have to let one or two go on to work a couple more overtime or something like that because this is just getting, I can't pay a dollar.

I've got $2 for this person.

$1.60 is all I can pay.

And this is the little guy.

But eventually, what the hell, he realized he had to come to additional help.

And there he is.

He has to pay $2 an hour or whatever the figure is.

But, you know, sort of related to the thing.

But the same with this.

The first impact is going to be, let's lay off jobs.

And we're working on pricing.

We've got a welfare program that says we've got to get low-skilled jobs.

We've had a great sum, two million of them, if we can, to have opportunities to get people to work off welfare.

You come along here and say, well, we're going to have all this burden on the employer.

I think we should take what some of them say for this group.

We could have done what today is taking care of this group.

But you're going to say, if you went through with the program that they proposed for, you would be putting on employers responsibilities that now are assumed by the state that can take advantage of.

In the welfare program, the Medicare program, for the older people, for the Medicaid, and for, in particular, the area of the Medicaid, which is the group

just above those that are on welfare.

But who cannot?

Because they determine their economic situation and what's theirs.

Right.

They have welfare, they have a magic number of federal states, but at least have it.

No, of course they don't.

But in those cases, the government isn't taking care of it.

But how do you accept that or do the employer, if that guy's working and saying, okay, here's the employer, and the question is, do you have the...

The politics is what you do to the employer.

And John and the committee, uh...

Is it your best judgment that the committee would change what the initial recommendation is to sell alternative?

Well, they're going to do something.

They're not going to put this burden on these employers.

Well, we have a time when we consider minimum wage.

We have a time when we consider Social Security to begin with, and that's easy.

I mean, the mechanics of that isn't there.

There is a difficulty that is buying going out and saying you have to go out and buy a policy to serve.

There's a tax.

We had the problem, and we still have the problem with the unemployment compensation that we just moved, and we still have a big area that already stands up for unemployment compensation.

Where do you go, sir?

I was going to say that this is a problem that we've had a lot of thoughts since we first approached John about introducing the bill.

which was, I guess by now, a couple months ago.

And we've talked about it from time to time.

We've developed a number of ways of trying to deal with this problem.

The trouble with it is that, in our best judgment, none of them are very good.

They all cost a significant amount of money.

You start with maybe $650 million in RFS destination.

Go on up from there.

And then you have an addition exceedingly difficult problem with identifying

who is going to be eligible for the subsidy.

If you had a way of finding small employers who really are in a situation where 10 cents an hour or 12 cents an hour could make some difference to their situation, whether to hire somebody or not, you could target the money out there every once in a while.

You really can't do that.

You have to define in some manner of value.

in terms of gross income per year, or number of employees, or something like that, without regard to their actual financial situation.

So you pick up dentists' offices and law firms and so on.

And where there is no particular need to be concerned.

Besides that, if you are following the rule of the mandate, the coverage, which of course is the basic concept of this bill,

The introduction of an element of subsidy in itself creates problems.

And these are the reactions we've had from the beginning in dealing with this internally in the administration with the Department of Commerce and the Small Business Administration and then with outside groups, including representatives of all the organizations concerned with small businesses.

They don't want to get into the subsidy business.

And they will not themselves argue for it as far as we can best determine from our contacts with them.

So we come out, in fact, with a complete one that we're going to be under pressure to be both sides for liberalizations of our programs in other respects.

Family health insurance plans, for example, there will be pressure to include

Married couples without children and single adults.

Well, I don't know if we want them there or not.

It would be precious to expand the benefit package perhaps to include dental care or at least dental care for children.

In terms of long-term savings and prevention and so on, they'd like to be settled.

The point is that there might seem to be a cost to children.

I would have liked, I think, in the standards package, we would have included dental care, but if we got into the question of the cost, that's one reason why the package was whittled down to 270 as our current cost.

I think there's a fantastic supply problem there, too, which is the problem we

have with Medicare and Medicaid right now.

The doctors aren't the right places.

