February 28, 1973
Page 5786
JERRY WURF TESTIFIES ON BUDGET CUTS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this morning the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations heard excellent testimony on the impact of the President's budget from Jerry Wurf, international
president of the 600,000-member American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.
Mr. Wurf defined the basic questions we all must ask as we examine this budget: "The questions for Government are which services have priority? Who pays and how much? Which level of Government provides the service? Who sets the standards? How do we fulfill the obligation of Government to provide for the general welfare?" And he pointed out the results of a recent survey commissioned by his union which concluded that "a significantly larger percentage of Americans felt the most important way to keep the tax burden on the average taxpayer is to have corporations and wealthy persons pay a larger share rather than slow down Government spending."
I especially call attention to a public opinion analysis attached to Mr. Wurf's testimony which puts in perspective the President's assumption that the public is fed up with all Federal domestic programs. It is clear that a majority of Americans recognize a very positive Federal responsibility in dealing with very real problems.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Wurf's statement, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
TESTIMONY OF JERRY WURF, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,
FEBRUARY 28, 1973
Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to appear this morning as the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations continues its hearings on the impact of the President's 1974 Budget on State and local governments.
The Union I represent has 600,000 members who work for State and local government bodies, as well as non-profit agencies and institutions. The membership of the Union includes the employees of all kinds of health care institutions, from aides and orderlies to physicians. We have law enforcement personnel and sanitation men, welfare workers and road maintenance crews, librarians and food service workers, engineers and recreation department employees, architects and toll takers and zoo-keepers – all of the people who perform the public services for State and local government.
We appear before you this morning to present in behalf of these people our views on the critical questions facing our system of federalism today.
The questions are not those of whether government should provide for needed services, for that mandate is clearly established.
The questions facing the Congress are not those of saving cities or developing rural areas ... nor of aiding one group of people more than another ... nor of helping the poor as opposed to the non-poor – although these are related matters.
The questions you are grappling with are those of providing for the people who elect you and pay the bill. These include the basic human services for which government in the United States assumes responsibility – ensuring public safety, caring for the ill and the aged and the weak, educating the young and the illiterate and the unskilled.
As Walter Heller testified before this Subcommittee last week, the public is not against government spending. We will add testimony to that fact later in my statement.
The questions for government are which services have priority? Who pays and how much? Which level of government provides the service? Who sets the standards? How do we fulfill the obligation of government to provide for the general welfare?
The responsibility of government to the people of this nation is clear. The issue today is how government meets this responsibility.
Whatever a person's needs in the way of public services, he probably has a grievance. The people reasonably want:
Simplified tax procedures and shorter waits for car license plates ...
Better transportation and cleaner air ...
Faster ambulance response and lower hospital costs ...
Better street lighting and an efficient judicial system ...
Decent neighborhood schools and meaningful adult education ...
And safe places for the elderly to live.
The sad truth is that our basic public institutions are inadequate for their patients, inmates, clients and students.
This is true of our prisons, our schools, our hospitals, our buses and subways. Our public services simply do not measure up to reasonable standards.
We had great beginnings in the 1960's to deal with these matters. Some say those efforts were utopian and did not fulfill their promise. But, those initiatives of the 1960's were legitimate, visible, and concrete actions by the people's government to serve the people's needs. The programs illustrated responsiveness and demonstrated concern.
War-caused inflation, more than bureaucracy was responsible for many of the shortcomings. The war seems to be over and done, and we can turn to the needs of people at home.
The welcome achievement of peace and substantive initiatives toward a program of world wide detente poses for government questions focusing on the people problems at home. The President, in his Budget messages, has opened a debate which may take on historic proportions. Seldom in our history has the Executive Branch so challenged the Congressional authority.
The President's challenge raises three fundamental questions:
First, which branch of government determines national priorities? The President has challenged the ability of Congress to exercise its constitutional fiscal and legislative powers.
Second, who is to pay? How do we most fairly levy taxes and how are those assessments most reasonably applied at each level of government? The Congress is challenged to review the imbalance of the revenue code. In essence, the archaic structure of the nation's fiscal systems puts the heaviest burden on those least able to pay and the lightest burden on those most able to pay.
Third, what level of government is best suited to determine the standards for public services?
Who is to manage the programs? Will federally-funded programs require equal protection? Will they be measured by fair national standards? Will they provide for accountability to the people?
