For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 26, 2001
Remarks by the President to the Employees of Bajan Industries
Kansas City, Missouri
11:50 A.M. CST
THE PRESIDENT: Elson, thank you
very much for your hospitality. It was interesting, you said
the name of this company is a reflection of his heritage, and that's
true. But this company is also a reflection of the American
Dream, as well. And I'm so thankful for the invitation to be
here. I'm also thankful for your willingness to dream and to
create jobs. This is what America is all about. This is
what I call the lifeblood of the country. (Applause.)
I also took notice of the fact that you were
quick to introduce your wife. (Laughter.) Smart
man. (Laughter.) But I'm so thankful for you all
to let us come. Senator, thank you very much for traveling
with me. I appreciate Senator Bond's
leadership. I believe he's got his priorities absolutely
straight, and they include the people of -- (applause) -- they include
the good people of Missouri right at the top of the
list. And I appreciate being able to call him an ally.
Earlier today, I was proud to travel with the
newly-elected congressman, Sam Graves. We went to his
district to say hello to folks in the district. And, Sam,
thank you for your willingness to serve.
It's good to see Congresswoman Karen
McCarthy. Thank you for your hospitality,
Karen. And Congressman Dennis Moore, I've had a chance to
visit with Dennis in the past and I appreciate him at least giving me a
chance to make my case. (Laughter.)
Mayor, thank you very much for your
hospitality. Thanks for greeting me here today.
I want to talk about a subject that's on my
mind, and part of my job is to put it on your mind if it's not, and
that's how to make sure we treat your money wisely in Washington, and
what do we do if we have any of it left over. First, let me
talk about budgeting. Elson has to budget. And
his plant manager has to budget. And one of the key
components of budgeting is to set priorities. We're in
Washington; sometimes there are no clear priorities. You
have to prioritize with the people's money. And we have set
priorities in my budget.
A major priority is education. The
biggest increase of any department is in the Department of
Education. But I also want you to know, even though we're
asking for more money to be spent in Washington, I'm not asking for
more power. As a matter of fact, I want there to be less
power in Washington, because I strongly believe in local control of
schools. I believe that Washington ought to trust the local
people to make the right decision for the schools. People
closest to the problem are those best able to address -- (applause.)
You've heard a lot about some issues that
relate to schools in this area. Don't be looking for
Washington for the solutions. We may be able to help with
some funding, but the government that is closest to the people is that
more likely to be able to address problems. And as a former
governor, I understand one size does not fit all when it comes to
education. The issues between Texas and Missouri are
different, and they darn sure were different within my own
state. And so we need more flexibility at the local level,
less power in Washington.
But I also believe in results. I
know Elson believes in results. He's a results-oriented
man. And I believe public policy ought to be
results-oriented. So my attitude is, if we increase spending
at the federal level, and align authority and responsibility at the
local level, we also ought to ask the question, what are the
results. We ought to say to local school districts, if you
receive federal help, you measure and you show us whether or not
children are learning to read and write and add and subtract, so that
we know -- so that we know whether school systems are quitting early on
children.
And I've seen what happens when school systems
quit early on children. Guess who gets quit on. Children
whose parents may not speak English as their first language; inner city
children. And to me it makes sense that if you receive help,
you've got to measure. I don't want there to be a federal
test. I don't want the national government to undermine
local control of schools. But I do think society ought to
ask the question, are the children learning. And if they
are, we ought to applaud and thank principals and
teachers. But if not, we ought to correct the problem early,
before it's too late. It's time for a new attitude when it
comes to the education of our children, particularly starting in
Washington, D.C. (Applause.)
And I think we're making good
progress. There's a new spirit of accomplishment in
Washington, D.C. And I think we're making good progress on
an education bill. Both Republicans and Democrats are coming
together to adhere to a set of principles that will encourage
educational excellence.
