    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2005, Book I)]
    [February 8, 2005]
    [Pages 177-186]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks to the Detroit Economic Club in Detroit, Michigan
    February 8, 2005

        Thank you all. Please be seated. I've seen head tables before--
    [laughter]--I've never seen one quite so long. [Laughter] Thanks for
    having me. It's great to be back in Detroit. You know, we're only a few
    weeks into the New Year, but at the White House we've already had a lot
    of excitement. There was the Inauguration. Then we had Iraqi elections
    and then a visit from a

    [[Page 178]]

    group of very tall men--[laughter]--the mighty Pistons of Detroit.
        I appreciate you having me. I appreciate you giving me a chance to
    come and share some thoughts with you. Dieter, thank you very much for that fine introduction. Never
    mind about the English language thing. [Laughter] Beth, thank you very much for organizing this event. It's good
    to be here with Rick Wagoner and
    Bill Ford, part of the mighty Big
    Three in the Detroit area. I want to thank Joe Knollenberg and Sandie, the
    Congressmen from the great State of Michigan. Cardinal Maida, it's great to see such a strong leader and
    such--one of the great faith leaders of not only this State but the
    country.
        I appreciate the mayor being here. Mr. Mayor, it's good to see you. I may see your mother this afternoon, and I'll tell her you're looking
    just fine. [Laughter]
        Glad to be here with the secretary of State of Michigan, Terri Lynn
    Land, the attorney general, Mike Cox. I appreciate all the State and local officials who have
    come out. I want to thank all the college students--middle school, high
    school, and college students who are here as part of the Detroit
    Economic Club Student Program. It was my honor to have shaken a lot of
    hands. I hope my advice was good, which was to aim high, make right
    choices, and listen to your mother. I'm still listening to mine. [Laughter]
        Today when I landed at the airport, at the base of Air Force One was
    a fellow named Jim Comer. He is an active
    volunteer in the VIP Mentoring Program. The reason I like to bring up
    people like Jim is to remind people that the greatest strength of the
    country is the hearts and souls of the citizens of our country. That's
    our true might. And every chance I get, I like to herald those
    individuals who are taking time out of their lives to make a difference
    in somebody else's life.
        And what Jim Comer does is he mentors children
    who have got a parent who may be--who is incarcerated. I can't think of
    a greater gift, a more noble cause than to surround a child who may hurt
    with love. And so, Jim, I want to thank you for being here. For those of
    you who may wonder how best to serve our country, find somebody who
    hurts and help them with your compassion and your decency.
        Thank you, sir. I'm glad they gave you a good table. Thanks for
    doing it.
        This is my second trip to the Detroit Economic Club. I was here as a
    Presidential candidate back in 2000, right before the Michigan primary.
    You can't win them all. [Laughter] That day I said no generation could
    afford to take its prosperity for granted and that the job of the
    President is not to think about the Dow Jones today but to look down the
    road. That's exactly what I told the folks that were here. Little did I
    realize what that road would mean.
        We've been down a challenging road together since the last time I
    came to address the Detroit Economic Club. After all, we had a stock
    market decline and recession. We've had corporate scandals. We had an
    attack on our homeland, and we've got the demands of an ongoing war. But
    this Nation confronted these challenges head on, and as a result, we
    have rebuilt our economy and we're improving the security of our Nation.
        What I said in 2000 remains true today: No President should ever
    take America's economic growth for granted. We have an obligation to do
    what Americans have always done, and that is to build a better tomorrow
    for our children and our grandchildren. And that's what I'm here to talk
    about today.
        We're moving forward with an ambitious agenda to ensure that our
    economy remains the freest, the most flexible, and the most prosperous
    in the world. Our strategy has three pillars. We will insist on a budget
    that limits and tames the spending appetite of the Federal Government.
    We will work with Congress to pass legislation that promotes economic
    growth and makes sure the

