[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 37, Number 13 (Monday, April 2, 2001)]
[Pages 513-518]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks to Employees of Bajan Industries in Kansas City

March 26, 2001

    Elson, thank you very much for your hospitality. It was interesting, 
you said the name of this company is a reflection of his heritage, and 
that's true. But this company is also a reflection of the American 
Dream, as well. And I'm so thankful for the invitation to be here. I'm 
also thankful for your willingness to dream and to create jobs. This is 
what America is all about. This is what I call the lifeblood of the 
country.

[[Page 514]]

    I also took notice of the fact that you were quick to introduce your 
wife. [Laughter] Smart man. [Laughter] But I'm so thankful for you all 
to let us come. Senator, thank you very much for traveling with me. I 
appreciate Senator Bond's leadership. I believe he's got his priorities 
absolutely straight, and they include the people of--they include the 
good people of Missouri, right at the top of the list. And I appreciate 
being able to call him an ally.
    Earlier today, I was proud to travel with a newly elected 
Congressman, Sam Graves. We went to his district to say hello to folks 
in the district. And Sam, thank you for your willingness to serve. It's 
good to see Congresswoman Karen McCarthy. Thank you for your 
hospitality, Karen. And Congressman Dennis Moore, I've had a chance to 
visit with Dennis in the past, and I appreciate him at least giving me a 
chance to make my case. [Laughter] Mayor, thank you very much for your 
hospitality. Thanks for greeting me here today.
    I want to talk about a subject that's on my mind--part of my job is 
to put it on your mind if it's not--and that's how to make sure we treat 
your money wisely in Washington and what do we do if we have any of it 
left over. First, let me talk about budgeting. Elson has to budget. And 
his plant manager has to budget. And one of the key components of 
budgeting is to set priorities. We're in Washington; sometimes there are 
no clear priorities. You have to prioritize with the people's money, and 
we have set priorities in my budget.
    A major priority is education. The biggest increase of any 
department is in the Department of Education. But I also want you to 
know, even though we're asking for more money to be spent in Washington, 
I'm not asking for more power. As a matter of fact, I want there to be 
less power in Washington, because I strongly believe in local control of 
schools. I believe that Washington ought to trust the local people to 
make the right decision for the schools. People closest to the problem 
are those best able to address--[applause].
    You've heard a lot about some issues that relate to schools in this 
area. Don't be looking for Washington for the solutions. We may be able 
to help with some funding, but the government that is closest to the 
people is that more likely to be able to address problems. And as a 
former Governor, I understand one size does not fit all when it comes to 
education. The issues between Texas and Missouri are different, and they 
darn sure were different within my own State. And so we need more 
flexibility at the local level, less power in Washington.
    But I also believe in results. I know Elson believes in results. 
He's a results-oriented man. And I believe public policy ought to be 
results-oriented. So my attitude is, if we increase spending at the 
Federal level and align authority and responsibility at the local level, 
we also ought to ask the question, what are the results? We ought to say 
to local school districts, ``If you receive Federal help, you measure 
and you show us whether or not children are learning to read and write 
and add and subtract, so that we know--so that we know--whether school 
systems are quitting early on children.''
    And I've seen what happens when school systems quit early on 
children. Guess who gets quit on: children whose parents may not speak 
English as their first language, inner-city children. And to me it makes 
sense that if you receive help, you've got to measure. I don't want 
there to be a Federal test. I don't want the National Government to 
undermine local control of schools. But I do think society ought to ask 
the question, are the children learning? And if they are, we ought to 
applaud and thank principals and teachers. But if not, we ought to 
correct the problem early, before it's too late. It's time for a new 
attitude when it comes to the education of our children, particularly 
starting in Washington, DC.
    And I think we're making good progress. There's a new spirit of 
accomplishment in Washington, DC. And I think we're making good progress 
on an education bill. Both Republicans and Democrats are coming together 
to adhere to a set of principles that will encourage educational 
excellence.
    Another priority of mine, of course, is how best to keep the peace. 
And so part of my budget was to ask Congress to spend more money on the 
men and women who wear the uniform, to increase the salaries of our