Another priority of mine, of course, is how
best to keep the peace. And so part of my budget was to ask Congress
to spend more money on the men and women who wear the uniform, to
increase the salaries of our troops and to make sure they're housed
better. I'm worried about morale in the
military. And one good way to start rebuilding morale is to
pay people better, and that's exactly what we're going to
do. (Applause.)
But I also have the responsibility of laying
out a strategic plan for the military, for how best to spend the
taxpayers' money beyond pay increases. We have the
responsibility in the Executive Branch to take a full review of where
money ought to be spent in the future, so we can better keep the
peace. Before we ask Congress to spend money on weapons
systems, our view is let's make sure the weapons systems are needed.
As we think about research and development
money, let's make sure it fits into a strategic plan, so that the
United States can keep the peace not only today, but 20 to 30 years
from now.
Another priority is health
care. And we've got a lot of money in my budget for health
care. We double the money for Medicare. We double
the amount of folks who will be served at community health
centers. We provide money in the budget to help the working
uninsured be able to purchase insurance. We focus on health
care.
And we also do something else in the budget --
and I know there's a lot of talk, there's a lot of ways to justify
keeping your money in Washington. But one of the old ways of
justifying keeping your money in Washington is left, it's no longer
relevant. Some may continue to try to frighten people with
it -- and that's the issue of Social Security. We're taking
all the payroll taxes and dedicating them only to one thing, and that's
Social Security. The day of trying to frighten seniors in
America to be against something is over with. (Applause.)
This is a budget that sets
priorities. Defense is a priority; education is a priority;
health care is a priority. I readily concede we don't try to
be all things to all people in our budget, however. But we
do increase discretionary spending by 4 percent. And this
creates the rub in Washington. There are some who think 4
percent is too small. I can understand why, because during
the last budget cycle the Congress spent -- raised the discretionary
spending by 8 percent.
Now, remember, inflation is less than 4
percent. Most people aren't getting 4-percent pay raises,
and yet asking our government to live on a 4-percent increase in
discretionary spending has created some tension. It made
people nervous, has created all kinds of noise in Washington.
But I think it's realistic to ask the federal
government to keep its spending at a rate a little more than the rate
of inflation. I think that's a realistic
expectation. And it shouldn't surprise any of you all. I
said if you give me the chance to be the President, I'll work to be
fiscally responsible with your money. The days of spending
orgies in order to get people out of town are over with, as far as I'm
concerned. I'm going to set priorities, and strictly make
sure that your money is spent wisely, and that we don't have a bidding
contest in Washington, D.C.
We've also paid down a lot of
debt. There's a lot of discussion about debt at the national
level, and ours is a budget that pays down $2 trillion worth of
debt. Now, there are some who may want to pay off more
debt. But the $2 trillion is the only amount that's coming
due over the next 10 years. And it doesn't make much sense
to pay down debt prematurely. It will cost the taxpayers
additional money to do so.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I've taken
a common sense approach to your money. We've set
priorities. We've increased the budget by 4
percent. Admittedly, it's not 8 percent. But 4
percent's plenty for the federal government to live on. We
pay down $2 trillion of debt.
Incredibly enough, we also set aside $1
trillion more over 10 years for a contingency. But you know
what, there's still money left over -- about $1.6
trillion. And that's where the big debate -- that's what
we're talking about, what to do with the money. I start with
this premise, that that surplus is not the government's
money. It's the hard-working people's
money. (Applause.) It's the money of the
entrepreneur. It's the hard-working -- it's the people's
money. That's whose money it is.
And as we're thinking about what to do with
it, I hope the Congress always remembers whose money it
is. I love the idea we're going to give the people their
money back. You know, I say that myself
sometimes. I just don't think we ought to take it in the
first place. After we meet priorities, I think we ought to
let you have it. (Applause.)
So I've submitted a tax relief
plan. The debate no longer is whether or not we're going to
have tax relief. It is how much money is going to be passed
back to the people, and how quickly. And that's a good sign
for the hard-working Americans who are paying taxes.