    [[Page 179]]

    entrepreneurial spirit is strong all throughout America. And we'll
    reform the institutions fundamental to American society.
        I understand these are big goals. But the job of the President is to
    confront problems, not to pass then on to future generations, future
    Presidents, and future Congresses.
        The first pillar of sound economic policy is spending restraint in
    Washington, DC. Yesterday I sent a budget to the United States Congress.
    I would call it a disciplined budget. My budget reduces spending--
    reduces spending--on nonsecurity discretionary programs by one percent,
    the most disciplined proposal since Ronald Reagan was in office. It
    holds discretionary spending below the rate of inflation. It includes
    vital reforms in mandatory spending that will save taxpayers $137
    billion over the next decade. It meets our Nation's essential needs. It
    keeps us on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009.
        Now, all budgets have got to be based on priorities, and mine are
    clear: The Government's most solemn duty is to defend and protect the
    American people. In a time of war, we will always provide our military
    and homeland security personnel with the tools they need to do their
    jobs. And so our budget raises defense spending by almost 5 percent and
    funds critical upgrades in homeland security, such as a new program to
    secure our chemical plants, ports, and public transportation systems.
        Protecting America imposes costs that are large, and they are
    necessary. That means we have a duty to show even more discipline about
    spending in other areas. Leaders in Congress and in the business sector
    have expressed their concerns about Federal spending, and I've listened.
    And so I've delivered a budget that reflects our mutual concerns. And
    now Congress needs to join with me to bring real spending discipline to
    the Federal budget.
        Spending discipline requires difficult choices. Every Government
    program was created with good intentions, but not all are matching good
    intentions with good results. And so we looked at how programs are
    working. Or as I told my Director of the OMB, Josh Bolten, let's focus on results. My 2006 budget eliminates
    or substantially reduces more than 150 Federal program that are not
    succeeding, that are duplicating existing efforts, or that are not
    fulfilling an essential priority.
        For example, there's a program called Even Start. It was created
    more than 16 years ago to build literacy in low-income families. We're
    all for that. I can't think of anybody in the Congress who is not for
    helping low-income families become literate. The problem is, is that
    after three separate evaluations it has become abundantly clear that the
    program is not succeeding. People are not becoming more literate.
    Families in Even Start have made no progress toward literacy--no more
    progress than a similar group of families outside the program.
        See, I think it makes sense for all of us involved in public policy
    to say to the appropriators, ``Show us whether something works.'' Even
    Start is not working, and so I've asked that the program be eliminated
    and focus resources on things that do work.
        We're also working on mandatory programs. These are programs fixed
    by formula, over which the Congress and appropriators have no discretion
    except to fix the formula. For example--let me give you one example of
    where I think there needs to be change to save taxpayers' money. It's
    commonsense change. It is a reasonable approach to farm policy. Right
    now the Federal Government pays individual farmers as much as $360,000 a
    year in subsidy. I think that no farmer should get $250,000 a year in
    subsidy. That makes sense. That will save the American taxpayer $1.2
    billion over the next decade. These are the kind of reforms that are
    necessary to earn the trust of the American people. And to bring budget
    discipline, it is essential that those who spend the money in Washington
    adhere to this

    [[Page 180]]

