For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 28, 2001
Remarks by the President During Leadership Forum
Old Carnegie Library Council Bluffs, Iowa
4:04 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you,
Bill very much. I want to thank our
panelists. It's kind of family day
here. (Laughter.) Speaker, it's good to see you,
sir. I've enjoyed campaigning with you here. I've
spent a lot of quality time here in the great State of Iowa, and I'm
glad to be back.
I will say one thing as an aside, that I never
met a more kind group of people than the good people of
Iowa. Even if they weren't for you, they were
kind. (Applause.) But I really -- I have fond
memories of traveling to your great state, and I want to thank the good
citizens of Council Bluffs for welcoming me back here again.
Let me talk a little bit about the
budget. Because in order to get a budget passed, the
President must count on the people. My speech last night was
really not to members of the House and the Senate; my speech last night
was to the people of America. It was a great opportunity for
me to go around, or through the process, however you want to look at
it, and go directly to people who had an interest in their government.
Before I begin, though, I'm also mindful that
I'll get nothing done unless I get something through the House and the
Senate. And we've got three House members traveling with us
today, people who I respect a lot; one, your current Congressman Greg
Ganske, Tom Latham and Jim Leach. They all flew
down. (applause.)
They flew down and reminded me the entire way
down how important the issues are to Iowa, issues like ethanol --
(laughter and applause) -- I said it -- when I told them on the way
down, when I said I support ethanol, I meant
it. (Applause.) I supported it in the caucuses, I
supported it in the general election, and I support the use of ethanol
as the President of the United
States. (Applause.) Now that we've gotten the
ethanol issue straight, let me talk about the budget.
There's a lot of myths about the
budget. One myth is, you can't have tax relief because
somebody's not going to get their Social Security check, or you can't
have tax relief because we'll never pay down debt. The facts
are that if we have a fiscally sound approach to spending your money,
we can meet priorities, we can pay down debt, we can set aside
contingency funds for the unknown, and we can have tax relief; those
are the facts.
It starts with slowing down the rate of
discretionary spending. In our budget, there are entitlement
programs that are going to trigger spending, whether or not we -- the
Congress has no say, because people are entitled to money, they'll get
the money.
Social Security, for example, they can set
aside all the payroll tax for Social Security. Medicare is
taken care of in the budget. We double the Medicare budget
over the next 10 years. Discretionary spending like
education, it will go up under my plans. And it's right, it
does go up. I'm glad to know there's a groundswell for
support. (Laughter and applause.)
I want to tell you, though, even though I have
a Washington address, I strongly believe in local control of
schools. Of all states that understands local control of
schools, Iowa is such a state. (Applause.) I
believe we ought to pay our folks who wear the uniform in the military
more money, and my budget does that. We've set aside
priorities. (Applause.)
But instead of increasing the rate of growth
in the budget, discretionary part of the budget, like they did in the
last Congress, we slow it down to 4 percent, a rate greater than the
rate of inflation, however. And as a result of being
fiscally sound with money, it is amazing what we can do beyond just
spending.
We can pay down $2 trillion of debt over the
next 10 years. My budget does so; I'm confident the Congress
will support me to do so. People say, why don't you pay down
more? Because that's all the debt that's available to pay
down in a 10-year period of time unless you want to prepay debt, which
will cost taxpayers money. That's the debt that becomes due in a
10-year period of time. And so we set aside money for
discretionary spending and priorities, we save and strengthen Social
Security, we've got money for Medicare, we pay down debt, and we set
aside $1 trillion over 10 years for contingencies.
People say, what do you mean by
that. Well, there's emergencies. Right now, for example,
there is an earthquake in the State of Washington that may require
emergency spending; and let us hope that it doesn't create much damage
nor take anybody's life. But it's a serious
earthquake. I just called the FEMA Director to stay in touch
with the emergency office to make sure that we're on top of it, and we
are.
The agricultural sector may need emergency
spending or contingency spending. As we transition to a free
market world, there are some transition costs -- costs that we've been
paying in the past. We may have to pay it again this
year. As we reconfigure our military, we may require more
spending.
Medicare may require more spending to make
sure it fully works properly. But there's a contingency of
$1 trillion set aside. And there's still money left
over. That's the thing a lot of the proponents for big
government don't want you to hear -- that if we're wise and pay down
debt and have a contingency, there's still money.
