CAPS ON NEEDED SOCIAL PROGRAMS COME INTO QUESTION

[Johnny Holiday/John A. Taube]

CAPS ON NEEDED SOCIAL PROGRAMS COME INTO QUESTION

AARP BULLETIN, October 1999

AS WE SEE IT--Unrealistic Spending Caps Threaten Key Programs

By Horace B. Deets, AARP Executive Director

When the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was passed and signed into law by
President Clinton, funding for domestic discretionary programs,
including those authorized by the Older Americans Act, as well as senior
housing and energy assistance for vulnerable families, was capped at an
unreasonably low rate. Discretionary programs account for roughly
one-third of all federal spending, and spending levels for these
programs are determined each year by the president and Congress through
13 annual appropriations bills.

The "discretionary spending" caps on these programs have forced cutbacks
in services to older persons in their communities and have hit
low-income persons especially hard. As Congress and the administration
debate what to do with the projected budget surplus, it is becoming
increasingly clear that the current spending limitations-which were put
in place before there was a projected budget surplus-are both
unrealistic and unsustainable.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects a budget surplus over the
next 10 years of approximately $2.9 trillion. Approximately $1.9
trillion comes from Social Security reserves, and $1 trillion comes from
general revenue surpluses. As I pointed out in this column last month,
these projections are subject to economic fluctuations, future budgetary
decisions, national emergencies and the decisions of elected officials
in the future. Still, even with some uncertainty in these assumptions,
continuation of the current caps on domestic discretionary spending
programs is both unrealistic and harmful.

The bottom line is this: Many members of Congress and administration
officials recognize that the caps on domestic discretionary spending
need overhauling-and the chorus is growing louder day by day. The time
for action is now.

It's been said that a rising tide lifts all boats. We must not allow the
boat carrying our nation's most vulnerable to sink in the rising tide of
our economic prosperity. The programs funded by discretionary spending
include those that support local senior centers, nutrition and meals
programs, transportation services, outreach, legal assistance and a wide
range of other health and social services. They also provide assistance
for those who regularly need help paying energy bills.

With Congress and the president at odds over tax cuts and other issues,
they need to work on a bipartisan basis to determine how the budget
surplus should be allocated. We urge them to make sure that the people
who are served by these vital programs share in America's prosperity.

With both parties pledging not to raid the Social Security reserves to
fund other priorities, a move AARP applauds, it is difficult to tell
where increased funding for domestic discretionary programs fits into
the priority list. Even less clear is whether the Congress and the
administration have the will to tackle these tough questions in a
meaningful and bipartisan manner.


The San Francisco Examiner, October 10, 1999

CUTS CAME LATER; BARBOUR NOW LOBBIES AGAINST THEM

Article originated from the Seattle Times

SEATTLE - The noisy legal battle over the Republicans' $1 million
Medicare offer brings to the fore a much larger, more important issue:
What happened with Medicare financing?

The subject of the 1995 ad -- the plan to trim the rate of growth of
Medicare by $270 billion over seven years -- never became law. President
Clinton vetoed it and the two sides did not agree on a compromise.

Then, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress and the White House
agreed to reduce projected Medicare spending by $115 billion through
2002.

This slowing in the growth of Medicare program is being achieved mostly
by limiting the amount hospitals and doctors can charge for Medicare
services.

The final "cut" in Medicare was smaller than that initially proposed by
Republicans and was similar to what Clinton wanted. However, some health
care providers have argued that the pain has fallen disproportionately
on selected clinics and nursing homes, forcing some to close.

And what happened to Haley Barbour, the man who posed in the ad?

He no longer heads the Republican National Committee. He's a lobbyist
and has been hired by a group of nursing homes to persuade Congress to
overturn many of the Medicare deductions he once said didn’t exist.

COMMENTS

We live in the only scientific-technological age ever known. It’s a
glorious age. But not as glorious as it can be.. What’s the hangup?
Because we hang onto “baggage” from the past, primitive agrarian age,
our age is  unnecessarily complex. The baggage referred to is our
socioeconomic structure, our “Price System,” and laws of the land which
were not constructed to fit our age. We moved out of a primitive,
agrarian age but brought along with us this archaic arrangement. While
it worked reasonably well for the past, neanderthal agrarian age, in
modern times, it’s a disaster.

