[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 29, Number 29 (Monday, July 26, 1993)]
[Pages 1391-1397]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks in an Interview With Members of the Louisiana Press

 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 di- 

[[Page 1392]]

rected 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 
businesses; 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.

Public Opinion

    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

[[Page 1393]]

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 
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

[[Page 1394]]

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 toward 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

[[Page 1395]]

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 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?

[[Page 1396]]

    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 judgment, 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

[[Page 1397]]

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.

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.