And the big debate is going to be what to do
with it. I believe that once we set priorities and fund
them, we ought to remember who pays the bills in the first
place. This surplus is not the government's money. We're
going to spend money as if it's the government's money -- it's the
people's money. And I believe we ought to listen to the
people of America and share that money with the people who pay the
bills.
And there's compelling reasons to do so at
this point in our history. One: Energy bills are high, and
it's beginning to affect the pocketbooks of a lot of working
people. Two, there's a lot of talk about national debt --
and that's fine, but there's a lot of consumer debt in
America. And we've got to worry about people being able to
handle their own consumer debt. The energy crisis, coupled
with consumer debt, may make it hard for a lot of the working people to
meet their needs. And I'm worried about that.
I'm worried about government
debt. But I think it makes sense to worry about the debt on
the people of America, as well. I'm worried about the fact
that our economy is sputtering. Today, evidently, Alan
Greenspan testified that the warning clouds on the horizon are getting
darker and darker. I think what we need to have is good
monetary policy coupled with good fiscal policy, in order to make sure
we recover. And part of good fiscal policy says, let's give
people money back so they can spend it. They can manage their own
budgets to help kick-start the economy.
So there's a compelling reason for tax relief
at this point in our nation's history. Not only can we
afford it, it makes good policy sense to do so. And finally,
it gives us a chance to reform the tax code.
The death tax is unfair. It's
unfair to farmers; it is unfair to small business people; it's unfair
to people of accumulated assets, and we ought to eliminate the death
tax. (Applause.)
The marriage penalty is unfair. The
marriage penalty is unfair. I think we ought to reduce all
rates. There's a lot of talk in Washington, well, we will
decide who gets tax relief -- it's called targeted tax cuts. My view
is government ought not to try to target anybody in or target anybody
out. The only fair thing to do is to say if you pay taxes,
you get relief. (Applause.)
We dropped the bottom rate from 15 percent to
10 percent, which makes the code more fair, particularly when you
couple it with the fact that we're going to double the child credit
from $500 to $1,000. It makes it easier for people who work
hard to access the middle class. And that's
important. The tax code should not penalize hard
work. It ought to reward hard work, particularly for people
who are struggling to get ahead.
It also drops the top rate from 39.6 to 33
percent, which ignites the great outcry of class
warfare. One of the things I've worked hard to do is to try
to change the tone in Washington, to change an attitude that tends to
pit groups of people against each other. That's not the way
to have a debate. The truth of the matter is, by dropping
the top rate from 39.6 percent to 33 percent, we understand this fact
-- the role of government is not to create wealth, but an environment
in which the entrepreneur or small business person can flourish.
Many small business people are
unincorporated. Many small business people are sub-Chapter S
type corporations, and therefore, pay the higher rate. And
by dropping the top rate from 39 percent to 33 percent, we provide an
environment for capital accumulation, particularly in the small
business sector of the United States. (Applause.)
And so, given the opportunity to make a case
for the tax relief plan, as you can see, I'm going to grab it at every
possible moment. It is important for me to travel the
country, which I'm going to do, and make the case. I made it
last night in the Congress, I'm going to make the case all across
America. I did so today in Nebraska and Pennsylvania; I'm
obviously doing so here in Iowa. I'm off to Arkansas after
this, and then I'll be in Georgia tomorrow, because -- and the reason
I'm doing so is because this is the people's business. It's
the people's business.
And if you are interested in helping effect
change, then e-mail your senators and
congressmen. (Laughter.) I'm sure Ganske doesn't
need to hear from me. I'm positive he'll be with me all the
way. (Laughter.) But just in case -- (applause)
-- and so I'm not talking about you, Congressman Ganske, but somebody
might get a little nervous out there -- (laughter) -- because they're
listening too much to the people who want to grow the federal
government.
And, therefore, if you agree, and I hope you
do, I would like your help. So, Bill, thank you very much
for giving me a chance to come and make my case to the good folks of
Council Bluffs, and I would be glad to hear from you.
* * * * *
Q Mr. President, there
also seems to be a public perception that the tax cuts that we're
leaning towards will just benefit the wealthy. And this is a
big-time, as you would say, serious misperception. (Laughter
and applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: It was actually my
Vice President who said that. (Laughter.)
Q Okay. My
apologies.
THE PRESIDENT: I said something
worse. (Laughter.)
