    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book I)]
    [July 20, 1993]
    [Pages 1129-1135]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Interview With the Louisiana Media
    July 20, 1993

        The President. Good afternoon. I understand that I can't see you
    because you're having a rainstorm down there, and I'm sorry that we
    can't have a two-way, at least visual communication. But I'm glad that
    you can hear and see me.
        First, let me thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak
    through you directly to the people of Louisiana. I want to say a few
    words in opening about the economic program that I have presented to
    Congress, which is now being debated between the Senate and the House.
    There are some differences between the two plans, but the essential
    features are common, and I'd like to review them and what they could
    mean to Louisiana.
        First of all, the plan has $500 billion in deficit reduction over
    the next 5 years. That is equally divided between spending cuts and tax
    increases. It's in a trust fund so that the money cannot be squandered
    on anything else. And if we don't make our targets, the President has a
    legal obligation to come forward and do some more cutting to make sure
    we do bring this deficit down.
        Secondly, the plan asks the wealthiest Americans, whose taxes went
    down as their incomes went up in the 1980's, to pay most of the load.
    And let me be quite specific. The income taxes of Americans do not go up
    until they have adjusted gross income of $180,000 per family, $140,000
    per individual. That means that 70 percent of this tax load will be paid
    by people with incomes above $200,000, the top 1.2 percent of the
    American people.
        Thirdly, the plan is fair to the middle class and to the working
    poor. I want to emphasize that. The fuel tax in the plan, now at about
    4.3 cents, amounts to about a $50-a-year tax to a family of four with an
    income of $40,000 to $50,000. That's less than $1 a week directed and
    dedicated to bringing down your country's enormous deficit. For families
    with incomes of $30,000 or less--I think that's right at a majority in
    Louisiana--they will be held harmless or actually get a tax reduction
    from this plan.
        Fourthly, the plan has important incentives for business growth:
    incentives for people to invest in new businesses and other small busi-

    [[Page 1130]]

    nesses; incentives for larger companies to buy new plants and equipment,
    to put people to work; incentives for research and development in new
    technologies to help to create new jobs for the 21st century. And
    perhaps most importantly, it doubles the expensing provision for small
    business, which means that 94 percent, let me say that again, 94 percent
    of the small businesses in the entire United States of America will not
    only get no income taxes increase from this plan but will be eligible
    for a tax break if they invest in their businesses.
        Finally, unlike the Republican alternatives, this plan cuts the
    deficit more but does it in a way that is fairer to the elderly, to the
    working poor, and to the middle class. The Republican alternative cuts
    the deficit less but takes more out of the hides of the folks on
    Medicare, takes more from the veterans, takes more from agriculture,
    cuts things that have already been reduced dramatically.
        So this plan, once the details are known, I think, clearly is good
    for America and good for Louisiana. It has already brought interest
    rates down dramatically. It is leading many, many people to refinance
    their homes and their cars and their businesses in ways that are putting
    money in Americans' pockets, not taking them out. And there's no
    question that without the progress this budget plan has made through the
    Congress, I would not have been able to lead an effort by the
    industrialized nations of the world in Tokyo to agree to reduce tariffs
    on manufactured products, to agree to reduce the Japanese trade
    imbalance with the United States in ways that will mean hundreds of
    thousands of manufacturing jobs to America.
        So I believe if we can get the facts out there, I can persuade the
    Congress to adopt the plan, and we can put it behind us, seize control
    of our destiny, stop letting the deficit eat us alive, and start putting
    America back to work. That's the key thing.

