For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 22, 2001
Remarks by the President to the National Newspaper Association 40th Annual Government Affairs Conference
The Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill Washington, D.C.
Listen to the President's
Remarks
10:47 A.M. EST
THE
PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming and thanks for having me.
Diane, I appreciate so very much the invitation. Ken, thank
you for escorting me up here. And, Jerry, thank you for that
kind introduction. I do remember the 4th of July
parade. I remember how hot it was. And next time,
let's make it a Christmas parade. (Laughter.) He comes from
a great town in a state I love a lot.
You said
you never thought you would be introducing me the last time you saw
me. But I can assure you in 1978 when I was running for the
U.S. Congress, and you were running the newspaper in Lamb County,
Texas, you certainly didn't think you would be introducing me as
President -- (laughter) -- because you had that funny feeling I wasn't
even going to win the race for the U.S. Congress, which was
true. (Laughter.) It's amazing how life works.
One of the
interesting things I did learn in that race, we had a lot of little,
bitty counties in far West Texas. And Jerry ran one of the
newspapers -- he worked for a man named James Roberts. Maybe
some of you all got to know James over time. He's a fine,
distinguished Texan. Lord rest his soul.
But he
owned a string of little newspapers, in Andrews and Lamb County, and I
think maybe in Mule Shoe, Texas. And I can remember knocking
on the doors of the newspapers when I was traveling the
district. It was a magnificent place to learn about what was
going on in each county. It gave me a chance to get a feel
for what the people were really all about. I got to hear the
gossip, got to maybe spread a little good news on my
side. But I came away with a deep respect for the small
newspapers that dominate the landscape of America. There's a
real sense of community when you walk into those newspapers and sit
down with the publishers and the editors and the
writers. It's really the best of America in many
ways. (Applause.)
I sound
somewhat nostalgic about those days. I'm loving what I'm
doing. It's interesting that in spite of the fact that my
first race for public office I came in second in a two-man
race. Life has its interesting twists and
turns. Life is unpredictable. But it turns out if
you aim -- work hard and treat people with respect, keep your
priorities straight, life can turn out pretty good. And it
certainly has for me. I'm honored to be your
President. I'm honored to be here to discuss some issues
that are important to our country.
I want to
thank my friend, Tommy Thompson, for having been here. Tommy is
serving our nation very well as the important Cabinet
position. I got to know Tommy as a governor; you
got to know him as a governor. And he's a fine
man. He represents the kind of Cabinet I've put together,
distinguished citizens, all of whom are here to serve our country; all
of whom have put aside their personal comforts to do what's right for
America.
I
appreciate my friend, Roy Blunt. I understand he's coming,
or has been here, a member of the United States Congress, a fellow I'm
working closely with to try to get some legislation through the
legislative process.
I want to
talk about a couple of things, and then I'd like to weave issues in in
context of the budget that I presented to the Congress. I's important
for opinion-makers such as yourself to hear my side of the budget.
See,
there's a lot of folks in Washington that would like to send out
information that might cloud the picture so that they get to keep more
of the taxpayers money here in Washington. We're in the
midst of a big debate, and it's a healthy debate, as to what to do with
the people's money. That's what the budget is all
about. Remember, the context I come from, though, is not to
do with what to do with the government's money, it's what to do with
the people's money. All the talk about the surplus as the
government's money misses the point. They forget who pay the
bills. Those who say the surplus is the government's money forget
where it comes from.
And one of
the things I'm not going to forget where it comes from, I'm going to
remember where it comes from. It comes from hardworking
people. It comes from entrepreneurs, small business owners,
hardworking folks who pay the bills for this government.
So we sent
up a common-sense budget to the Congress -- I say common sense because
it sets priorities. When you run your businesses, you set
priorities. That's sometimes the definition of success, is
somebody who figures out how to set priorities and stay on those
priorities. And that's what we did, we set some clear
priorities. We funded public education, increased the
funding of public education. It's the biggest increase of
any department in my budget.