While the above two pieces illustrate the complexities of our health
problem, the same is true about the complexities of our other problems,
be they  drugs, crime, pollution, population, water, soil, etc.

It is practically impossible to understand the impediments and hurdles
that law-makers are subject to. Not the least of which is the need for
law-makers to satisfy numerous “pressure groups.” The practice of
“horse-trading” is ongoing, time consuming and frustrating.

All persons in the legislative, administrative and the judicial branch
of government face these unnecessary frustrations. Things are just a
little short of being out of control. All must have numerous staff
people to do the ground work. Even then, their understanding is
extremely limited and in many cases, they lack any in-depth  grasp
whatsoever of the very laws they pass.

Technocracy recommends a complete break from the past. To stay with the
past and try the “band-aid” approach to solve problems, spells disaster.
It puts us on a destructive path.

Technocracy contends that we must have a social structure that is laid
out to be in sync with our scientific-technological age. As its proposed
structure, its TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIAL DESIGN fits modern requirements,
Technocracy suggests its adoption.

For those who wish to study Technocracy’s concepts, log onto
www.technocracysf.org and then click on MENU. Two “must” readings are
“What is Technocracy” and “A commentary to Jim Lehrer on Law and
Science.”CAPS ON NEEDED SOCIAL PROGRAMS COME INTO QUESTION

AARP BULLETIN, October 1999

AS WE SEE IT--Unrealistic Spending Caps Threaten Key Programs

By Horace B. Deets, AARP Executive Director

When the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was passed and signed into law by
President Clinton, funding for domestic discretionary programs,
including those authorized by the Older Americans Act, as well as senior
housing and energy assistance for vulnerable families, was capped at an
unreasonably low rate. Discretionary programs account for roughly
one-third of all federal spending, and spending levels for these
programs are determined each year by the president and Congress through
13 annual appropriations bills.

The "discretionary spending" caps on these programs have forced cutbacks
in services to older persons in their communities and have hit
low-income persons especially hard. As Congress and the administration
debate what to do with the projected budget surplus, it is becoming
increasingly clear that the current spending limitations-which were put
in place before there was a projected budget surplus-are both
unrealistic and unsustainable.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects a budget surplus over the
next 10 years of approximately $2.9 trillion. Approximately $1.9
trillion comes from Social Security reserves, and $1 trillion comes from
general revenue surpluses. As I pointed out in this column last month,
these projections are subject to economic fluctuations, future budgetary
decisions, national emergencies and the decisions of elected officials
in the future. Still, even with some uncertainty in these assumptions,
continuation of the current caps on domestic discretionary spending
programs is both unrealistic and harmful.

The bottom line is this: Many members of Congress and administration
officials recognize that the caps on domestic discretionary spending
need overhauling-and the chorus is growing louder day by day. The time
for action is now.

It's been said that a rising tide lifts all boats. We must not allow the
boat carrying our nation's most vulnerable to sink in the rising tide of
our economic prosperity. The programs funded by discretionary spending
include those that support local senior centers, nutrition and meals
programs, transportation services, outreach, legal assistance and a wide
range of other health and social services. They also provide assistance
for those who regularly need help paying energy bills.

With Congress and the president at odds over tax cuts and other issues,
they need to work on a bipartisan basis to determine how the budget
surplus should be allocated. We urge them to make sure that the people
who are served by these vital programs share in America's prosperity.

With both parties pledging not to raid the Social Security reserves to
fund other priorities, a move AARP applauds, it is difficult to tell
where increased funding for domestic discretionary programs fits into
the priority list. Even less clear is whether the Congress and the
administration have the will to tackle these tough questions in a
meaningful and bipartisan manner.


The San Francisco Examiner, October 10, 1999

CUTS CAME LATER; BARBOUR NOW LOBBIES AGAINST THEM

Article originated from the Seattle Times

SEATTLE - The noisy legal battle over the Republicans' $1 million
Medicare offer brings to the fore a much larger, more important issue:
What happened with Medicare financing?