The President seems neither prepared nor willing to negotiate with the Congress on these fundamental questions. He claims a mandate. He ignores the Congress. The President represents the authority of the Executive Branch of government. Congress is and must remain the Legislative Branch.
The President claims the people want less spending for domestic programs. He has said, and I quote "Bigger government is the wrong way to meet our Nation's needs." The President's premise must be challenged.
I would like to submit for your Record a memorandum prepared for our Union by Mr. Albert H. Cantril, a recognized expert and authority in interpreting public opinion. Mr. Cantril has been consultant to the Bureau of the Budget and to the National Academy of Science.
Mr. Cantril's conclusions with regard to the public's views on federal expenditures hold one of the keys to how the Congress can effectively interpret and counter the President's budget strategy.
Mr. Cantril's findings are based on recent polling data, some as recent as last month.
The Cantril study points out that in the 1972 Presidential campaign, when the voters rejected the Democratic nominee, they rejected a man not a program. There is clearly no "program" mandate for the winning Presidential candidate.
Secondly, the data shows the public's ambivalence on the proper role of the Federal Government.
It is against federal spending described as "welfare" or "paternalism." However, over half of the public favored increased federal spending with respect to:
Percent
Crime 77
Elderly– Social Security 74
Drugs and Drug Addicts 74
Clean Up Waterways – Water Pollution 64
Education of Low-Income Children 62
Reduce Air Pollution 61
Make College Education Possible For
Young People Who Could Not Otherwise Afford It 54
Medicaid to Help Low-Income Families
Pay Their Medical Bills 52
Programs to Rebuild Rundown Sections of
Our Cities 51
Equally interesting are the responses to a question used to elicit views with regard to the most desirable way to redress tax burdens.
A significantly higher percentage of Americans felt the most important way to keep down the tax burden on the average tax payer is to have corporations and wealthy persons pay a larger share rather than slow down government spending.
There are several broad strategies the Congress can undertake to reassert its constitutional prerogatives.
When the President identified programs he supports for increased budget spending, he picked four of the top programs on the list – drugs, crime, health, and pollution. I do not fault the President on the selection of these domestic priorities. However, while funding slight increases in these programs he has made drastic cuts in virtually all other areas.
The Congress must not permit the debate to polarize around the simplistic question of cuts in federal spending versus a tax increase. The Congress must illustrate in specific human terms the real impact and the human costs of the Administrator's budget. Then, public understanding can be effectively focused and the people mobilized.
Mr. Chairman, your exchange with Office of Management and Budget Director Ash over the closing of the mental health clinic in Maine is the kind of illustration that is required. When specific projects are placed in human terms, no President and no Director of the Office of Management and Budget can adequately justify the cutbacks with slogans or cliches.
The debate must be joined around those programs where the public is willing to support increased federal expenditures. It is futile to debate about programs which clash head on with the rhetoric of the "work ethic." The battle cannot be won with slogans of "save the cities" "war on poverty" and "welfare reform" but we can win the battle for the programs which are the substance of these slogans.
If we are to fund critical OEO programs, let it be to preserve health care and child centers, not to have a piece of rhetoric called the "poverty program."
How can the Congress respond to the President's challenge?
1. Congress must establish its right to direct program appropriations and set funding levels without impoundment, as well as the right to approve any reallocation of appropriated funds.
I urge support for Senator Ervin's bill prohibiting the impounding of funds unless the proposal has been submitted to and ratified by the Congress. The failure of the President to comply with such a law could provide a basis for clarifying the constitutional authority.
2. The taxing power of Congress, removed as it is from presidential fiat, should be used to direct public policy through tax credits, tax incentives, revision of tax rates, and the establishment of financing mechanisms for new health and income security programs. This is Congress' responsibility. This power, coupled with effective tax reform, can be used to establish national priorities. The President has the right to veto. That is power enough.
3. The general revenue sharing law already enacted can be used to provide the incentives to reduce the inequities of individual property taxes and stimulate the reform of State and local tax systems. We urge the Congress to base entitlements of State and local governments on their willingness to reform outmoded tax structures.
4. The Congress should accept the fact that programs aiding State and local governments can be consolidated and redirected – and this can be done in ways which will provide for the necessary protections and standards of performance.