There are not enough doctors and there's not enough health care facilities, which is one of the things we're trying to get at with the President's proposal in the dental care field.

I don't know about your dentist, but my dentist finds an awful hard time finding a place and a time for me to go.

And if we had these other people into the program, which I know there's a lot of private dentists right now just in the Washington area, I can't imagine what's going to happen to them.

We've also, we've had studies to make sure that dentists can double or triple the amount of work they can do through the effective use of self-protection.

The point is that, you know, some dentists seem to very soon be fleeing.

I was an adult at the time, so I used to put it in your teeth.

And I could do it, I mean,

We've really got to shape up a lot of these damn rats.

They're sitting there making dough out of teeth for them.

There are a lot of doctors and researchers that could very well be performed by the citizens, too.

In any case, the point of that was simply that we are likely to be under pressures of various kinds, and some of them we may want the individual to go along with in terms of add-ons to defend them.

Can I ask, can I ask, can I raise one question over the question of privacy in the room here?

we should have in mind with regard to the $650 million cost or whatever it is for something on this particular issue.

I think this whole field of medical assistance or medical insurance or whatever it is, we're really fighting a holding action, so to speak.

When you see the ridiculous Kennedy proposal on the one extreme, and all the other screwballs are gonna be lumped in more and more in the way of free medicine.

what we are offering is a hell of a good program.

What they come up with.

Well, I think ATW just did a fantastic job of getting it within bounds, even with something we could do.

But I would say, in terms of your brokerage here, let me suggest that if you're 650 or whatever it is, I would rather, and I'm not suggesting it, I'm used to thinking of John and the rest you talk about at other times, but

In my political standpoint, the real problem is going to be that Congress is likely to, not in terms of putting the burden on the small business, but even Congress is likely to just add a hell of a belt to the government and take it all over.

You know what I mean?

I mean, I think the Congress is going to up whatever we try to do in the medical field on the ground that it's a hot political issue.

I think we, strategically, our first objective must be to try to set our approach higher.

And which is a combination of a basic family health insurance plan for

people on welfare, people who were unemployed on one side, and a requirement for employers to carry insurance for those who are employed now.

But even if we can sell the approach, step two is going to involve issues over coverage and benefits.

these in turn involve elements of cost.

What I'm really trying to get at is that, from our point of view, we would rather not, if we could help it, add on another cost item at this stage, even for small business, since we have made several concessions already in our approach for small business, delaying the effective date, delaying the ratio of the benefit costs,

chargeable to the employer, reduction to the benefit package, and so on.

And there is not so far as we can determine, to a considerable effort and conversation with representatives of small business and business generally, any real pressure or interest in or even some concern about undertaking the subsidy approach.

Elliot, you've talked to

I'm sure very responsible people who have conceded to your arguments.

But they aren't the people, these aren't the people out on Main Street who are in greater numbers and who will feel the impact and who are the political side on it.

I mean, these are one of the kinds of guys we've talked to and they're experts.

But they aren't the people that, in and of themselves, feel the impact of this tax.

And those are the people who vote, and this is what John and I are talking about, Mr. President, that, sure, the lobbyists, I mean that in the broadest sense, and the experts, but they're a limited number.

They aren't the ones that are going to be involved in the actual execution of the plan.

We're only going to get excited once the thing is done.

spread in the news and so forth.

These people, the only people who really know about this are the people that you sat down in business with as to what's in this package, who's going to pay the bill and so forth.

But once it gets spread out, once the bill is introduced, and then the information is out, the lawyer's going to go, you may not have a bad policy of insurance for this employee, this gal that comes in and works for me for 20 hours a week, works at this motel at $1.20 an hour,

That's what you're gonna judge.

It comes down essentially to this, from the standpoint of Republicans and the President.

Is it important enough to make this concession now, before we can treat it with heat, or to be in a position to weigh various competing claims for more dollars for health, and between doing this and doing something else?