Now, lest
you forget where I came from, it's one thing to provide money at the
federal level. But I can assure you I'm a strong supporter
of local control of schools. I believe that the best way to
run the schools is to trust the local people. So we're
increasing spending, but were going to also increase power at the local
level. One size does not fit all when it comes to the
education of the children in America. We've got to have
local control of schools; we've got to align authority and
responsibility at the local level. And I'm working with
Congress to do that.
But one of
the cornerstones of reform for education is to hold people accountable
for results. I'm a strong believer that in return for the
receipt of taxpayers' money, states and local jurisdictions must
develop accountability systems to tell us whether or not children can
read. It's in your best interests, by the way, that we have a literate
tomorrow. You're irrelevant if people can't read. And we
need to start figuring out whether they can or cannot early in a
child's career. And so, the only way to do that is to
measure.
Now, I'm
against a national test because a national test would undermine local
curriculum and local control of schools. But I am for
saying, in return for money, show us. Show us whether or not
children can read and write and add and subtract. Hold
people accountable. Use the accountability system not as a
way to punish, but as a way to correct problems early, before it's too
late.
And you
mark my words, when you have a system based upon the principles of high
accountability and high -- of high standards and strong accountability,
and local control of schools, children will learn. And
that's what this country needs. They need an education
system that's responsive, results-oriented, that focuses on each child
as a child, that challenges the process-oriented system that asks the
question, how old are you. Oh, if you're 10, we'll just put
you here. And if you're 14, you go here. And if
you're 16, you go here. It's time in America we start asking
the question, what do you know. And if you don't know what
you're supposed to know, we're all going to come together to make sure
you do early, before it's too late.
I'm so
confident that we can achieve what we all
want -- an educated tomorrow. And it
starts with having systems in place, systems in place that encourage
reform, based upon accountability.
Another
priority in the budget I sent is more pay for the
military. I am concerned about morale and the
troops. It was a big issue during the course of the
campaign. I said, if you give me a chance to be the
President, we'll begin by increasing morale two ways: one,
is pay people more money. So, in our budget -- we've
increased the budget that I've submitted to Congress for better pay and
better housing. And two, to have a Commander-in-Chief who
will clarify the mission of the U.S. military. And the
mission of the United States military is to have our troops
well-prepared and well-trained, to be ready to fight and win war, and
therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.
The mission
of the military must be focused, and the job of the Commander-in-Chief
is to focus that mission. And it's what I've done. There
will be a lot of talk on Capitol Hill about increasing military
budgets, and my answer is, let's make sure we have a strategic plan
before we do so. Let's have a blueprint of what the future
ought to look like. Let's make sure -- not only make sure morale is
high today, but as we begin to spend on weapons systems, let's make
sure they fit into a plan so we can keep the peace as we go down the
road.
Many of the
decisions that are made in the Defense Department today will affect how
the military looks like 20 to 30 years from now. And I want
to make sure that money is wisely spent and focused on how to keep the
peace in the long run.
Another
priority is retirement systems of Americans. And so the
budget I set up says the payroll taxes are only going to be spent on
one thing, and that's Social Security -- that the Congress won't be
using the payroll taxes for other programs. So -- lockbox I
think is the terminology they like to use up
here. (Laughter.) Rest assured, it's set aside
only for Social Security.
And later
on in the year we're going to begin the process of debating how to make
sure the Social Security system works as we go down the
road. One of the things that -- I went to a senior citizen
center yesterday in Orlando, Florida, home of the great Governor Bush.
(Laughter.) And a couple of folks said there, now, you're
not going to be messing with my Social Security check. They
didn't quite put it that
eloquently. (Laughter.) But I said, no.
Every time
there's a campaign there's a lot of noise and ads and stuff that try to
frighten people into the voting booths. And by setting aside
all the money that goes into Social Security for only Social Security,
we can assure folks who rely upon Social Security that they're going to
get their check.