I'd like to explain some of the principles of
the tax relief plan. First of all, you hear a lot of talk about
targeted tax relief. Those words basically mean that
Congress gets to pick and choose who gets tax relief and who doesn't
get tax relief. But that is not my vision of fair
government.
Our vision of government says that if you pay
taxes, you ought to get relief; that the idea of trying to
pick and choose who does and who doesn't isn't
right. (Applause.) So we lower all rates for
everybody who pays taxes. The largest percentage tax relief
goes to the folks at the bottom end of the economic ladder.
We understand -- or I understand, and the
proponents of my plan understand, that if you're on the outskirts of
poverty, struggling to get ahead, the tax code is incredibly
unfair. It's unfair because as some taxpayers make more
money, they pay a higher marginal rate than successful people
do. If you start losing your earned income tax credit and
you go into the 15 percent bracket for the first time, and you pay
payroll taxes, the marginal rate on every additional dollar you earn is
higher than somebody making $200,000. That's the current tax
code today. And that's not right.
One of the major principles in the tax relief
plan says, the harder you work, the more money you ought to be able to
make and keep. The harder you work, the more money you ought
to have in your pocket. And so this is a plan that
recognizes the code is unfair. That's why we drop the bottom
rate from 15 percent to 10 percent, and increase the child credit from
$500 to $1,000 per child. (Applause.)
We also drop the top rate from 39.6 to 33
percent. And this is where some of the folks in Washington
would rather holler than listen to the facts. It's easier to
say some things about maybe certain folks shouldn't be getting tax
relief. But I want people to understand this about dropping
the top rate. A major beneficiary of dropping the top rate
from 39.6 to 33 percent are small business owners. Thousands
of small businesses pay taxes at the top personal rate. The
limited liability corporation, just like this company, pays taxes at
the high personal rate. The unincorporated small business
owner pays taxes at the high personal rate. The sole
proprietor pays taxes at the high personal rate.
Elson, you'll be pleased to hear, I hope, that
I believe the role of government is not to create wealth, but an
environment in which the entrepreneur can
flourish. (Applause.) And one way to do so is to
provide meaningful tax relief for the unincorporated businesses all
across America. By dropping the top rate, we're enhancing the cash
flow of the major new job creators in the
country. (Applause.)
Oh, I've heard the rhetoric, but the reality
is, the Elson Seales of the world, his company benefits, which makes it
easier for him to employ the good folks he's employing
here. Tax relief for small businesses is vitally
important. It's vitally important to make sure that the
entrepreneurial -- the entrepreneurial spirit flourishes in
America. It's also vitally important as our economy slows
down.
We've got to remember who the major job
creators are. New jobs are created by small business people
and entrepreneurs. And we should not let the rhetoric of a
few in Washington cloud the issue. And the issue is, how do
we get more money into the coffers of the small businesses like Elson's
in America. And that's what this tax relief plan
does. (Applause.)
So when you hear them saying they're against
dropping the top rate, you can translate that to the people saying, we
just don't appreciate entrepreneurship, or the small business creation
in this country.
There's two other issues I want to talk
about. One is that the marriage penalty is
unfair. It's an unfair part of our tax code. And
I urge the House, and ultimately the Senate, to do something about
that.
And I tell you something else unfair in our
tax code, the death tax. That's unfair. I think Elson ought
to be allowed to pass his business from one generation to the next
without being taxed twice. (Applause.) I don't
know what your plans are to do with your business, and I'm not going to
get you to declare right
now. (Laughter.) Particularly in front of your
son and daughter. But I do know that if part of your dream
is to pass your asset base on to your kin, you ought to be allowed to
do so. He pays taxes during -- when he makes money, that's
one time. Why should he pay taxes on his
death? It doesn't seem to make sense to me. If
part of the American experience is realizing a dream and building up
your own asset base, an equally important part of that is passing your
asset base on to your kin, to your son or your
daughter. It's part of the American Dream. It's
time to get rid of the death tax in the tax
code. (Applause.)