    Approval Ratings and Accomplishments

        Q. Mr. President, recent polls nationally and here in Louisiana have
    indicated that a lot of Americans have already lost enthusiasm with your
    administration, a perception of indecisiveness if you will, a perception
    of someone who may be a little bit more tax and spend, the traditional
    liberal Democrat, than the moderate image he sold the American
    electorate. Why do you think you've suffered so much in the public
    opinion arena in so short a period of time? And considering you've got
    Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, Mr. Clinton, why do
    you think you've gotten so little accomplished in terms of what people
    expected of the Clinton era?
        The President. Well, first of all, let me say I think the public
    opinion polls are obvious. And that's because the only news coverage we
    get out of this town is over the fight over taxes, so that the American
    people, literally by huge majorities, do not have any idea what is in
    this program. They don't know there's any deficit reduction. They are
    not aware that there are any spending cuts. They are certainly not aware
    that 70 percent of the new taxes fall on people with incomes above
    $200,000. In Louisiana, I'm certain they're not aware that families of
    incomes of $30,000 or less pay no tax and, in fact, many will get a tax
    break under this, and that all the working poor, people who work with
    children in the home still below the poverty line, will get a
    significant tax relief under this program. They don't know the facts
    because the only coverage is over where the fight is, and that's been
    over the taxes. So the Republicans can scream ``tax and spend'' and all
    this label stuff, and if the people don't have the facts before them,
    all they can do is operate on what they know.
        Now, secondly, I just want to take issue with you. I, frankly, think
    that one of the reasons the American people are disappointed about--you
    said the slow pace of progress--is because they haven't been told the
    truth about that. Do you know that if the Congress passes this budget on
    or before August the 5th when they go on recess, it will be the fastest
    they have acted in a very long time?
        And in terms of the difficulty I'm having getting this through, this
    is tough stuff. You've been sold syrup and sugar for years. But let me
    give you an example. Most of the Democrats voted for my program. In the
    last year of President Bush's administration, 75 percent of the
    Republicans in the House of Representatives--not the Democrats, the
    Republicans--voted against his budget. Why? Because no President has
    tried since 1981 to seriously engage the Congress in a budget that will
    turn the economic fortunes of the country around. Presidents don't want
    to be criticized for failing or for compromising, so they have played
    these political games, sent budgets up to the Hill that they knew had no

    [[Page 1131]]

    chance of passing the Congress, and made speeches to the American
    people. I have gone to work.
        Now, I ask you to compare what has actually been done in the first 6
    months of this administration with what any previous administration has
    done in 6 months. We have put a serious budget on the table which will
    bring the deficit down and which has already brought interest rates
    down. We led an effort in the world's nations to save democracy in
    Russia, which will help America by enabling us to reduce defense and
    define new markets for our goods. We passed the family leave bill to
    protect families when their jobs require them to leave because they've
    got somebody sick in the family. We passed the motor voter bill, which
    will make it easier for people to register and vote. We have passed in
    one House of the Congress campaign finance reform, lobbying
    restrictions, and the line-item veto.
        We are moving forward with a welfare reform proposal. We are moving
    forward with a national service plan, which I talked about repeatedly in
    Louisiana--it's going to be passed in one House this week, and it's
    going to be law very soon--which will open the doors of college
    education to millions and millions of young people who can't afford to
    go now with lower interest loans, and allow many of them to work that
    off with community service. Now, that is the record of this
    administration.
        I just came back from the most successful meeting of the world's
    great industrial powers in years, because the United States, for the
    first time in 10 years, was not attacked at that meeting for its
    outrageous Government deficit. Instead we were complimented, and we got
    the other nations to agree to bring down tariffs and open up markets for
    American manufactured products, which means more jobs for Louisiana.
        I would like for you to go back and analyze the first 6 months of
    the previous administrations and tell me who got more done in 6 months.
    If you can tell me, I'll be glad to hear it. If there isn't anybody you
    can find who's done more, then we need to examine why the American
    people don't know that.

    Gridlock

        Q. Mr. President, you came to Washington promising to get things
    moving, and you hit a brick wall of entrenched interests from all sides.
    Were you surprised by the intensity of the resistance? And what needs to
    be done so Government can respond quicker and better?
        The President. Excuse me. My microphone fell.
        Well, first of all, I want to say again, changes don't happen
    overnight. This country has been losing its economic position for 20
    years. We've been with trickle-down economics for 12 years. It's been a
    great deal. The idea was: Give special interests and the wealthiest
    Americans whatever they want. Don't do too much to the middle class.
    Tell everybody what they want to hear, and hope nobody notices that
    we're running up a deficit that is keeping interest rates high,
    weakening the country, and not generating jobs. Now, that's been going
    on for a long time. So when you try to make tough decisions, it's not
    going to be easy to change.
        I knew it would not be easy to change. No one can turn a country
    around overnight. I'm, frankly, reasonably pleased with the pace of
    change, but the one thing that has surprised me and deeply disappointed
    me is that the people in the other party have been so bitterly partisan
    about this. Many of them have come to me privately and said, ``You're
    doing a good job. We agree with a lot of these things, but you know, our
    party just is going to oppose you.'' And so I'm hoping that we'll have
    more bipartisan support when we try to provide affordable health care to
    all American families and open the doors of college education than we
    have on this budget. And on welfare reform I think we'll get some
    Republican support.
        Now, you asked me specifically what needs to be done. Congress needs
    to pass three bills that have only passed one House. One, campaign
    finance reform: Lower the costs of campaigns for Congress, reduce the
    influence of special interests through political action committees, open
    the airwaves to honest debate. Two, restrict the influence of
    lobbyists--do for people who lobby Congress what I've already done in my
    administration: Say that anybody who spends any money on a Member of
    Congress has to report what they spend and what it's for, eliminate the
    tax deduction for lobbying, and open the process more so that people
    know what is being done. The third thing that ought to be done is that
    the Senate should pass the modified line-item veto that the House has
    already passed, which gives the President the power to cut extra
    unnecessary spending.
        Those three things would go a long way to-