[[Page 515]]

troops and to make sure they're housed better. I'm worried about morale 
in the military. And one good way to start rebuilding morale is to pay 
people better, and that's exactly what we're going to do.
    But I also have the responsibility of laying out a strategic plan 
for the military, for how best to spend the taxpayers' money beyond pay 
increases. We have the responsibility in the executive branch to take a 
full review of where money ought to be spent in the future, so we can 
better keep the peace. Before we ask Congress to spend money on weapons 
systems, our view is, let's make sure the weapons systems are needed. As 
we think about research and development money, let's make sure it fits 
into a strategic plan so that the United States can keep the peace not 
only today but 20 to 30 years from now.
    Another priority is health care. And we've got a lot of money in my 
budget for health care. We double the money for Medicare. We double the 
amount of folks who will be served at community health centers. We 
provide money in the budget to help the working uninsured be able to 
purchase insurance. We focus on health care.
    And we also do something else in the budget--and I know there's a 
lot of talk, and there's a lot of ways to justify keeping your money in 
Washington, but one of the old ways of justifying keeping your money in 
Washington is left. It's no longer relevant. Some may continue to try to 
frighten people with it--and that's the issue of Social Security. We're 
taking all the payroll taxes and dedicating them only to one thing, and 
that's Social Security. The day of trying to frighten seniors in America 
to be against something is over with.
    This is a budget that sets priorities: Defense is a priority; 
education is a priority; health care is a priority. I readily concede we 
don't try to be all things to all people in our budget, however, but we 
do increase discretionary spending by 4 percent. And this creates the 
rub in Washington. There are some who think 4 percent is too small. I 
can understand why, because during the last budget cycle the Congress 
spent--raised the discretionary spending by 8 percent.
    Now, remember, inflation is less than 4 percent. Most people aren't 
getting 4 percent pay raises, and yet asking our Government to live on a 
4 percent increase in discretionary spending has created some tension. 
It made people nervous, has created all kinds of noise in Washington.
    But I think it's realistic to ask the Federal Government to keep its 
spending at a rate a little more than the rate of inflation. I think 
that's a realistic expectation, and it shouldn't surprise any of you 
all. I said, if you give me the chance to be the President, I'll work to 
be fiscally responsible with your money. The days of spending orgies in 
order to get people out of town are over with, as far as I'm concerned. 
I'm going to set priorities and strictly make sure that your money is 
spent wisely and that we don't have a bidding contest in Washington, DC.
    We've also paid down a lot of debt. There's a lot of discussion 
about debt at the national level, and ours is a budget that pays down $2 
trillion worth of debt. Now, there are some who may want to pay off more 
debt. But the 2 trillion is the only amount that's coming due over the 
next 10 years, and it doesn't make much sense to pay down debt 
prematurely. It will cost the taxpayers additional money to do so.
    I guess what I'm trying to say is, I've taken a commonsense approach 
to your money. We've set priorities. We've increased the budget by 4 
percent. Admittedly, it's not 8 percent, but 4 percent's plenty for the 
Federal Government to live on. We pay down $2 trillion of debt.
    Incredibly enough, we also set aside one trillion more dollars, over 
10 years, for a contingency. But you know what, there's still money left 
over--about $1.6 trillion. And that's where the big debate--that's what 
we're talking about, what to do with the money. I start with this 
premise, that that surplus is not the Government's money. It's the hard-
working people's money. It's the money of the entrepreneur. It's the 
hard-working--it's the people's money; that's whose money it is.
    And as we're thinking about what to do with it, I hope the Congress 
always remembers whose money it is. I love the idea we're going to give 
the people their money back. You know, I say that myself sometimes. I 
just don't think we ought to take it in the first