The subject of the 1995 ad -- the plan to trim the rate of growth of
Medicare by $270 billion over seven years -- never became law. President
Clinton vetoed it and the two sides did not agree on a compromise.

Then, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress and the White House
agreed to reduce projected Medicare spending by $115 billion through
2002.

This slowing in the growth of Medicare program is being achieved mostly
by limiting the amount hospitals and doctors can charge for Medicare
services.

The final "cut" in Medicare was smaller than that initially proposed by
Republicans and was similar to what Clinton wanted. However, some health
care providers have argued that the pain has fallen disproportionately
on selected clinics and nursing homes, forcing some to close.

And what happened to Haley Barbour, the man who posed in the ad?

He no longer heads the Republican National Committee. He's a lobbyist
and has been hired by a group of nursing homes to persuade Congress to
overturn many of the Medicare deductions he once said didn’t exist.

COMMENTS

We live in the only scientific-technological age ever known. It’s a
glorious age. But not as glorious as it can be.. What’s the hangup?
Because we hang onto “baggage” from the past, primitive agrarian age,
our age is  unnecessarily complex. The baggage referred to is our
socioeconomic structure, our “Price System,” and laws of the land which
were not constructed to fit our age. We moved out of a primitive,
agrarian age but brought along with us this archaic arrangement. While
it worked reasonably well for the past, neanderthal agrarian age, in
modern times, it’s a disaster.

While the above two pieces illustrate the complexities of our health
problem, the same is true about the complexities of our other problems,
be they  drugs, crime, pollution, population, water, soil, etc.

It is practically impossible to understand the impediments and hurdles
that law-makers are subject to. Not the least of which is the need for
law-makers to satisfy numerous “pressure groups.” The practice of
“horse-trading” is ongoing, time consuming and frustrating.

All persons in the legislative, administrative and the judicial branch
of government face these unnecessary frustrations. Things are just a
little short of being out of control. All must have numerous staff
people to do the ground work. Even then, their understanding is
extremely limited and in many cases, they lack any in-depth  grasp
whatsoever of the very laws they pass.

Technocracy recommends a complete break from the past. To stay with the
past and try the “band-aid” approach to solve problems, spells disaster.
It puts us on a destructive path.

Technocracy contends that we must have a social structure that is laid
out to be in sync with our scientific-technological age. As its proposed
structure, its TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIAL DESIGN fits modern requirements,
Technocracy suggests its adoption.

For those who wish to study Technocracy’s concepts, log onto
www.technocracysf.org and then click on MENU. Two “must” readings are
“What is Technocracy” and “A commentary to Jim Lehrer on Law and
Science.”CAPS ON NEEDED SOCIAL PROGRAMS COME INTO QUESTION

AARP BULLETIN, October 1999

AS WE SEE IT--Unrealistic Spending Caps Threaten Key Programs

By Horace B. Deets, AARP Executive Director

When the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was passed and signed into law by
President Clinton, funding for domestic discretionary programs,
including those authorized by the Older Americans Act, as well as senior
housing and energy assistance for vulnerable families, was capped at an
unreasonably low rate. Discretionary programs account for roughly
one-third of all federal spending, and spending levels for these
programs are determined each year by the president and Congress through
13 annual appropriations bills.

The "discretionary spending" caps on these programs have forced cutbacks
in services to older persons in their communities and have hit
low-income persons especially hard. As Congress and the administration
debate what to do with the projected budget surplus, it is becoming
increasingly clear that the current spending limitations-which were put
in place before there was a projected budget surplus-are both
unrealistic and unsustainable.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects a budget surplus over the
next 10 years of approximately $2.9 trillion. Approximately $1.9
trillion comes from Social Security reserves, and $1 trillion comes from
general revenue surpluses. As I pointed out in this column last month,
these projections are subject to economic fluctuations, future budgetary
decisions, national emergencies and the decisions of elected officials
in the future. Still, even with some uncertainty in these assumptions,
continuation of the current caps on domestic discretionary spending
programs is both unrealistic and harmful.