Not only does today give me a chance to talk
about the benefits for a company like Elson's, I'd like to introduce
some folks that I got to meet at a restaurant over there, the Edwards
family. Robert's a manager at Bob Evans Restaurant, and
Jennifer's an accountant at a real estate firm. They've got Quentin
and Ian with them. Quentin is three and a
half. Ian is barely hanging on at
one. (Laughter.) Looking for a
nap. (Laughter.) Mom probably is, too, right about
now. (Laughter.)
The reason I asked them to come, because I
want to just describe their circumstances quickly. This good
family works hard. They pay $1,750 in federal income
taxes. And under the plan, when fully implemented, if
Congress passes it, they'll end up paying no federal income
tax. They'll end up saving $1,750. And I've asked
them to come because it gives me a chance to vividly make this point,
and it's this.
Once the government has met its basic needs,
and we've grown the discretionary budget by 4 percent, and paid down $2
trillion of debt, set aside a trillion for contingencies, what do we
do? I would much rather have these good folks spend the
$1,750 than the Congress. In all due respect, I think we
ought to trust these people with their money. (Applause.)
It is your money to begin with.
And that's the fundamental
debate. And that's the debate that's going to take
place. It's taking place in the House. It's going
to take place in the Senate. Who do we
trust? This debate, as far as I'm concerned, is a matter of
trust. Do we trust the Elson Seales of the world, or do we
trust the government to make the decisions? Once priorities
are met, once we have increased discretionary spending, once we have
made sure Social Security is safe, once we have doubled Medicare, who
do we trust with the people's money? Ask the people.
I would much rather have this man and his wife
making the decisions what to do with that $1,750 than the appropriators
in the United States Senate and the United States House. And
that's the issue during this campaign -- and that's the issue during
this debate. (Applause.)
And so if you like what you heard, I urge you
to use the old email. (Laughter.) Or the
telephone. Or the letter. It's amazing how
effective people can be when it comes to convincing their elected
officials to listen to a different point of view.
I'm honored to be able to come out and make my
case. It's important for me to get out of the Nation's
Capital and get in front of as many people as I
can. Sometimes the filter may not say it exactly the way I'd
like it to be said, if you know what I
mean. (Laughter.) Sometimes the message doesn't
get delivered directly. And this gives me a chance to do
so. It gives me a chance to say that ours is a plan that
meets priorities, but doesn't want to grow the size of the federal
government relative to the size of people's pocketbooks.
There's a lot of talk about debt at the
national level -- I urge the senators and the Congress to remember
there's a lot of debt at the personal level,
too. And there's a lot of talk
about, oh, this assumption, that assumption. But one thing
we're certain of is that energy bills are going up for
people. We're certain of that. And at the very
minimum, we ought to share some of the people's -- not take the
people's money in the first place, so they can manage their new energy
account, increased energy accounts.
Now, we need to hear the people of this
country. We need to listen to them. We need to
understand the entrepreneurial spirit. We need to trust
families with their own money. Because the true strength of
the country lies in the hearts and souls of the American
people. That's the great strength of this
country. The great strength of the country happens when a
neighbor turns to a neighbor in need and says, what can I do to help.
Brother, you got a problem. What can I do to
help? So the acts of kindness that take place on a daily
basis.
No, the true strength of the country is when
somebody says, I think I want to teach some values to a child, and
becomes a Boy Scout or Girl Scout leader or Boys or Girls Club
leader. The true strength of the country comes when a mother
or dad understands their most important job is not what they're doing
during the day, but loving -- if they happen to have a child -- loving
their children with all their heart and all their
soul. That's the true strength of this
country. (Applause.)
I know we've lost some wealth in the stock
market recently. But the real wealth of America is the
creative energy of our folks. And tax policy ought to
unleash the creative energy of Americans, and trust Americans with
their own money. I'd like your help. I'd like
your help. This isn't for me. This isn't help for
a political party. This is help for doing what's right for
America. This is important for our economy, but it's also
important for the families and hard-working people all across the
country. And we can afford it.
God bless. (Applause.)
END
12:15 P.M. CST
|