    principle: A taxpayer dollar ought to be spent wisely or not spent at
    all.
        To reduce deficits, we must do more than just spending restraint.
    We've got to make sure we have progrowth economic policies. We've got to
    do things to make sure this economy continues to expand, in order to
    create jobs, increase wages, and enhance the entrepreneurial spirit. I
    mean, I love the entrepreneurship of America. I think it's what makes us
    a unique place. I can't tell you how positive it is when I hear the
    stories of person after person who creates his or her own job,
    regardless of their status in America. There's nothing better than to be
    a part of a society in which, if you dream the big dream, you can
    achieve that dream. And that's why progrowth economic policies are vital
    for a positive future for America.
        So the second pillar of a sound economic policy is to build on an
    environment that encourages initiative, lowers the cost of doing
    business, constantly thinks about how to promote economic vitality and
    growth.
        Progrowth policies have helped overcome a recession and helped make
    this country's economy the fastest growing of any major industrialized
    nation in the world. Over the past year, America has created more jobs
    than Germany, Japan, Great Britain, Canada, and France combined.
        Parts of our country struggle, just like Michigan. I'm very aware of
    that. But that's all the more reason to make sure our economy is more
    flexible and that we remain competitive. The goal ought to be America
    must be the best place in the world to do business.
        A progrowth strategy must ensure that tax relief is here to stay.
    Most new jobs in America are created by small businesses. Many of those
    businessowners pay business taxes at the individual tax rate. In other
    words, they're Subchapter S corporations, sole proprietorships. And when
    individual tax rates are high, it affects the capacity of a small
    business to accumulate and spend capital. The tax relief we passed
    lowered all tax rates on people who pay taxes. Yet in 2011, those tax
    rates are scheduled to go back up. If Congress fails to act, taxes on
    dividends and capital gains will also go up, and the child credit will
    be reduced, and the death tax will come back to life. [Laughter]
    Allowing these scheduled tax increases to take effect, allowing taxes to
    go back up would only discourage growth and cost this country jobs and
    reduce paychecks. The United States Congress needs to make the tax
    relief permanent.
        A progrowth strategy must address the growing burden of junk
    lawsuits. Last month I met Bruce McFee, who
    runs a manufacturing company in North Lansing. A few years back, Bruce
    bought a company called Sullivan Palatek. In the 1940s, another company
    with the name ``Sullivan'' in it made a product with asbestos. The two
    companies are in no way related. But that hasn't stopped trial lawyers
    from filing 53 asbestos claims against Bruce's company.
        Here's what he said about the lawsuits:
    ``If they put us out of business, the replacement is going to be an
    overseas business. I believe there are hundreds of companies in the same
    mess, and it's sucking money out of our State.'' And he's right.
        Junk lawsuits have driven the cost of America's tort system to more
    than $240 billion a year, greater than any major industrialized nation.
    Think about that. It creates a competitive disadvantage in a global
    economy, for the American economy to have so many lawsuits. It imposes
    unfair costs on job creators. It raises prices for consumers. Our legal
    system must serve the cause of justice, not the interests of trial
    lawyers. Congress needs to pass meaningful class-action and asbestos
    legal reform this year.
        A progrowth strategy must roll back excessive Federal regulation.
    Many of you in this room probably spend hours filling out paperwork to
    send to Washington, DC. I can't promise you any of it has ever been
    read. [Laughter] We've got to understand

    [[Page 181]]