    [[Page 1132]]

    ward reforming the political process. I have already restricted by
    Executive order the ability of people in my administration to become
    lobbyists, especially those in high positions, to ever lobby for foreign
    governments. So if you deal with lobbyists, campaign finance, and the
    line-item veto, those things I think would help the system to move along
    faster. But keep in mind, any time you have to make tough decisions
    after people have been fed sugar for a long time, it's not going to be
    easy.

    Energy Tax

        Q.  Mr. President, on the chance that congressional negotiators
    cannot agree on either a Btu tax or motor fuel tax, do you have any
    alternative measures that you would try to push to fill the resulting
    revenue gap?
        The President.  Well, let me say right now what I want to do is to
    stick with my program, and that's what I expect to do to the end. I
    expect to pass this program. I don't think that there will be a Btu tax,
    although the Btu tax alternative that the Secretary of the Treasury had
    ready to go would have exempted everything that the people in Louisiana
    I talked to were concerned about, agriculture, industry. Nonetheless, I
    think that that is unlikely. I think we'll be much closer to the fuel
    option that the Senate adopted.
        But as I said, I think if we put a ceiling of $50 a year on it for
    the average family of four, that is, somebody with an income of $40,000
    to $50,000, and if we hold working families under $30,000 a year
    harmless, and we don't kick the income taxes in on families with incomes
    of less than $180,000 or individuals under $140,000, I think that's
    pretty fair. And I think, again, it's a question of perception over
    reality. If we can cut through all this heavy rhetoric fog, I think we
    can get something done.
        Now, let me just mention one other thing. I want to say again, over
    the previous budget adopted by President Bush and the Congress, there
    are $250 billion in spending cuts, 100 cuts of over $100 million apiece,
    over 200 specific ones. When my bill came up in the Senate Finance
    Committee, the Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee offered all
    kinds of arguments about why we should cut taxes, mostly on the wealthy.
    They had a chance to say, ``Well, we're for spending cuts.'' You know,
    that's what they've been saying: ``The President wants to raise taxes;
    we're for spending cuts.'' Do you know how many spending cuts were
    offered by the Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee? Zero. Not
    one. Not one. And the spending cuts put in their bill in the Senate
    included over $60 billion of unspecified we'll-figure-it-out-later cuts.
    So that we are the ones who are cutting spending. But I do think it is
    reasonable to ask people who are going to benefit from lower interest
    rates and more jobs to pay something that amounts to less than $1 a week
    to help to bring this deficit down.

    Economic Program

        Q.  Mr. President, why proceed with higher consumer taxes in your
    deficit reduction package when the growth of the economy appears to be
    flattening out? Won't that worsen things?
        The President.  I think that the worst thing that could happen that
    could really flatten this economy is if we weaken the deficit reduction
    package and interest rates went back up. There is a general consensus,
    even reinforced by Alan Greenspan, the Republican who heads the Federal
    Reserve Board, that the efforts we have made to bring this deficit down
    are mostly responsible for bringing long-term interest rates down. There
    are lots of folks in Louisiana who will be listening to this or who will
    read what you say who have refinanced their homes or refinanced their
    business loans or gotten lower interest car loans or consumer loans
    since the first of the year because interest rates are at a 20-year low.
    If we were to dramatically reduce the amount of deficit reduction, it
    would be fine if it had no other economic impact, but it will have an
    economic impact. It will lead to higher interest rates. And if the
    interest rates go back up, then people will lose more on interest rates
    than they would pay on this modest fuel tax.
        Let me say one other thing: We want to add something to what the
    Senate did, though. We want to put back some incentives for people to
    pay lower taxes if they invest in jobs and growth. And this is a very
    important point. A lot of these taxes can be avoided by people if they
    invest in jobs and growth. That is, if you increase the small business
    expensing provision, if you have opportunities for big companies to
    invest in new plant and equipment, if you have opportunities for
    individuals to put their savings into new businesses, and if you don't
    tax activities of that kind, in fact, you give a big tax break to it,
    then that will mean that