As a matter of philosophy, our Union and the rest of the labor movement has traditionally favored federal aid provided within narrow federally-determined categories, and with federally- set standards. Last year, during the debate over general revenue sharing, our Union concluded that new aid was desperately needed and not possible under the specific grant-in-aid approach. Therefore, we supported general revenue sharing and devoted our efforts to ensuring adequate protections and standards within that legislation. We think the legislation that passed needs many improvements, but we are persuaded that it effectively satisfied many of the legitimate and critical financial needs that existed.
We suggest that efforts in this Congress to preserve categorical grant-in-aid programs on a piecemeal basis may fail. More aid in human resources programs is needed, and that need can be met in ways other than categorical grants. We urge that you explore these alternative means of delivering the money and sharply focus the issues on priorities and the level of spending – and not merely on preserving categorical grants. We believe that special revenue sharing and block grants can be acceptable alternatives. We are not tied to any one system of delivering aid. We believe that varying situations are deserving of varying responses.
The Congress can take leadership designing legislative packages that will focus public attention not on program titles or slogans, but on program priorities, standards, and funding levels. Here lie the issues of the 1970's.
5. The Congress can finance reordered national priorities within the parameters of the $12 billion deficit the President has proposed.
The President has claimed $14 billion in domestic program reductions or eliminations. Many of these programs deserve continued funding.
Additionally, we believe that the Congress should develop its own budget priorities to provide at least an additional $7 or $8 billion of appropriations for each of the next two fiscal years in key domestic areas.
These additional funds could come from both a reduction in specific military budget items, and through new revenues resulting from tax reform.
Specifically, I would assign the additional revenues in broad program categories of health care, education, housing, manpower and public service employment, environment, law enforcement and judicial and prison reform.
In summary, it is my belief that there is a critical need to adjust internal priorities generally within the limits of the President's proposed Budget deficit. The Congress is at a time of testing of its authority and must utilize all its power and ingenuity to achieve the restoration of its power to set national priorities and to establish a co-equal role in the budgetary and fiscal management of this nation.
I do not underestimate the difficulty of this struggle, but I am confident a majority of the American public support such efforts, and will respond if the choices are understandable in terms of human need and adequate community public services.
ALBERT H, CANTRIL
February 15, 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR JERRY WURF
Subject: Implications of the 1972 Elections
At your request I have reviewed available public opinion studies for clues as to the meaning of the 1972 elections. A number of major points stand out:
(1) The Presidential vote was a "negative landslide" – more a vote against George McGovern than for Richard Nixon. No one can argue that the President's inroads to bastions of Democratic strength were not impressive. He captured 36 percent of the Democratic vote – in absolute terms about ten million voters. He carried a majority among blue collar workers, nearly two-thirds of the self-proclaimed Independents and well over half of the Catholics.
Further, Mr. Nixon's winning coalition was more than a corralling of Governor Wallace's partisans. It has been suggested that adding the Governor's vote in 1968 (13.6 percent) to that for the President in 1968 (43.4 percent) yields the base of the 1972 Nixon margin. However, a Gallup Poll of mid-June (1972) belies this simplistic notion. It showed the President siphoning off only half of the Governor's support, the balance going either to the Senator or to the undecided column.
With Wallace Without Wallace Difference
Nixon 45% 54% +9
McGovern 32 37 +5
Wallace 18
Undecided 5 9 +4
TOTAL 100 100
Despite the size of the President's margin, the Democratic Party held its own at the state level. A net gain of eleven seats in the House. An increase to a fourteen-vote majority in the Senate, despite major GOP efforts to win control. A net gain of 11 governorships, yielding a 29-21 Democratic majority in the state houses. And 54 percent of the total congressional vote, compared to 51 % in 1968.
In short, the President ran well ahead of his party. The Republicans carried 53.5 percent of the popular vote in the 33 Senate races. In those same states, the President carried 63 percent. In the 18 gubernatorial races, Republican candidates carried 49.7 percent of the total vote as against the President's showing of 63.4 percent in the same states.
A survey Charles Roll and I commissioned through the Gallup Organization in mid-October shows why so much ticket-splitting should have occurred. At the height of the campaign we found only 37 percent of the electorate supporting Nixon because they liked him. The remaining 25 percent of his supporters backed him largely because they did not want to see McGovern win.
This finding came out of a question asked of a national cross-section of registered voters. After the preference between the two candidates had been elicited, we asked: "Are you supporting the candidate you choose more because you especially like him and what he stands for, or more because you would hate to see the other man win?"