Our concern at the present is to get a bill in, and especially in view of the Senate hearings.

Well, let me suggest this.

The other pressures are going to be for liberalizations, to help people who will now crash.

This is to help the people I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the Volcker problem, and instead of attacking them in the first place and then letting the Democrats come along and help them out of their problem.

That's what I'm concerned about.

Well, all I can say is that we, that the National Federation of Independent Business, National Business League, National Small Business Association, the Association of Small Business Investment Companies, all of whom we've talked with,

are very fearful of the introduction of a subsidy device.

And when you weigh that against the considerations of cost and so on, it may be right.

Maybe the president would want some time to, I would argue, but if it turns out you are right,

that he can use and in effect save the small business man in a very visible way by sending in an amendment or something or other.

I just feel at this stage, given the administrative complexity of determining who gets the subsidy, however you design, given the cost, given the undeterred ability, I think in principle is the precedent of a subsidy in this context.

And in the absence of a really compelling evidence that it is going to be, I mean, you have a better view of the mainstream.

This is all great.

You and I have been over this together before a little bit.

But for you to introduce a bill and then go back on my mainstream and say, look what the hell you're doing to me.

Do you think when an amendment comes through, and that's changed in the Bible, that there's going to be firms that will be given any credit for having corrected that?

No, I put my stamp of approval on it.

I introduced it to the guy that's going to get the credit.

Well, Christmas, where are we going to host?

But, John, you're just pushing out all the time.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I just don't like people in that position.

I don't like that you put me in that position.

Well, see, we're both at the same time, sir.

And the first one, he might not want to know that he's the guy that'll do it for him.

Because he runs the commission.

Well, at the end of the point, he's just a long time ago.

He'd give you, he'd write any kind of amendment you wanted.

You know, he could tell for you to introduce on the House side.

What was better than preparing to introduce a dead midwife?

We put her out there.

I'm speaking for those of us who have worked for the president on this, from, you know, John Connelly, Clappies, Dan, John Price.

And, uh, as far as your introduction to the bill is concerned, we don't have a selection.

You are saying that you want this money to be in there, and it becomes an available to that extent, your bill.

I didn't ask you to do whatever you wanted me to do.

I missed what you said.

What did you say?

I was just saying that insofar as the problem is a problem for John himself, we have always been ready to give him language that he could put into the letter and introduce in that form, as long as it turns out that it would be different in that respect only.

I don't want to be interrupting you, but we had a meeting of this.

We came down, I called our Republican, our Religious Committee,

I guess you weren't there because you had to sit down and watch.

And they outlined the president's program.

There was another issue that came up, and that was using general funds, and you corrected that.

in the Social Security area, which we were also very concerned that he corrected.

We said, this wasn't just Burns.

This was a Republican member of the committee that went through these fights over covering these kinds of people.

They've been on the way to unexploded compensation in Social Security.

We know that's not quite their life.

And he said, that, you've got, you just can't put that burden on these people all by themselves.

If you employ a guy, you've got to buy a policy.

You've got to have something for that little guy.

One, it just burns.

Now, sure, I think, I took a visit the first time he talked about it.

I thought he had a problem.

He came up way back last year when he was talking about this thing.

I said, well, there's one area that I think you're going to take a really good look at.

He did something.

His political attitude, I think,

But the politics of the thing is real serious.

So it isn't just the member.

It's the Republican members.

I called them together so that we could sit down and go over this whole, this bill.

Everybody was in agreement that we could take those two things.

We could finally get a unanimous as far as our members introducing the bill and participating and joining in the bill.

It's just that simple.

And it's not being hard-headed, Mr. President, because as far as I'm concerned, and I've said this to Clark, to you, and I've said it to everyone else, I would like to present to the President what I see as a problem here, because he's got the same problem that I have, or any Republican member of the committee.

He says, you get what he gets, but this is my problem.

And why I have to get rid of this one, because it's all he's supposed to.

And for Republicans, at least, putting this burden on these little guys that are running for down Main Street, right?