    [[Page 1133]]

    people will say, ``Hey, I don't have to pay more taxes if I invest in
    things that will generate jobs for people in my State and my country.''
    That is the really key thing. We've got to get the job incentives that I
    originally proposed back into the final bill. And if we do, most folks
    are going to come out well ahead and this economy is going to grow more.
        Q. Hi, Mr. President. Could you repeat again exactly how your plan
    will affect lower income families, particularly those who aren't working
    now? Will enough jobs be created for them to get into the job market,
    have more money to spend in the economy?
        The President. Absolutely. There are two kinds of low-income people
    in the economy. There are those that are working and those that aren't.
    Believe it or not, about 18 percent of all working people are still
    below the Federal poverty line. And I want to emphasize how they will
    both be affected.
        Number one, people who are working but are still in poverty will
    benefit from a change in this law called the earned-income tax credit.
    It will be increased to the point that we'll be able to say to a working
    person in a family of four, let's say, that if you work for a living and
    you have children in your home and you're still in poverty, you will get
    a tax credit, a refundable tax credit from the Federal Government which
    will lift you out of poverty. That will mean more money in their
    pockets, they'll spend more, they'll boost the consumer economy, and
    that will be very good. It will also be a real incentive for people to
    move from welfare to work.
        For people on welfare, that is, people who want to work but aren't
    working or people on unemployment, we estimate that this plan will
    create another 89,000 jobs in Louisiana, which will mean more jobs for
    unemployed people. For people on welfare, we will have a welfare reform
    program which will emphasize education and training and will eventually
    require people who can work to take jobs instead of staying on welfare.
    So this whole program is designed to help low income people whether
    they're working or not working. But it's important, especially in a
    place like Louisiana or my home State to your north, Arkansas, to note
    that most low income people work.
        The last point I want to make is people with family incomes under
    $30,000 are held harmless in this program because they'll be eligible
    for an income tax cut to offset the gas tax increase. So most people in
    Louisiana will come out the same or ahead on the tax side, but they'll
    win big time when we reduce the deficit, invest some more in education
    and training, in jobs and new technologies, and grow this economy.

    Energy Tax

        Q. Mr. President, the Btu tax is something that everybody is
    watching very closely here. You read one day that the thing's dead and
    one day that it's getting resurrected. What is the status with the Btu
    tax at this point?
        The President. I think there is virtually no chance that the
    committee will report out a Btu tax. Let me back up and say everyone had
    decided earlier that the tax ought to be modified so as not to affect
    any kind of manufacturing and agricultural operation. But I think now
    that is gone, basically because of the work that Senator Breaux did in
    the Senate Finance Committee in his efforts to try to have a different
    sort of tax that was more focused on transportation. So that's where we
    are now.
        I think there is virtually no chance that the transportation tax
    will be raised much above what would be--it may be raised a tad above
    where it is now in the Senate. But as I said, I think the goal we're all
    shooting for is about a $50 bill for a family with an income of between
    $40,000 and $50,000 a year. So $50 a year would be about a buck a week.
    I think that's about what you're looking at.