But the
fundamental question is what happens to the younger workers, younger
folks in America, will there be a system available for
them. And one of the things that we're going to start
thinking about and encourage a lot of debate about is this notion about
letting younger workers take some of their own money, some of their own
payroll taxes and invest them in the private markets to get a better
rate of return on the money than we get now under the Social Security
trust.
You see,
we've got to get a better rate of return on payroll taxes; otherwise,
there's not going to be enough people putting money in the system,
compared to those who are taking it out of the system. I'm
willing to think differently on the issue, and encourage others to do
so up here, as well.
Health care
is a priority in our budget. We double the number, if we put
enough money aside, double the number of folks who will be served by
what's called community health centers. Perhaps you've got a
community health center in your neighborhood. These are
fundamentally important health care delivery systems that enable the
indigent or other folks who are struggling with health care to be able
to get primary care. These are good programs and it's an
effective part of the delivery of health care.
We double
the Medicare budget in the budget I submitted to the United States
Congress. We've increased funding so we can double the NIH
budget by 2003 from when that initiative first
started. There's a lot of programs that we focus on.
We increase
discretionary spending by 4 percent. That's greater than the
rate of inflation. It's probably greater than the pay raises
you gave the people working for you. It's a pretty healthy
increase. But the problem is, they're not used to that kind
of fiscal responsibility in Washington. The discretionary
spending at the end of last year increased by 8 percent.
So you've
got a new President who comes to town and says, why don't we be
fiscally responsible with the people's money? Why don't we,
instead of increasing spending by 8 percent, be reasonable, take a
common-sense approach? Not try to be all things to all
people at the federal level. And that's where the squawking
started. That's where people started getting
nervous. Because fiscal responsible spending is something
that they're not used to. But it's
important. It's important to be responsible with the
money. My point to you is, we can make priorities. Four
percent of a budget that we're talking about of billions of dollars is
a lot of money.
Now,
there's a lot of talk about paying down debt, and we do so. The budget
I submitted pays down $2 trillion of debt over a 10-year period of
time. One of the things I want to try to remind Congress to
think about is there's not only debt at the national level, there's a
lot of folks in your communities who have got credit card
debt. There's all kinds of debt. And we pay down debt at
the national level, but it's important to also remember, there are
people struggling to get ahead, particularly with energy bills going
up, the economy slowing down. We've got personal debt. And
with people's money, it seems like to me we ought to encourage them to
be able to manage their own accounts with some of their own back.
I also am
aware that sometimes things don't go as planned. So in the
budget we submitted, there's $1 trillion over 10 years for
contingencies. Now, you're probably saying to yourself, he's
talking about a lot of money -- and I am. But incredibly
enough, after meeting priorities and by slowing down discretionary
spending to 4 percent, and paying down debt and putting aside
contingency money, there's still money left over -- about
$1.6 trillion. And the fundamental question is what to do
with it.
And the
debate is this: Do we increase the baselines of our budgets,
or do we understand where the money came from and let the people keep
it? I stand squarely on the side of letting the people keep
it. I think it is so important for a couple of
reasons: one, more money in people's
pockets. More money in people's pockets will help provide a
second wind for our economy. And, two, I trust people with
their own money. I trust them more than I trust the federal
government to make decisions on their behalf.
There is a
fundamental, philosophical divide in Washington. It's
basically, who do you trust? Who do you trust? I
used to travel the country, and everytime I'd go somewhere there would
be tax families at a stop. And I would say, well, so-and-so
Smith family. And they would say, well, they pay, $3,000 of
federal income taxes, and under our plan in which everybody who pays
taxes gets relief, they're going to save $2,000 -- that would be the
example, say. And I would say, who would you rather spend
the money? Once you meet priorities in Washington, D.C., the
debate is, who would you rather spend their $2,000, the Smith family,
or the federal government? And I'm coming down on the side
of the family every time. And that's what the debate is
about.