Isn't the guy down there on Wall Street, or the guy on Park Avenue, for the right sake?

No, big companies have it.

Little people already have it.

You're not going to make a burden down that one for this program.

Right.

Because they've had it already.

John, I'm standing here in respect of that.

Mr. President, we're running behind schedule.

No, no, no, wait.

Let's call that commitment to us.

We're going to have to see if I'm not a matter of fact.

Well, let's see what he did.

And that's all I want to say of the case, too.

That's all I said to the president.

I thought he was going to hang.

That he's a presentation of his problem.

for your own good.

Well, Mr. President, look at the reflection of the Committee on Ways and Means, and I'm not nearly as expert as John, but if the ten Republicans feel as John does, then I'm sure that's right.

Out of the 50, you'll see that I'm wrong.

Very influential.

He does pretty well.

What has he come through on?

The tough ones for us.

Good God, all those horrible things.

Go ahead.

Then you've got 15 Democrats, and you can go down that list.

There are at least three other Democrats that are going to vote the same way.

on this issue, including the chairman, which means it's going to come out of the committee.

The chairman has always been a great and small business guy.

Sure.

He is fathered as I've heard him tell many times, and John's heard it a thousand.

It was a...

and he is going to do just as John is indicating.

So you're going to have that bill come out of that committee with a different version that's just that pragmatic.

The problem really is, so maybe as well, at least we could have the opportunity in committee to present in some detail the alternatives and the problems that we're experiencing and the difficulties that we're dealing with in this problem treatment group.

We don't think any of the solutions are going to work.

Maybe the committee will agree, maybe it won't.

The problem really is, from Fred's point of view and this chapter, whether it's essential in order to

to avoid a significant change in his position in support of that group to have the language in the bill now.

I would think that it might be possible to respond to that problem to the extent that it does converge, and our, as I say, our impressions are that it may not achieve this, when they consider the alternative.

Because that is the rule that begs the people we've talked to representing small business centers to.

They don't like the ways of dealing with the problem that we suggest to them.

And so really the question is, can the president, from his standpoint in effect, gain whatever

or recoup whatever ground needs to be recovered if it turns out that some concession or bifurcation has to be made on this issue?

And can, in the meanwhile, can we go forward with the legislation as is, in cases that, having full cognizance of your concerns and your warnings, nonetheless, you are in fact acting

At the request of the administration in the introduction of the bill, or whatever key answer, or indeed if you want, whatever additional language, as long as it's understood at the time that the administration is not as such committed to that language or that approach, it really is what we are.

Let me ask you this, Mr. President.

I understand that Wallace Bennett is willing to introduce it the other way on the Senate side.

What's wrong with John and myself in this one area introducing a bill differently from what the Senate has?

And the house will work its will.

The Senate will work its will.

And then in Congress, it is.

It's rather complicated.

I don't know what the hell you would introduce, John.

Oh, we can just put something in that gives them the same exemption that you give a small business.

You put it on the end house.

I don't think that's as good a formula that they could probably develop.

But...

.

The problem we've got is, in brief, the health bill, which Wallace Bennett will introduce in his version of the Senate, by which John Hortenseals and Jerry Horne shares this concern.

in the house will have very rough flooding, unless some special treatment is provided for small businesses.

You know, small businesses accept certain areas of minimum wage, for example, and unemployment insurance to an extent.

And he thinks that in the case of small business, all of the top small business organizations is going to have to point south.

do not have any, have not offered an alternative.

They want anything better than this medicine, which is bad.

John feels that, as he says, I think I'm summarizing his position, without getting into the details,

Basically those small business guys that are out there in the country, they're not organized and the rest, but they're sort of our hard line in a way.

They're the guys that come down the main street.

They're trying to squeak out a living or seek out a living somewhere other than they hire these unemployables and others.

And they burden on them and all, of course, the employees.

would act on any of that.