    that. People writing the regulations must understand, the people who are
    implementing regulations must understand that. And we're making some
    progress. We've streamlined tax reporting requirements for small
    businesses, and that saved American entrepreneurs an estimated 50
    hours--50 million hours of unproductive work. And there's more to be
    done. We've got to strip away unnecessary mandates. We want people
    figuring out how to hire people, not hiring people to fill out forms.
        A progrowth strategy must confront the cost of--the rising cost of
    health care. I understand that. Whether it be the automaker or the
    family restaurant in Michigan, escalating health costs are making it
    difficult for people to do business and to get the coverage they need
    for their workers. More than half of the uninsured are small-business
    employees. To me, that makes sense to start there. To make sure the
    health care system works, why don't we address the reason why small
    businesses aren't able to afford health care. And one of the reasons why
    is because they're not able to get the economies of purchase that big
    companies are able to do. We ought to allow small businesses to pool
    across jurisdictional boundaries so they can get the same discounts that
    big companies are able to do.
        I'm a big believer in tax-free health savings accounts. If you're a
    small-business owner or a sole proprietor, I urge you to look at health
    savings accounts. They're innovative ways for people to control their
    own destiny when it comes to health care, get catastrophic coverage to
    give them security, and be able to pass from one year to the next on a
    tax-free basis any money you do not spend in your health account. And to
    make them more widely available, we ought to--we will, if Congress
    passes laws that allow us to provide incentives for small businesses and
    low-income workers to open up health savings accounts.
        We should create a national marketplace for health insurance, so
    people can shop on the Internet across State lines to get high-quality
    coverage at lower prices. That makes sense, doesn't it--to break down
    barriers to create a marketplace for the consumer when it comes to
    health care. To reduce the cost of medicine for every doctor, every
    patient, and every business, Congress needs to pass medical liability
    reform this year.
        A progrowth strategy must ensure affordable, reliable supplies of
    energy. It is hard to be in a growing economy if you're not sure whether
    or not you got energy, if you're not sure whether or not there's cost
    certainty when it comes to energy. As you found out here in Detroit and
    others found out across our Nation during the blackout that hit this
    city two summers ago, a disruption in energy supplies can cause and will
    cause serious problems in our economy. And so that's why I sent Congress
    a comprehensive energy strategy almost 4 years ago. And as I said in the
    State of the Union the other night, 4 years of debate is enough. We
    don't need debate; we need action when it comes to an energy plan.
        And that plan must modernize the electricity grid, and it must
    encourage conservation, and it must encourage increases in domestic
    production. And we can do so in an environmentally friendly way. We're
    spending money--and important money and good money--on new technologies
    such as clean coal technologies and ethanol and hybrid and fuel cell
    vehicles. I believe that we ought to expand the use of safe and clean
    nuclear power. And I think we ought to allow for exploration in
    environmentally responsible ways in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
        For the sake of this economy and for the sake of national security,
    Congress needs to pass an energy plan and get it to my desk as soon as
    possible so we can become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.
        A progrowth strategy requires a policy of free and fair trade.
    America is the home

    [[Page 182]]

    to about 5 percent of the world's population. That means 95 percent of
    our potential customers are abroad. Millions of American jobs--and this
    is important for the people of Detroit to understand--millions of
    Americans jobs are supported by exports, including one in every five
    factory jobs. Here in America, it's the fifth largest exporting State.
    You know firsthand that economic isolation would mean economic disaster.
        My administration has worked hard to open up markets for U.S.
    products. We've completed free trade agreements with 12 countries that
    will open up markets of 124 million consumers, and that's good. That's
    good for entrepreneurs. Listen, if you're good at something--and we're
    good at a lot of things--we ought to break down barriers so we can be
    selling to people. And I'm going to continue to work to open up markets.
    And at the same time, we will vigorously enforce trade laws that are on
    the books. You see, with a level playing field, our businesses, our
    entrepreneurs, and our workers can compete with anybody, anytime in the
    world.
        The third pillar of a sound economic policy is to put in place
    reforms that will keep America's businesses and workers competitive in
    the century ahead. It is time to confront great challenges. If you care
    about the quality of life for our children and grandchildren, now is the
    time--not later but now is the time to confront problems.
        To keep America competitive, we've got to make sure that the
    education system works. The No Child Left Behind Act is working. We have
    challenged and are challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations. We
    will not stand for a school system that gives up on kids and just moves
    them through. So now we're asking the question, ``Can you read and write
    and add and subtract?'' And when we find a child that needs help, we're
    providing help early, before it's too late. There's nothing better than
    setting high standards and having accountability to make sure every
    child learns. And it's working. There's an achievement gap in America
    that is growing--is narrowing every year. And we've now got to extend
    those reforms to our high schools so that a high school diploma means
    something.
        The fastest growing occupations in America require at least 2 years
    of college. And so we're going to reform our job training system and
    strengthen our community colleges to help thousands of workers get the--
    gain the skills they need to fill the jobs of the 21st century. You
    know, one of the wonderful things about the community college system is
    that they're flexible, and they're available, and they're affordable.
    And for those youngsters who cannot afford a community college or for
    those workers who cannot, we're going to increase the size of Pell
    grants to help them afford a community college and/or a college
    education.
        What we want is, we want the education system to actually educate
    people for the jobs which exist. And that's why I'm such a big believer
    in the community college system. Curricula can change with the times.
    Flexibility is important when it comes to helping our workers gain the
    skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century.
        To keep this country competitive, we've got to change our outdated
    immigration laws. This economy will be stronger and our Nation will be
    more secure by having a rational system when it comes to immigration.
    First, I don't believe, and I'm against blanket amnesty. Secondly, we
    need to know who's coming in and out of our country. And thirdly, I
    believe that we ought to allow a willing worker and a willing employee
    to match up so long as an American won't fill the job.
        I don't like a system which encourages illegal trafficking on the
    borders, fake documents, smuggling in the desert in the heat of the day.
    We're more compassionate than that. This country ought to say, ``If
    you're a willing worker and an employer can't find