[[Page 516]]

place. After we meet priorities, I think we ought to let you have it. So 
I've submitted a tax relief plan. The debate no longer is whether or not 
we're going to have tax relief. It is how much money is going to be 
passed back to the people and how quickly. And that's a good sign for 
the hard-working Americans who are paying taxes.
    I'd like to explain some of the principles of the tax relief plan. 
First of all, you hear a lot of talk about targeted tax relief. Those 
words basically mean that Congress gets to pick and choose who gets tax 
relief and who doesn't get tax relief. But that is not my vision of fair 
Government. Our vision of Government says that if you pay taxes, you 
ought to get relief, that the idea of trying to pick and choose who does 
and who doesn't isn't right. So we lower all rates for everybody who 
pays taxes. The largest percentage tax relief goes to the folks at the 
bottom end of the economic ladder.
    We understand--or I understand, and proponents of my plan 
understand, that if you're on the outskirts of poverty, struggling to 
get ahead, the Tax Code is incredibly unfair. It's unfair because as 
some taxpayers make more money, they pay a higher marginal rate than 
successful people do. If you start losing your earned-income tax credit 
and you go into the 15 percent bracket for the first time, and you pay 
payroll taxes, the marginal rate on every additional dollar you earn is 
higher than somebody making $200,000. That's the current Tax Code today, 
and that's not right.
    One of the major principles in the tax relief plan says, the harder 
you work, the more money you ought to be able to make and keep; the 
harder you work, the more money you ought to have in your pocket. And so 
this is a plan that recognizes the code is unfair. That's why we drop 
the bottom rate from 15 percent to 10 percent and increase the child 
credit from $500 to $1,000 per child.
    We also drop the top rate from 39.6 to 33 percent. And this is where 
some of the folks in Washington would rather holler than listen to the 
facts. It's easier to say some things about, maybe certain folks 
shouldn't be getting tax relief. But I want people to understand this 
about dropping the top rate. A major beneficiary of dropping the top 
rate from 39.6 to 33 percent are small-business owners. Thousands of 
small businesses pay taxes at the top personal rate. The limited 
liability corporation, just like this company, pays taxes at the high 
personal rate. The unincorporated small-business owner pays taxes at the 
high personal rate. The sole proprietor pays taxes at the high personal 
rate.
    Elson, you'll be pleased to hear, I hope, that I believe the role of 
Government is not to create wealth but an environment in which the 
entrepreneur can flourish. And one way to do so is to provide meaningful 
tax relief for the unincorporated businesses all across America. By 
dropping the top rate, we're enhancing the cash flow of the major new 
job creators in the country. I've come to this plant--[applause].
    Oh, I've heard the rhetoric, but the reality is, the Elson Seale of 
the world--his company benefits, which makes it easier for him to employ 
the good folks he's employing here. Tax relief for small businesses is 
vitally important. It's vitally important to make sure that the 
entrepreneurial--the entrepreneurial spirit flourishes in America. It's 
also vitally important as our economy slows down.
    We've got to remember who the major job creators are. New jobs are 
created by small-business people and entrepreneurs, and we should not 
let the rhetoric of a few in Washington cloud the issue. And the issue 
is, how do we get more money into the coffers of the small businesses 
like Elson's in America? And that's what this tax relief plan does.
    So when you hear them saying they're against dropping the top rate, 
you can translate that to the people saying, ``We just don't appreciate 
entrepreneurship or the small-business creation in this country.''
    There's two other issues I want to talk about. One is that the 
marriage penalty is unfair. It's an unfair part of our Tax Code. And I 
urge the House and, ultimately, the Senate to do something about that.
    And I tell you something else unfair in our Tax Code, the death tax. 
That's unfair. I think Elson ought to be allowed to pass his business 
from one generation to the next without being taxed twice. I don't know 
what your plans are to do with your business, and I'm not going to get 
you to declare right now--

[[Page 517]]