The bottom line is this: Many members of Congress and administration
officials recognize that the caps on domestic discretionary spending
need overhauling-and the chorus is growing louder day by day. The time
for action is now.

It's been said that a rising tide lifts all boats. We must not allow the
boat carrying our nation's most vulnerable to sink in the rising tide of
our economic prosperity. The programs funded by discretionary spending
include those that support local senior centers, nutrition and meals
programs, transportation services, outreach, legal assistance and a wide
range of other health and social services. They also provide assistance
for those who regularly need help paying energy bills.

With Congress and the president at odds over tax cuts and other issues,
they need to work on a bipartisan basis to determine how the budget
surplus should be allocated. We urge them to make sure that the people
who are served by these vital programs share in America's prosperity.

With both parties pledging not to raid the Social Security reserves to
fund other priorities, a move AARP applauds, it is difficult to tell
where increased funding for domestic discretionary programs fits into
the priority list. Even less clear is whether the Congress and the
administration have the will to tackle these tough questions in a
meaningful and bipartisan manner.


The San Francisco Examiner, October 10, 1999

CUTS CAME LATER; BARBOUR NOW LOBBIES AGAINST THEM

Article originated from the Seattle Times

SEATTLE - The noisy legal battle over the Republicans' $1 million
Medicare offer brings to the fore a much larger, more important issue:
What happened with Medicare financing?

The subject of the 1995 ad -- the plan to trim the rate of growth of
Medicare by $270 billion over seven years -- never became law. President
Clinton vetoed it and the two sides did not agree on a compromise.

Then, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress and the White House
agreed to reduce projected Medicare spending by $115 billion through
2002.

This slowing in the growth of Medicare program is being achieved mostly
by limiting the amount hospitals and doctors can charge for Medicare
services.

The final "cut" in Medicare was smaller than that initially proposed by
Republicans and was similar to what Clinton wanted. However, some health
care providers have argued that the pain has fallen disproportionately
on selected clinics and nursing homes, forcing some to close.

And what happened to Haley Barbour, the man who posed in the ad?

He no longer heads the Republican National Committee. He's a lobbyist
and has been hired by a group of nursing homes to persuade Congress to
overturn many of the Medicare deductions he once said didn’t exist.

COMMENTS

We live in the only scientific-technological age ever known. It’s a
glorious age. But not as glorious as it can be.. What’s the hangup?
Because we hang onto “baggage” from the past, primitive agrarian age,
our age is  unnecessarily complex. The baggage referred to is our
socioeconomic structure, our “Price System,” and laws of the land which
were not constructed to fit our age. We moved out of a primitive,
agrarian age but brought along with us this archaic arrangement. While
it worked reasonably well for the past, neanderthal agrarian age, in
modern times, it’s a disaster.

While the above two pieces illustrate the complexities of our health
problem, the same is true about the complexities of our other problems,
be they  drugs, crime, pollution, population, water, soil, etc.

It is practically impossible to understand the impediments and hurdles
that law-makers are subject to. Not the least of which is the need for
law-makers to satisfy numerous “pressure groups.” The practice of
“horse-trading” is ongoing, time consuming and frustrating.

All persons in the legislative, administrative and the judicial branch
of government face these unnecessary frustrations. Things are just a
little short of being out of control. All must have numerous staff
people to do the ground work. Even then, their understanding is
extremely limited and in many cases, they lack any in-depth  grasp
whatsoever of the very laws they pass.

Technocracy recommends a complete break from the past. To stay with the
past and try the “band-aid” approach to solve problems, spells disaster.
It puts us on a destructive path.

Technocracy contends that we must have a social structure that is laid
out to be in sync with our scientific-technological age. As its proposed
structure, its TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIAL DESIGN fits modern requirements,
Technocracy suggests its adoption.

For those who wish to study Technocracy’s concepts, log onto
www.technocracysf.org and then click on MENU. Two “must” readings are
“What is Technocracy” and “A commentary to Jim Lehrer on Law and
Science.”