He thinks Wilbur Mills, whose father was a grocer, independent grocer, has money on us, would seize upon this for the purpose of rescuing 12 to 14 million small businessmen that would be affected.

The argument against it really is that we just really haven't found a good way to handle the people who would be thereby covered.

And recognize that we don't find a good way to handle it.

that would have to be undertaken in terms of a government program that doesn't have better starts at $650 million.

At the lowest amount, if you were to start to pick it up here, the other arguments, of course, are that, on the other side of the way, is that Boston is concerned.

The tendency will be to expand what we've done in any event.

In other words, to take care of more people.

Before we get through, we'll have contact lenses will be in it.

So, in addition to just dentistry for children, how do you have dentistry for older people who need some sort of work across like the heart of the people who are across the front so that their smiles look better?

I can think of everything.

You know, caps, caps, caps, caps.

What I was going to say, John, is that

that it's just, there's no disagreement about here in the room in regard to the problem.

John Byrne says it's political, and he would like, and what he would like to do, frankly, and Jerry Ford suggested this, is to introduce in the House a bill, the administration's bill, but with a modification that shows

which may not be perfected, but which shows that the idea of exempting this group and providing someone a way to handle them would cause harm.

And John thinks that it's a clear case that something's going to happen in the House in any event.

He's afraid that if he doesn't do that, that if he just introduces the administration bills, that our good friend Wilbur Mills will then come to the rescue horseback and small businessmen.

And that he, and of course, we appear to be rolled by an enforcement party to do something for the small businessmen.

and so forth.

There is, there is, there is argument, let me say, there's some difference of opinion as to how serious the problem is with small business management.

The other fields, you know, I've been talking to their representatives and so forth, and the problem is not as big as John feels.

Of all the three, it is somewhat the problem.

That's what we've been talking about.

We haven't decided anything, and we fortunately don't have to decide anything.

So, I think we've understood very soon you want the bill introduced.

It would be a big help to have the bill in print when I hear, when you hear on Monday, 0 or 600.

That fires me up today.

So, I'm not to ask you to decide, but I just want to talk your head up.

Well, I have very little information on it, Mr. President.

I have an instated reaction to it, and it's simply that when you go up with these health bills,

that they represent such an enormous amount of money anyway, that this becomes inconsequential.

And that I was hurt to go with Johnson Burns, and I will accept the small business, and I'll take care of the problems there some other way, though it costs a lot.

I just don't think

I don't think you get anything politically out of these bills to any great extent.

And I think you stand to hurt yourself.

That's right.

Because we're not .

That's correct.

And I wouldn't give away anything.

If you have those, and I assume you do, because you believe it would be the right thing to do for the country and for the people, then I'd just go all in.

I wouldn't do it, just be a good fella.

I wouldn't do it because it's a statesman-like thing to do.

I'd do it in such a way that I wouldn't get hurt in any way.

What we're really driving here, basically, is a... Well, sure, sure, there are many of them.

We've all talked about the health crisis and the rest of it, and I can understand what the picture is, but I'm concerned that I have my enthusiasm, generally speaking, for going down this road of national health insurance.

I see what kind of medical care we'll have about 20 years from now.

I don't think it'll be worth it.

This is the best thing that we've, this bill is a very good bill.

It's bills on the private insurance companies.

It used to have some grudging by other than their total opposition.

Third, it does deal with some of the problems.

And fourth, it does get at the things which, I don't know which other, which hasn't gotten through much, but that we try to get at the, at both, at the other end of the funnel.

In other words, the service end of the funnel is the supply as well as the demand.

See, the difficulty with the canopy approach, all the rest says, well, let's just, let's give everybody free medicine.

That's great.

Who the hell's going to provide the medicine?

Who's going to do it?

Who's going to, who's going to, who's going to cap the teeth?

All these other nice little things that people want.

You can get your nose straight or whatever they call it.

Plastic, put plastic surgery in.

And everybody's going to want that.

Face lifting, you know, older women, it does something to their personalities if they feel that they're getting old enough to do the face lifting.