    [[Page 183]]

    an American, we ought to match them up for a period of time.'' This is a
    guest worker program that will bring sense to border policy and
    employment policy in the United States of America and, at the same time,
    treat people with dignity.
        We got to simplify the Tax Code if we want to have a progrowth
    economy. Today, this code of ours and its accompanying regulations are
    almost 11 times longer than the complete works of Shakespeare.
    [Laughter] And he wrote a lot. [Laughter] To help you determine how much
    you owe the IRS, our Government kindly offers hundreds of separate
    forms, instructions, worksheets, and publications. [Laughter] A growing
    number of Americans also have to calculate their tax burden twice, once
    under the regular tax rules and once for the alternative minimum tax.
    And then when you're done figuring out both totals, you get to pay the
    higher amount. [Laughter] No wonder we now have more people in the
    business of preparing tax returns than we do in the entire United States
    Army.
        Americans shouldn't need advanced degrees in accounting to fill out
    their tax returns. So I've appointed a bipartisan commission led by
    former Senators John Breaux, Democrat, and
    Connie Mack, Republican, to examine the Tax
    Code, top to bottom. I will receive their recommendations, and I will
    work with the United States Congress to deliver a Tax Code that is
    progrowth, easy to understand, and fair to everyone.
        And to keep this America--country of ours competitive in the 21st
    century, we have got to honestly and openly address the structural
    problems of Social Security. In the last few days, I've traveled to
    North Dakota and Florida and now to Michigan to discuss my ideas and
    plans. And I'm going to continue traveling. I'm going to spend a lot of
    time on this issue because I feel strongly that we better address it.
    And I'll tell you why.
        I've reminded everybody I've spoke in front of that the Social
    Security system was one of the great moral successes of the 20th
    century, and I believe it was. And I assured them that today's seniors
    do not have a problem with Social Security. For those who have retired
    or nearing retirement, born before 1950, the Social Security system is
    fiscally sound and will not change at all. And that's an important
    message for our seniors to hear: ``You're in fine shape, and nothing is
    changing.''
        But I warned every audience I've spoken in front of that the
    Government has made promises to our younger workers that it cannot pay
    for. Social Security will go broke when some of our youngsters get ready
    to retire, and that's a fact. And the whole world is watching to see
    whether or not we've got the courage to fix this problem. It's part of
    our structural deficit. Social Security means that we've got unfunded
    liabilities, debts that we owe to future generations that are going to
    be real hard to pay. And here's why.
        Half a century ago, about 16 workers paid into the system for every
    one person drawing benefits. That's a nice, healthy contribution ratio,
    16 to 1. But today, it's 3.3 workers to one. And over the next few
    decades, the numbers paying in for every beneficiary will be 2 to 1, two
    workers for every beneficiary. But that's only half the problem. The
    other problem is people like me, what they call baby boomers, are fixing
    to retire, and there's a lot of us. And not only are we fixing to
    retire; we're living longer, much longer than when the Social Security
    system was first designed. And not only that, the benefits that the
    Government has promised are going up. They're increasing. So think about
    it. With every passing year, you've got fewer workers who will be paying
    ever higher benefits to an ever larger number of retirees.
        And that is the math. Thirteen years from now, in 2018, the Social
    Security system will be paying out more than it takes in. That's called
    being in the red. And every year afterwards, the problem gets worse. The
    shortfall is bigger than the year