We've got
pretty good cash flow coming into the treasury. In spite of
the fact the economy is slowing down in the first four months of the
year, the cash flow was $40 billion more than anticipated -- $40
billion more. It sounds like to me, somebody is getting
over-charged. And I'm asking Congress for the refund for the
people. And that's what the debate is.
And so, the
tax plan we submitted is based upon some principles, as
well. First of all, you will hear a lot of talk up here
about targeted tax cuts. Basically, what that says is,
Congress wants to decide who gets a tax cut and who doesn't,
obviously. They want to decide who the winners are and who
is not a winner when it comes to tax relief. That is not my
view of government.
My view of
government is that everybody who pays taxes ought to get tax relief;
that the United States Congress, nor the federal government should try
to say, okay, you pay, but you don't get anything, and you pay, and you
do. That's not my vision of fairness and fair play when it
comes to the federal government. So everybody who pays gets
relief.
We drop all
rates, and we simplify the code. Instead of five rates,
there's four rates. We drop the bottom rate from 15 percent
to 10 percent, and increase the child credit from $500 to $1,000 per
child. That's a very important part of the reform, because the tax
code we have today is incredibly unfair to people who are struggling --
what I like to call struggling on the outskirts of poverty -- people
who are working hard to get to the middle class.
And under
this tax code, take the example of the single mother making $22,000 a
year. The lady is raising two children. First of
all, she has got the toughest job in America. And secondly,
under her circumstances, for every additional dollar she earns, she
pays a higher marginal rate on that dollar than someone who is
successful. She starts to lose
earned income tax credit. She pays the 15 percent bracket,
and she pays payroll tax. The marginal rate on her
additional dollar is nearly 50 percent. And that is not
fair. That's not what America is about.
America is,
the harder you work, the easier the middle class ought to become, and
the more money you get to keep. And by dropping the bottom
rate and increasing the child credit, we make the code much more fair
to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. And I
think there's universal agreement about that point here in Washington.
I also
strongly believe we need to cut all rates, including the top rate, from
39.6 to 33 percent. And there's a lot of rhetoric about
that. I'm sure you've heard it. But it's very
important for Congress to understand this fact: Most small
businesses in America are unincorporated, or subchapter
S's. Most small businesses pay at the 39.6 percent rate.
And by dropping the top rate to 33 percent, we stimulate small
businesses in America. We encourage entrepreneurship.
One of the
things I like to tell people is, the role of government is not to
create wealth. The role of government is to create an
environment in which the entrepreneur or the small business owner can
flourish. That's the role of government. And
dropping the top rate will provide more cash flow for small business
owners to be able to invest, to buy new printers, to employ more
people.
Now, I've
heard the rhetoric. But they're missing the point. The
point is, how do we encourage growth, particularly when the economy is
beginning to slow down? And a good way to do so is to drop
that top rate.
We also
have got two other reforms that I want to mention to you. One is, we
do something about the marriage penalty. Our tax code taxes
marriages, it doesn't -- I mean, penalizes marriage. It
doesn't make any sense; so mitigate what the marriage penalty
does. And we also eliminate the death tax.
I want to
quote one of your own -- publisher from Eufala, Alabama, the Tribune --
Joel Smith. I hope I'm -- if Joel is here, I hope I'm not
embarrassing you. But sometimes, when we say things, words
come back to haunt us. (Laughter.) Well, not
exactly haunt in this case. (Laughter.) Here's what he
wrote: "I hope the President and Congress will repeal the
death tax and help my family keep publishing our 72-year-old,
twice-weekly newspaper." That's what he said. He
represents the sentiments of hundreds of Americans who work hard to
build up their asset base, with the dream of being able to pass it on
to a family member.
It doesn't
matter whether you're a newspaper publisher or a farmer, or a rancher,
or a small business person. Many folks have got the dream of
working hard as they can to build up an asset base and to have the
pleasure of knowing a family member is going to run the newspaper, or
manage the farm. And, yet, our tax code makes it awfully
hard for people to realize that dream. The death tax is
unfair. It is unfair to tax a person's assets
twice. And it's not fair to prevent people from passing
their own business, their own property from one generation to the
next. We've go to get rid of the death tax. (Applause.)