And there are lots of doctors who might get into that.

Let's get that out of these three people.

And the problem here is the whole battle.

Just to comment very briefly, the problem here that I see is that, uniquely, within this total range of measures, spending for the Manning Health Insurance Plan through the mandate of coverage to Medicare, which would be continuous,

And this money, we're talking about here, a minimum of $650 million, John's three-layered approach, but it didn't include it.

It's money used to subsidize employers.

It helped them pay the costs of an insurance premium.

And I didn't think that the business rules we talked to him from,

the chamber, including the NAN, to the small business groups, don't like the idea of utilization of tax dollars to subsidize that.

And I just feel that that is not a good foot for us to get off on.

But it depends on how it's set up.

It doesn't go directly to the small business.

Well, it does.

It does this way, because the gentleman has been holding a burden on the small business.

He's got to buy a policy to serve.

I'm suggesting that the employer and the employee participate in that cause.

And I'm not saying I'm participating.

Now, the guy doesn't have a history.

He's an employee.

I could talk to him.

He's got the business.

He's got to get an advantage.

He's got to do his research.

that General Motors would have to pay 75% or 65% on the cost of that insurance policy, but he's going to pay 100% and he's going to do this today.

He's going to treat this as one bed.

Let me ask you this, have you heard of a method for John that he could introduce, or have you got anything he could put in?

Well, we could, but we do not do it, I think.

We haven't done it.

I know.

We didn't have the selection.

I know.

Let me say that.

Oh, we bothered.

We.

So, no, I know.

What I'm suggesting here is a practical law.

Look, we want, we want, and I don't think some of you won't have an enormous...

John has been known for many years to be a very, very enthusiastic advocate for the interest of small businesses.

Why don't you just try to get, frankly, an amendment that shows just consideration of the product and the fact that they haven't been doing much in this time.

That's what you really need to do.

You're not going to get it perfected before Monday in my opinion.

But if you could do that so that John, so that John could introduce, John could introduce on the House side a bill slightly different, well, in signature, shall we say, different in this respect than the Senate bill.

I don't know that I've done that, but that the other guy who used the Senate bill, and even if you, when you testify, then you just were a waffle of it.

See what I mean?

And say, well, we looked into this matter.

The Senate bill represents our version.

However, the House bill is one that does, we know, represent a considerable amount of interest.

And we're looking into the problem, but it's one that requires hearings.

We've got to see what the problem is, how big the problem is, if you can deal with it or something like that.

I don't know.

I don't like compromising any more than you do.

But in this case, if John was at some rate, he was not sure about it.

Yes, sir.

I think, let me point this out, Mr. President.

The first thing I worry about a little bit, the thing that's going to be picked right off the bat is the tickers.

between the Republicans and the Ways and Means Committee and the Presidents.

You're going to be on the side of the cabinet if you're going to crack down on these small business guys.

I'm going to try to get them some relief.

Why you should be put in that spot, I don't know.

Well, I don't know, but if we proceed this way, if we proceed this way, I don't think we're in that spot.

Well, that's exactly where you are.

If I introduce it with you, it certainly has the

The endorsement, if that's the thing, of the administration to a degree.

What I'm worried about is the difference between you and you're going to put a burden on the small business guys, on the domestic guys, on everybody else.

I think the real problem, Greg, the real problem, if I may say so, is when we are smoothed to the Boston lawyer, Mr. Richard.

I'd love to get you to stop what you actually did.

Tell them how they had to break all the southern schools and tell the northern schools they could continue to be racist.

But you're worried about it.

I think we should make a conversation and get rid of Bob.

Why?

Did you introduce the bill?

No, I didn't.

The difference between the theory and I.

Why does it look like there's a difference?

Well, if there's any political problem here, and I think the Secretary of the Treasury pointed out that one of the political problems relative to the cost is the insignificance of the bill after having a discussion with you and Jerry and me and everybody else, that indicates that I feel there is a problem and I'd like to have that considered with the committee.