Q Well, I'm sure this
is one that you and the staff will have to work on to overcome, based
on some of the pundits, what they're saying. But from a third
generation businessman who would like to continue on the family legacy,
I would like to say -- I would like to express my support for you with
your debt reduction, your elimination of the death tax, and also your
reduction of income tax.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate
you saying that. I think that the class warfare debate has
kind of worn itself out. I believe that. I think
the American people are going to reject that debate, pinning so-called
rich against poor. I hope so. We can have a much
more constructive debate without trying to pit groups of people against
each other. And so I hope that the dialogue won't be -- the
truth of the matter is, the debate is bigger government versus smaller
government. Efficient government versus big government.
I want to tell you all something as people who
have to run budgets in your business. At the end of the last
session, there was over 5,000 one-time expenditures in the
budget. It was like a bidding contest to see how you get out
of town. The more money was spent, the earlier you got to
leave, it seemed like. And it's going to require a different
mentality to say, let's set priorities.
Small business people, any type of
businessperson understands the need to set the
priorities. And let's fund the priorities. And I
know there's a lot of politics in the budget sometimes. But
it's going to be important to me to keep the politics out of it and
insert the people. And we're going to get it done, too, by
the way. (Applause.)
Q Donna, would you be
willing to kind of enter into this discussion?
Q Mr. President,
approximately 14 years ago I had the privilege of having lunch with
your mother when she was here in Council Bluffs. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: You had lunch with
the A-team. (Laughter.)
Q I very much admired
her and she was largely responsible for my votes for your father and
for you. (Applause.)
* * * * *
Q Mr. President, I have
had a lot of children and grandchildren go through my house, and I know
that if there are cookies left on the table, they will be
eaten. (Laughter.) If we leave any extra money in
Washington, don't you think it will be spent? (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: That's
right. I appreciate that. I think I might start
using that. (Laughter.) Thank you very much.
* * * * *
THE PRESIDENT: Let me -- a couple
of points. One, the surest way to frighten people in any
kind of budget debate is to say you're not going to get your Social
Security check. Sometimes, that happens to creep into the
language of a political campaign, if you know what I
mean. (Laughter.) The facts are that both Republicans and
Democrats agree that we're not going to touch the Social Security money
for anything other than Social Security.
Now, as I mentioned last night, a very
important part of the Social Security dialogue is to be to figure out
how to make sure it works in the future. People who have
retired or near retirement are going to be in fine shape in the Social
Security system. There's a lot of money in the Social
Security trust. The fundamental question is what happens to
younger workers -- younger workers who have to pay enough in the system
to take care of baby boomers like me and you.
And one of the things I proposed last night
was to put a commission together to study alternatives. And
one of the alternatives has got to be to allow younger workers, at
their choice -- at their choice -- to take some of their own money
through the payroll taxes and put it into safe investment vehicles that
will earn a better rate of return than the current paltry 2 percent
that the Social Security system earns today. (Applause.)
So I appreciate so very much your concern
about making sure your mom and dad have got a safe retirement
system. The fundamental question, however, is not your mom
and dad, it is your sons and daughters, whether or not there will be a
system available for them.
In terms of Medicare, that is a legitimate
question for your mom and dad, and it's one that I ask, as
well. And we double the Medicare budget over a 10-year
period of time. But -- or and -- we better make sure the
system is responsive to the needs of Medicare recipients.
The old system, the system was designed for an
old way of medicine, where people -- where prescription drugs, for
example, wasn't that important a part of the medical
profession. Prescription drugs were around, but they weren't
the -- didn't replace health care given by doctors, for
example. Prescription drugs are an incredibly important part
of satisfying seniors' needs today.
But the system hasn't changed, and therefore,
what we need to do is modernize the system. And by that, I
mean we've got to give seniors a variety of options from which to
choose, all of which include prescription drugs.
And that's going to be an important part of
the Medicare debate. So it's one thing to make sure there's
money in the budget to take care of Medicare; the other question,
though, is are we going to have the will necessary to change the system
to take care of seniors. And the fundamental choice is going
to be, do we trust seniors to make decisions for
themselves? Do we trust them to be able to go into the
marketplace, if they so choose, and pick out a plan that meets their
needs?
So those are two incredibly important
debates. The opponents of any tax relief -- responsible tax
relief -- are going to argue that somebody is going to suffer -- a
Medicare recipient will suffer; a Social Security recipient will
suffer. It's just not the case.
And that's why I'm going to continue traveling
the country making sure everybody hears that. And I
appreciate you all giving me a chance to do so
today. (Applause.)
* * * * *
Thank you all for coming. I look
forward to thanking you in person. (Applause.)
END
3:34 P.M. CST
|