[laughter]--particularly in front of your son and daughter, but I do 
know that if part of your dream is to pass your asset base on to your 
kin, you ought to be allowed to do so. He pays taxes during--when he 
makes money; that's one time. Why should he pay taxes on his death? It 
doesn't seem to make sense to me. If part of the American experience is 
realizing a dream and building up your own asset base, an equally 
important part of that is passing your asset base on to your kin, to 
your son or your daughter. It's part of the American Dream. It's time to 
get rid of the death tax in the Tax Code.
    Not only does today give me a chance to talk about the benefits for 
a company like Elson's, I'd like to introduce some folks that I got to 
meet at a restaurant over there, the Edwards family. Robert's a manager 
at Bob Evans Restaurant, and Jennifer's an accountant at a real estate 
firm. They've got Quentin and Ian with them. Quentin is 3\1/2\; Ian is 
barely hanging on at one--[laughter]--looking for a nap. [Laughter] Mom 
probably is, too, right about now. [Laughter] The reason I asked them to 
come, because I want to just describe their circumstances quickly. This 
good family works hard. They pay $1,750 in Federal income taxes. And 
under the plan, when fully implemented, if Congress passes it, they'll 
end up paying no Federal income tax. They'll end up saving $1,750. And 
I've asked them to come because it gives me a chance to vividly make 
this point, and it's this: Once the Government has met its basic needs, 
and we've grown the discretionary budget by 4 percent, and paid down $2 
trillion of debt, set aside a trillion for contingencies, what do we do? 
I would much rather have these good folks spend the $1,750 than the 
Congress. In all due respect, I think we ought to trust these people 
with their money. It is your money to begin with.
    And that's the fundamental debate, and that's the debate that's 
going to take place. It's taking place in the House. It's going to take 
place in the Senate. Who do we trust? This debate, as far as I'm 
concerned, is a matter of trust. Do we trust the Elson Seales of the 
world, or do we trust the Government to make the decisions? Once 
priorities are met, once we have increased discretionary spending, once 
we have made sure Social Security is safe, once we have doubled 
Medicare, who do we trust with the people's money? Ask the people.
    I would much rather have this man and his wife making the decisions 
what to do with that $1,750 than the appropriators in the United States 
Senate and the United States House. And that's the issue during this 
campaign--and that's the issue during this debate.
    And so if you like what you heard, I urge you to use the old e-
mail--[laughter]--or the telephone or the letter. It's amazing how 
effective people can be when it comes to convincing their elected 
officials to listen to a different point of view.
    I'm honored to be able to come out and make my case. It's important 
for me to get out of the Nation's Capital and get in front of as many 
people as I can. Sometimes the filter may not say it exactly the way I'd 
like it to be said, if you know what I mean. [Laughter] Sometimes the 
message doesn't get delivered directly, and this gives me a chance to do 
so. It gives me a chance to say that ours is a plan that meets 
priorities but doesn't want to grow the size of the Federal Government 
relative to the size of people's pocketbooks.
    There's a lot of talk about debt at the national level. I urge the 
Senators and the Congress to remember there's a lot of debt at the 
personal level, too. And there's a lot of talk about, oh, this 
assumption, that assumption. But one thing we're certain of is that 
energy bills are going up for people. We're certain of that. And at the 
very minimum, we ought to share some of the people's--not take the 
people's money in the first place, so they can manage their new energy 
account--their increased energy accounts.
    Now, we need to hear the people of this country. We need to listen 
to them. We need to understand the entrepreneurial spirit. We need to 
trust families with their own money, because the true strength of the 
country lies in the hearts and souls of the American people. That's the 
great strength of this country. The great strength of the country 
happens when a neighbor turns to a neighbor in need and says, ``What can 
I do to help. Brother, you got a problem; what can I do to help?''--

[[Page 518]]

acts of kindness that take place on a daily basis.
    No, the true strength of the country is when somebody says, ``I 
think I want to teach some values to a child,'' and becomes a Boy Scout 
or Girl Scout leader or Boys or Girls Club leader. The true strength of 
the country comes when a mother or dad understands their most important 
job is not what they're doing during the day, but loving--if they happen 
to have a child--loving their children with all their heart and all 
their soul. That's the true strength of this country.
    I know we've lost some wealth in the stock market recently, but the 
real wealth of America is the creative energy of our folks. And tax 
policy ought to unleash the creative energy of Americans and trust 
Americans with their own money. I'd like your help. I'd like your help. 
This isn't for me. This isn't help for a political party. This is help 
for doing what's right for America. This is important for our economy, 
but it's also important for the families and hard-working people all 
across the country. And we can afford it.
    God bless.

Note: The President spoke at 11:50 a.m. in the factory. In his remarks, 
he referred to Elson Seale, owner, Bajan Industries, LLC, his wife, 
Delores, and their children Jamal and Janine; and Mayor Kay Barnes of 
Kansas City.