Is that true?

No, this is what he goes up.

That's the bill that's in the administration program.

The program that you are recommending is the program that simply says to an employer, you buy the insurance.

I don't visualize that.

That's what the bill is going to be.

That's my point.

I don't visualize that.

I think we could be the, after all, we could...

In this case, we can be the parents of both children.

I mean, we can say that the house girl reflects the particular aspect of the problem.

I don't know if it's ever done before.

Does the administration have to be in a straitjacket and say it's going to be...

This represents one of those...

efforts to accommodate difficult, competing claims.

And we can't quarrel with a resolution which gives priority to the other.

I think what you're saying is that you can't use Chappell.

I couldn't say this.

I mean, you've got, I mean, you could disagree.

You could say that the billionaire he's by is a senator in Utah.

It is, of course, because you've already put out the program, is the one that originally was the administration.

But the question had an immediate impact.

And this particular area is one that we find deserves further attention.

in terms of this real problem.

And for that reason, the President felt that a bill should be introduced in the House.

It should raise the question so hearings can be held on it, and so forth and so on.

I think that's a pretty good line.

He said, it doesn't make a better difference to me.

I don't think that at all purposes is going to stop it, because I can see there's a bill, and I can just jump on it.

I think it indicates that I am aware of the problem and that I'd like to have the, you know, after all, it's going to take a lot of hearings, have the House and its, and the Waste Needs Committee and its wisdom to consider this particular problem.

You've got a bill suggesting how it should be considered and that I welcome it.

That, I welcome that consideration.

We don't go out there saying, look, that we have, uh, we have wavered and produced perfect capital.

Let me erase this question, and I, um, produced it.

I think we would have to be very candid about it.

I think we should go and see him.

That's present.

Yeah.

And what do we agree with the possibility for the experience?

They certainly ought to be alerted and share the alternatives being introduced in the House and the President's attitude concerning it.

I think that this keeps the President's options open, which I feel is very important at this time, because I think it avoids

him being attacked by Senator Kennedy and his plan for not doing enough in this area, which is the politics of the other side, I see them as politics, but the politics of not worrying about all the people is also something that we have to consider.

You're making the point that it's not suggested and nobody has suggested here to me that we don't cover these people.

That's what the question is about.

We're going to cover the people.

It's full coverage.

We put the burden 100% on people all year.

It's not a little burden on people.

We're not going to participate in the burden that you put on people.

There's no exception.

I know how that should be covered.

There's an exception with regard to employee responsibility.

That should be wrongly made as well.

There's no argument about it.

Everybody should be covered.

Now, with regard to how to finance the coverage, this is a matter that we've discussed.

And the way to do it is to say we've discussed with the secretary of the treasury, filled that thing up, that we're searching for the right answer here.

And actually, I really feel that, too.

I'm not sure about all these things.

Mr. President, as a plus, the consultative process is...

I said, all right, fellas, you can get Elliot Richards, the secretary of HGW, presents an alternative.

You can put it in there.

And that's fine.

And Matt, he's satisfied with the thing as it is.

He puts it out of the way of the Senate.

Period.

That's right.

There's a variant.

It's a variant because they came in.

I see no problem with that.

Do you, John?

No.

Well then, it's agreed that you and I will introduce, and all the Republicans that want to, a bill Monday.

We can't get it prepared before today, obviously.

And we may be in a session.

I don't want to put an impossible burden on this, quite frankly.

You suggested that you would introduce a bill on Monday.

Well, if you haven't got, if you've got some alternative language, fine.

But I need to say to me, Albert, you go back and design your own thing.

We'll design it.

We've got seven different alternatives that we've got.

We'll design it.

That's very good.

I think it would be great if the county could go up.

I don't think right now Mr. Burns is starting to release the bill for redation.

Yeah.

If the mechanics can be worked out, we can get the other members on our side, John.

I hope you have a conversation in this context.

I think you may have already been too much.