Supported Nixon because: Percent
Liked him |
37 |
Disliked McGovern |
16 |
A little of both |
9 |
Supported McGovern because: Liked him |
18 |
Disliked Nixon |
12 |
A little of both |
8 |
|
100 |
Thus for the most part Richard Nixon's "new American majority" was the creation of George McGovern. Anti-McGovern sentiment (amounting to a firm 16 percent with another nine percent less than enthusiastic about Nixon) was almost as great as the pro-McGovern sentiment. It was also greater than the anti-Nixon segment of the electorate (12 percent having a dislike for the President and another eight percent being qualified in their support).
(2) The voters rejected McGovern, not all that he stood for. Senator McGovern's problem was that he just did not appear "presidential" to the American people. In a poll conducted for Newsweek by the Gallup Organization in mid-August, a cross-section of the public was shown a list of words and phrases and asked to select those that best described each candidate.
Consistently McGovern compared unfavorably. For example, the phrase "sticks to principles" was selected by 40 percent as describing Nixon and by only 17 percent as describing McGovern.
Mr. Nixon had clearly been able to dispel much of the "tricky Dicky" legacy. The phrase "strong and forceful" drew 34 percent for Nixon and only 17 percent for McGovern. "Good judgment" was chosen by 30 percent as applying to the President and by only 11 percent as applying to Senator McGovern. On the negative side, the phrase "extremist" was pinned on McGovern by 20 percent as against only three percent for Nixon. Eighteen percent felt McGovern "makes snap decisions" in contrast to only nine percent for Nixon.
The bitterness of the irony was found in a survey conducted in late August showing that the President was perceived by the public as better able to handle even those focal issues McGovern tried to carve out for himself. For instance, in Miami Beach Senator McGovern had talked about "restoring government to the people." When it came to the problem of "making the government pay more attention to the problems of the working man and his family," we found 61 percent of the public expressed confidence in the President in comparison to only 43 percent for McGovern.
The Senator also spoke of "coming home America from the entrenchment of special privilege." Again the Senator compared unfavorably: over half (52 percent) expressed confidence in Nixon on the matter of "keeping the big interests from having too much influence over the government" as against only 35 percent expressing confidence in McGovern.
The task of "reducing unemployment" was another on which McGovern lagged: 69 percent having confidence in Nixon and only 35 percent in the Senator. Even the issue that seemed to propel the McGovern campaign – Vietnam – worked to the President's advantage. Less than a third (29 percent) trusted McGovern when it came to "getting out of Vietnam honorably" as compared with 70 percent for Nixon.
However, despite Senator McGovern's non-presidential appearance to the voters, his defeat can in no way be construed as a defeat for many of the issues he pushed. That is, aside from issues like amnesty and busing, broad public support remains for many of the concerns McGovern articulated.
As early as May, my study for AFSCME picked up widespread agreement with the Senator's essentially populist appeal. We found 78 percent of the public agreeing that "the big special interests in this country have too much power and pretty much have their own way." Seventy-two percent agreed "too few of our nation's leaders understand what the average citizen would like to see done in this country."
And further, 60 percent agreed with the proposition that "there is not very much the average citizen can do to influence the way things are going in this country."
In my mid-October survey with Roll, four key issues were singled out on which the candidates were clearly divided. Without referring to the men by name, we juxtaposed the Nixon and McGovern positions and asked people which way they "leaned".
WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS
Wage and price controls have not worked because they are not tough enough on profits of corporations ............57
Wage and price controls have begun to slow down the rising cost of living and are fair
.................................29
No opinion...............14
_______
100
TAXES
The most important way to keep down the taxes of the average taxpayer is to make large corporations and wealthy people assume a greater part of the tax burden ..........43
The most important way to keep down the taxes of the average taxpayer is to slow down spending for government programs.....................................................................35
Both......................................................................................................................14
No opinion............................................................................................................ 8
______
100
TONE OF NATIONAL LIFE
Not enough attention is being paid to those things that are not working right in the U.S. today ........... 42
There is too much talk about those things that are not working right in the U.S. today
........... 47
No opinion ......11
____
100
DEFENSE SPENDING
We are spending more money on military defense programs than is necessary and we can cut back considerably on defense programs over the next few years without weakening
our national security .........39
Any further cuts in our defense spending would dangerously weaken our national security ...........................................48
No opinion ........................13
_____
100
On each of the four issues, support for Senator McGovern's view was significant.