    [[Page 184]]

    before. So, for example, in the year 2027, the Government will somehow
    have to come up with an extra--in other words, above and beyond the
    payroll taxes being collected--an extra $200 billion in that year alone
    to keep the system afloat. And in the year 2033, that shortfall will
    have grown to $300 billion. We've got a problem, and it is plain to see.
    It is such a problem that in the year 2042, the system is going to be
    broke.
        If you're a younger person, you ought to be asking Members of
    Congress and the United States Senate and the President what you intend
    to do about it. If you see a train wreck coming, you ought to be saying,
    ``What are you going to do about it, Mr. Congressman, or Madam
    Congressman? Are you going to sit there and let the train run over
    younger workers, or are you going to act?''
        I'm calling upon the Congress to act, because if we don't act now,
    imagine what life is going to be like trying to fill the hole. When
    you're 200 billion short, and a couple of years later you're 300 billion
    short, and the shortfalls grow every year, there aren't many options
    available to you if you don't do something now. In other words, you can
    raise taxes significantly; that will wreck the economy. You can
    dramatically slash benefits. You can borrow a lot of money. But whatever
    the case is, the closer you get to the day in which we start going into
    the red, the problem only accelerates.
        And that's why I stood in front of the United States Congress and
    said, ``Why don't we work together to fix this system--not for those
    who've retired; you're fine--but for a young generation of Americans
    coming up.'' And I fully understand that any long-term solution is going
    to require the discussion of a lot of options. And that's why I told the
    Congress, with the exception of running up payroll taxes or raising
    payroll taxes, all options are on the table.
        There have been a lot of interesting suggestions from the United
    States Senator from New York named Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who,
    unfortunately, passed away, or to President Clinton. Over time, people have suggested different options,
    different ideas as to how to permanently fix Social Security for younger
    workers. Nothing changes for older workers. Some have suggested limiting
    the benefits for wealthy retirees. Others have suggested indexing
    benefits to prices rather than wages. Some have been bold enough to
    suggest increasing the retirement age. Some have thought it's a good
    idea to change the benefit formulas or include penalties for early
    collection of Social Security benefits. I'm going to work with Congress.
    To any Congress man or woman, regardless of party, bring forth your
    ideas.
        Now, there are some who say we don't have a problem. I suspect over
    time the voters are going to say to those folks, ``You better figure out
    we've got a problem. Just don't pass it on. Show some leadership.'' And
    then they're going to say to people like me and those of us who
    recognize we have a problem, ``Come on. Show me your ideas.'' And that's
    what I want to assure the people of the Detroit Economic Club: I'll be
    open to anybody's ideas.
        And I got an interesting idea for younger workers that I want the
    Congress to consider. I believe we have a chance to make a better deal
    for our younger workers, and that is I believe younger workers, if they
    so choose, ought to be allowed to set aside some of their own money in
    the form of payroll taxes into a personal retirement account.
        I think the first principle involved here is that it's the younger
    workers' money. It's not the Government's money, to begin with. It's
    your money. You're working hard. And a personal account would allow that
    person to invest in a conservative mix of stocks and bonds. You know,
    you can't take it to the lottery. [Laughter] You can't go across the
    river and roll dice with it. [Laughter] There's guidelines about that

    [[Page 185]]