    Louisiana Democratic Party

        Q. Mr. President, one question I would like to ask is what is your
    opinion of the Louisiana Democrats here who supported you so
    wholeheartedly during your Presidential election, John Breaux and J.
    Bennett Johnston, yet those individuals who, in essence, left the flock
    of the Democratic Party when it came time to the energy bill that was in
    your package that you brought before the Congress. I'd like to know what
    you think of the Democratic Party here in Louisiana. And a followup
    question, if I may: Is this perhaps the reason why we haven't seen any
    of Louisiana natives appointed to high positions in your administration?
        The President. Well, the answer to the second question is no. And I
    expect you will see some distinguished Louisianians appointed before
    long. That has nothing to do with it.
        Let me say first, Senator Breaux, in my judg-

    [[Page 1134]]

    ment, played a very constructive role in this whole process. He wanted
    to pass a budget that was fair to Louisiana and also fair to the United
    States. And he voted for the passage of the Senate budget. So I have
    absolutely nothing negative to say about him. You've got to give him
    credit for trying to work out a program that he thought was better for
    Louisiana than the original proposal I had made but would also meet our
    objectives. And the budget that he worked on and that he voted for
    plainly does that.
        Senator Johnston was very candid. You know, he went through a tough
    campaign, and he's very worried about the ability of the facts of this
    budget to be misrepresented. I mean, John Breaux told me the other day
    that he cannot believe that people in Louisiana have bought all the
    negative rhetoric about the budget when most Louisianians either would
    get no tax increase or would actually get a tax decrease because this
    program emphasizes help to the working poor and the small businesses.
    Let me just give you one example, once again. Ninety-four percent of the
    small businesses in the United States will not have income tax increase
    under this plan. And every one of them will be eligible for a tax cut if
    they invest more money in their own business. Now, that is a stunning
    statistic. I'll bet you not 5 percent of the people in Louisiana know
    that. Why? Because it hasn't been a source of controversy.
        So I think Senator Johnston, if he knew for sure that the people in
    Louisiana knew what was in this program, would feel more comfortable
    about voting for it. He's getting a lot of negative feedback. I
    understand that. But the facts are that this is a very good program for
    Louisiana and Louisianians, and I don't think people know the facts. We
    find that over and over again, that not since I laid out the program on
    February 17th, when over 60 percent of the American people said they
    were for it, had they been given the details of the program. All they
    have heard since February the 17th is a endless litany on the part of
    people who are against it, largely Republicans, about taxes that they
    say are damaging to the people and to the economy. If you look at the
    facts, it's good for Louisiana, and it will be good for the future of
    the State.

    Super Collider

        Q. Mr. President, in my neck of the woods, the superconducting super
    collider project would mean more than 1,000 jobs in our immediate
    vicinity. Yet, on the two most recent occasions, the Senate has all but
    killed the matter. Are you still supporting it, number one? And number
    two, do you believe it's going to come out of Washington intact as
    proposed now?
        The President. Yes, I do support it, and I support it strongly. And
    I'm very glad you asked me about it. The superconducting super collider
    was defeated soundly in the House, and its fate is in danger in the
    Senate. But I want you to know why. You know, it's been in some trouble
    in the last few years, but I want you to know why. You know, most of the
    project is in Texas. The people of Texas just voted in the Senate race
    overwhelmingly for a new Senator who basically said that the issue was
    ``spending, stupid,'' and accused the Congress of making no spending
    cuts. When the House of Representatives was voting just a couple of
    weeks ago on the superconducting super collider, which benefits
    overwhelmingly the State of Texas, the two United States Senators from
    Texas were outside on the steps with Ross Perot telling the House they
    ought to cut spending and attacking them for not doing it. In fact, it
    wasn't true. We've cut spending $250 billion below the last Bush budget.
    We've cut over 100 things over $100 million apiece.
        But I, frankly, think a lot of people got sick and tired of hearing
    that. And I hate to say it, because I am for the superconducting super
    collider. It is a good science project. It is good for America's high-
    tech employment. It is good for our future. And I strongly support it.
    But it is difficult to get these other Members of Congress from other
    States that do not benefit from it to vote for it when the people from
    the States that do benefit from it will not stand up and take the same
    kind of votes, and instead engage in rhetoric which is simply not true.
        Now, if you want to know the truth, that's why it's in so much
    trouble up here. I hope I can save it. I'm doing what I can to save it.
    I'll keep doing what I can to save it. But it would certainly help if
    the people who are going to benefit immediately from it would stop
    saying things which drive the rest of the Congress up the wall, because
    they're not true.
        Q. Mr. President, thank you for being with us.
        The President. Thank you. I've enjoyed it.

    [[Page 1135]]

    Note: The President spoke at 5:30 p.m. via satellite from Room 459 of
    the Old Executive Office Building. A tape was not available for
    verification of the content of these remarks.