(3) The public is ambivalent in its view of the proper place of the Federal Government. As the second Nixon term unfolds bold assumptions are being acted upon that the election returns indicate the American people are fed up with "paternalism", etc. "Ask not what government can do for you, ask what you can do for yourself ..."
On this range of issues, the public is clearly ambivalent. In a survey commissioned through the Gallup Organization just three weeks ago, two thirds (66 percent) of the public agreed with the statement: "We should hold the line of federal spending by cutting back on certain government programs – even those that many people think are important." In a similar vein, 79 percent agreed that "generally speaking, any able-bodied person who really wants to work in this country can find a job and earn a living."
The Nixon budget would appear on the surface to be in full keeping with these findings. But the same survey found three-fourths (74 percent) also agreeing with the statement: "The federal government has a responsibility to try to do away with poverty in this country."
Further evidence of the ambivalence of the public on the issue is found in the recent book State of the Nation by William Watts and Lloyd Free. In it they report the results of a national survey conducted by Gallup in June 1972. Among the questions asked was one dealing with the public's willingness to see federal spending increased, kept at the present level, reduced or ended in each of a number of program areas. Over half of the public favored increased federal spending with respect to:
Percent favoring an increase in spending
Programs to combat crime........................................................................77
Federal programs to help elderly people, for example, by increasing the social security payments they receive............................................................................................... 74
Coping with the problem of narcotic drugs and drug addicts .................. 74
Programs to clean up our waterways and reduce water pollution ............ 64
Federal programs to improve the education of children from low-income families.....62
Improving medical and health care for Americans generally ....................62
Programs to reduce air pollution ................................................................61
Federal programs to make a college education possible for young people who could not otherwise afford it ......................................................................................54
The medicaid program to help low-income families pay their medical bills .............. 52
Programs to rebuild rundown sections of our cities....................................51
The ambivalence indicated by these results suggests that an earlier finding of Lloyd Free in 1964 might still be valid. In a national survey just prior to the 1964 election, Free presented respondents with two batteries of questions. One battery presented respondents with a series of propositions couched in essentially ideological terms: "the federal government is interfering too much in state and local matters"; "we should rely more on individual initiative and ability and not so much on governmental welfare programs"; and the like. The other battery consisted of questions referring to specific federal programs: "a broad general program of federal aid to education"; "a compulsory medical insurance program covering hospital and nursing care for the elderly"; etc.
At the ideological level, the public was predominantly opposed to an extensive role for the federal government. But at the level of specific programs, however, the public was overwhelmingly supportive of a strong federal role. Thus, Free concluded: "While the old argument about the 'welfare state' has long since been resolved at the operational level of government programs, it most definitely has not been resolved at the ideological level."
This suggests part of the reason for Mr. Nixon's successes in his first term. He has talked like a "conservative" but not followed through literally by cutting back massively on federal programs.
Now in his second term his budget seems to be in line with his rhetoric. This may be his undoing with the American public.
If this ambivalent mood still persists among the people, the President could well find strong opposition. This opposition can be developed only, however, by systematic efforts to bring the meaning of the President's budget home to the public – and bring it home in rather specific terms.
It will be difficult to mount effective public opposition if the debate about national priorities and the budget stays on the ideological level. The President should thus not be allowed to polarize simplistically the issue: cuts in federal spending or a tax increase.
If, on the other hand, the real cost of the President's program in human terms is clearly demonstrated, public opposition could be more readily mobilized. Senator Muskie's recent confrontation with OMB Director Ash is illustrative. The Senator, recently returned from Maine„ reported that a health clinic in his state was being summarily closed for want of federal funds. Ash was hard put to come up with a satisfactory answer when the cost in human terms was spelled out explicitly.
However, it is crucial that the critique be developed primarily about those issues for which the public would be willing to see an increase in federal spending. This means: problems of the elderly, crime, drugs, pollution, education and medical care. It does not mean "welfare" programs, massive public housing programs, and those other issues that confront the work ethic head on.
To put it another way: it would be difficult to mobilize a public outcry at the dismemberment of OEO; it would be possible to mobilize public concern about the termination of specific educational or medical programs within OEO.
The critique of the President's budget should be with regard to specifics, not broad generalities and philosophical questions about "the poor" or the role of the federal government.