And so
that's the rationale of the budget I submitted. And we're
making progress, I think. It used to be, well, we're never
going to have any tax relief. And now, the discussion is,
how much and how soon. And as far as I'm concerned, the
sooner, the better. And I look forward to working with both
Republicans and Democrats to get this done. This is the
right thing for America. It's the right thing for our
country to have meaningful, real, fair tax relief.
There are a
lot of other issues that, of course, I'm involved with. One
of the biggest issues is changing the tone in our Nation's
Capital. It's not really an issue like we know
it. It's not the kind of thing that requires a piece of
legislation, but does require an attitude, and it starts with the
President.
We need
more respect in our Nation's Capital. We need people that
respect other's opinions. I used to remember looking up at
Washington from Austin, Texas, and thinking about, surely there's a
better way to have discourse on important issues than without the
name-calling and finger-pointing and unnecessary politics on important
issues that affect the people.
One of my
hopes -- and I believe we're making progress -- is to convince people
of both parties to treat each other with respect. And it
starts with the President being respectful of somebody else's
opinion. I hope that by changing the tone in Washington we
can change the tone in other places around the country, too, where we
can prove that there can be respectful disagreement.
I know you
and your newspapers try to do that
all the time. You put out opinions, and you do so in a way that I'm
confident is respectful. And it's important. It's
important for our country to be a nation that honors -- that respects
other people's opinions. That's what democracy should be all
about.
We're not
all the same. We don't always agree, but we can do so in a
way that brings honor to the process. And it's important to
do that, as well, because our system is only as good as those who are
willing to participate. And I hope -- my hope of hopes is
once my stay is through up here -- and by the way, I'm heading back to
Texas once it's over -- I hope somebody says, well, you know, I think I
might try to enter the public arena. I'd like to try to
serve my country. You don't have to try to serve your
country as the President. You can serve your country as a
school board member, or as a county commissioner. There's
all kinds of ways to serve our nation.
It's
important for those of us who have got the high honor and
responsibility of public service to remember that there's something
more than personal ambition involved. We have a
responsibility to set a tone, and to call upon the best. And
that's my pledge to you. You may not agree with my budget or
how I'm approaching things. But when it's all said and done,
I think you will agree with how I conduct myself in public office.
(Applause.) It's a big responsibility.
I think
there's a second change taking place up here. On the one
hand, we've got a culture of respect developing. Another is
a culture of achievement. We're beginning to get some things
done. Again, people may not agree with some of the things
that are happening, but for example, the other day I signed a Senate
resolution to change the ergonomic rules. Both Republicans
and Democrats came together. Some people liked it, some
people didn't like it, but nevertheless it happened
quickly. It's a good piece of public policy, as far as I was
concerned. It's the ability for our government to analyze
regulations and to put a cost benefit analysis to them. And
the cost in this case looked far to exceed the
benefits. And, therefore, Congress acted.
I believe
we're going to see that happen. I believe people -- that
there's going to be a culture of success and results. My job
as your President is to share success, is to say to both parties that
are involved, come together and get some things done. And
I'll do my best to explain to the people that you were involved.
See,
there's a time for politics, and there's a time for policy. And the
way I view it is, once you get sworn in, that the politics is over. In
my case, it took a little longer. (Laughter.) And
now it's time to do the people's business. And I believe
we're making progress.
I want to
thank both the Republicans and the Democrats who are joining in this
effort. I hope America's taking notice. It's the
right thing to do, and it's the right way to conduct the people's
business. I'm honored you let me come by to listen with
you. I'm honored to be your President.
God bless
you all. (Applause.)
(A gift of
a T-shirt is presented.)
THE
PRESIDENT: It will play good in Crawford,
Texas. (Laughter and applause.)
END
11:10 A.M. EST
|