    which you can invest in. And these accounts would have low
    administrative fees. They would provide simple and easy to understand
    choices, just like the Thrift Savings Plans used by Federal employees.
    These moneys would be available for retirement. In other words, you
    couldn't withdraw money prior to retirement. And obviously, there would
    be a limit on that which you could withdraw. You can't pull it all out
    at one time. It's meant to supplement the Social Security check you'll
    be getting from the Federal Government.
        And so why does this make sense? And by the way, we will phase these
    plans in--the retirement accounts in, over time, eventually allowing a
    worker to set aside 4 percent of his or her gross pay in the form of a
    personal account. And the reason you allow them to phase in is so that
    they become easier to pay for the transition costs, is a fiscally sound
    way of approaching this issue.
        Now, here's why I think they're--I know they're a better deal for
    younger workers. The rate of return on a conservative mix of stocks and
    bonds will be greater in a personal account than that which the younger
    worker is earning in the Social Security trust. In other words, you
    get--your money works for you better.
        And that's important. Take the young person who earns an average of
    $35,000 a year over his or her working career. By the time he or she
    retired, their personal account would be nearly $250,000. Think about
    that. That's the power of the compounding rate of money. That's what
    that means. Over time, your money grows, in the most conservative of
    stocks and bonds.
        That money would provide a nest egg for the owner of the account. It
    would supplement that person's Social Security retirement income. It is
    money that that person can pass on to whomever he or she chooses. Best
    of all, the accounts would be replacing the empty promises of Government
    with the real assets of ownership. A personal account would be your
    account. You would own it, and the Government could never take it away.
        Now, I'm looking forward to discussing with Congress this issue. We
    have a fantastic opportunity to show our country that people can put
    aside their party and work what's best for the future. And I'm looking
    forward to it. And I'm looking forward to traveling the country, telling
    people as plainly as I can that we've got a problem, and I'm willing to
    work with people to come up with a solution. And I'm willing to put out
    interesting ideas--at least I think they're interesting--[laughter]--to
    help people understand there is a way forward and, at the same time,
    promote what I like to call an ownership society.
        I think all public policy--or as much public policy as possible--
    ought to encourage people to own something. I want more people owning
    their own home. I can't tell you how exciting it is to meet a first-time
    homeowner. I've never seen this, personally, as the President, but I can
    just imagine somebody opening their door of their home and say,
    ``Welcome to my home. Welcome to my piece of property.'' I like the idea
    of people from all walks of life starting their own business. I've met
    entrepreneurs all across America who've said, ``I've started my
    business. I'm an employer. I'm excited about the future.''
        We want people owning and managing their own health care accounts.
    That's why I believe health savings accounts are an important part of
    helping to control the cost of medicine. And we want people controlling
    and owning their own assets when it comes to their retirement. The more
    people own something in America, the more likely it is a--future
    generations of America will have a vital stake in the future of this
    country.
        No one knows the power of ownership better than American
    entrepreneurs. John Bailey is with us. It's
    an interesting story about entrepreneurship and optimism. Nine years
    ago, after a life in public relations,

    [[Page 186]]

    he found himself trapped in a company that offered no hope for
    advancement. His wife--sounds like a pretty
    straightforward woman; I'm about to quote her--kind of reminds me of
    Laura. She said, ``What part of writing on the
    wall can't you understand?'' [Laughter] ``They don't want people over
    50,'' is what the wife was telling John. He didn't get discouraged. He
    responded in true American fashion. He went out and he founded his own
    firm. And today, John's business is one of the largest public relations
    firms in Michigan.
        And here's what he had to say: ``It's
    very daunting to go out there. But I learned that it can be done, that
    hard work and strong ethic pays.'' He went on to say, ``It sounds corny,
    but good guys do finish on top.''
        The dream of a hopeful America is to say that if you work hard and
    dream big, no matter who you are, you can finish on top.
        Thanks for letting me come. God bless.

    Note: The President spoke at 12:23 p.m. at the COBO Conference/Economic
    Center. In his remarks, he referred to Dieter Zetsche, chief executive
    officer and president, Chrysler Group, DaimlerChrysler; Beth Chappell,
    president and chief executive officer, Detroit Economic Club; G. Richard
    Wagoner, Jr., chairman and chief executive officer, General Motors; Bill
    Ford, chairman, Ford Motor Company; Sandie Knollenberg, wife of
    Representative Joe Knollenberg; Adam Cardinal Maida, Archbishop of
    Detroit, MI; Mayor Kwame M. Kilpatrick of Detroit, MI, son of
    Representative Carolyn C. Kilpatrick; Michigan State Attorney General
    Mike Cox; and John J. Bailey, president, John Bailey & Associates, Inc.