I want to remind you of that.

There's no additional cost to that.

We haven't just landed these things so far that we thought

$2 billion is meant to hand over the present cost of Medicaid.

Is that what you're talking about?

$2 billion is the cost that you're going to put on these little employers, too.

If that's the damn significance of what you're saying, if that's the damn significance in terms of the pressure that you're putting on these marginal employers of marginal workers.

And God damn it, Elliot, it seems to me he's got to get some kind of a posture here.

We can't be going out saying we're going to put welfare workers to work, welfare recipients to work, but we're going to be not concerned at all about creating job opportunities.

We're just going to make it tougher.

to get an employer to hire an additional person.

Let me say this.

Let me suggest, Elliot, put him in a job while he's doing what he's doing.

It's $650,000.

Not as good as it is.

Fair enough.

Okay, we're done.

It was about $650,000.

It's $650,000.

Elliot, it's good.

It ain't passed yet.

I just want to make...

I don't know what you mean.

No, what he said about the welfare.

Well, the welfare is real.

It's real.

Well, we still got that.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Hold on.

Last night, I think I saw a copy of it.

It went all right.

They are not that kind.

But I mean, I'm happy you were there.

I put it into good paragraphs.

It's about the emphasis on the work of the World War III.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

You've done more hard work than almost anybody.

You've done a great deal.

Come on.

You know, another thing, why don't we walk out and get a picture there?

That's the message.

Well, let's take one of the desks.

And then we'll walk out and let them take a picture of us looking out at us.

It's such a magnificent view.

It really is.

It's a matter of fact, we might even have our talk out there, sitting out there.

We'll have a talk.

We'll start walking out there.

Well, how have you been?

I'm telling you, I gave great calls some of you, but I canceled them.

Well, I'll tell you how proud you should be in your state.

Thank you, sir.

We should have been there.

We were out of the country.

The Texas A&M singing cadets.

60 of them.

We also had the fire show.

The champion of creation was there in his family.

He's a great guy.

I mean, he's a fine guy.

He's a decent man.

He was there.

And some preachers that went to do it, he's going to.

But those types of singing, kids sang 60 minutes.

And afterwards, I went out and met him.

They all came through the line.

They had haircuts.

A third of them had been to Vietnam.

About half of them said, you know, we're for you.

We're praying for you.

And then David, Mike, said a very interesting thing.

He said, you know something?

He went to the U.S.

He said, do you realize that school has 14,000 people?

He says, that's more than 100 vehicles and a little more than five.

He said, so we're talking about America, not the kids of this country.

That must be a beautiful place.

Yes, but that school also funded more officers in World War II than West Point.

It was until recently it was run by Earl Rudder, who was a colonel with a ranger battalion that took the beaches of Angelo.

He was a great guy and served under Omar Bradley.

Bradley says he was one of the two finest soldiers you ever met.

So it's just a thing that's true.

Many would have been sick if we didn't see it.

We were out looking at places in Algeria.

But he is extremely fond of that particular group because he appeared on the Mike Duggan show.

I'll be just a second here.

You said I picked you up.

Well, there's one right here, huh?

You said there was a secretary.

I did.

I'll make that question.

Secretary.

I don't know.

I leave this as a cover.

I'm standing with the press.

I'll tell you that.

That's all right.

So then it seems like I've seen you somewhere before.

I think so.

If that fear won't... That's weak.

Keep some of those pieces to yourself.

That's all I'm saying.

Don't forget it.

We've been doing this for a week.

What is this plan going to do?

Probably we can't do next.

Secretary's going up to see if they want to get the story before he came up there.

I think they want to close it next week, next Wednesday, which means it's going to be.

If I get outside right here this time, I'd be like, which way?

This one just about there.

Why did they just look so good?

Oh, they're going to be cute.

They're going to have to stand up and build and then it's not about them.

That's it.

That's the reason.

No trouble, whatever.

And it's over.

It's over.

You've got to stop.

I'm a little smart.