[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 37, Number 14 (Monday, April 9, 2001)]
[Pages 562-565]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks to the National Restaurant Association

April 2, 2001

    Well, Denise, thank you very much for your kind introduction and 
your leadership. I'm honored to be here, and I'm glad you all are here, 
as well. I'm so pleased with the strong support that my budget and tax 
relief plan has received from the restaurant folks all across America. 
It means a lot. A lot of Members of Congress and Members of the United 
States Senate eat in your establishments, so it's a pretty good place to 
start the lobbying process. [Laughter]
    First, I want to describe a little bit about the budget I submitted. 
It's created some heartburn in Washington because the increase in 
discretionary spending wasn't as large as some would like to see it.
    In the past, during the last fiscal year, the last year that 
affected this fiscal year, the discretionary spending in our budget went 
up by 8 percent. Now, that's a lot. It's a lot when you're talking in 
terms of billions of dollars. It's a lot when you're trying to preserve 
money for Social Security. It's a lot when you're worried about the 
state of our economy. It's too much--the increase was way too much. It's 
almost as if there was a bidding contest to determine who got out of 
town first.
    And so, we came to town with a new attitude that said, we can meet 
priorities if we control discretionary spending. We can meet priorities; 
we can pay down debt if we control discretionary spending. We can meet 
priorities, pay down debt, set aside money for contingency, and send 
back money to the people who pay the bills if we control discretionary 
spending.

[[Page 563]]

    And so, I submitted a budget to the United States Congress, which 
passed the House--it's going to be voted on in the Senate--that limits 
discretionary spending to 4 percent. Now, for some who don't pay 
attention to all this process, 4 percent sounds like a little bit. But 
it is--and it is, compared to what happened during the last budget 
negotiations. But I want to remind you, it's greater than the rate of 
inflation. It's greater than maybe some of the pay raises that you're 
giving the folks that work for you. It's a pretty healthy chunk of 
money. It's a big increase.
    Yet, for some, it's not enough in Washington. And what we're trying 
to do is fashion the debate to say that 4 percent is plenty, 
particularly since we strongly believe, and I strongly believe, that we 
need real tax relief. We not only need to have tax relief that gets 
money into people's pockets quickly; we need long-term tax relief that 
will send a signal to the entrepreneurial class of America that tax 
relief is real, it's permanent, you can make your plans based upon a new 
tax system.
    There are some in Washington who would like to see the issue go away 
by saying, ``Here's some immediate money for everybody, and let's hope 
they forget about long-term relief.'' My position is clear: For those 
who want to accelerate tax relief, we're joining right with you. We 
think it's important to have quick injection of cash into our economy. 
But in order to make sure the environment for entrepreneurial growth is 
consistent and strong, we have an opportunity to have long-term tax 
relief.
    And that's what I'd like for you to help me convince Members of 
Congress to listen to. Because you see, the great American experience is 
to own your own business, is to own your own home, is to own something. 
It's that no matter where you're from or who you are or what you're--how 
you're raised, if you have an idea, you can go out and start a 
restaurant. And it's your own.
    And the role of Government has got to try to create an environment 
so that people can--that people feel comfortable about investing. There 
needs to be certainty when it comes to investment. There also needs to 
be recognition of the role small businesses play in our society. The tax 
relief plan I submitted cuts taxes on everybody who pays taxes. It 
affects those at the bottom end of the economic ladder by dropping the 
bottom rate from 15 percent to 10 percent, increasing the child credit 
from $500 to $1,000 per child. But it also drops the top rate from 39.6 
to 33 percent.
    See, I recognize that most small businesses--and there are many 
small mom-and-pop restaurant owners all across America who are not 
incorporated. They're sole proprietorships. They have Subchapter S 
corporations, where they pay--where the tax rate they pay is not the 
corporate tax rate, not the C-rate, but the high individual rates. And 
so by dropping the top rate from 39.6 to 33 percent, we're saying to 
people who started their own business, ``Well, the environment is going 
to be better. You'll have more cash flow so you can reinvest in your 
company. You'll have more cash flow, so you can employ more people.''
    This Congress must hear, loud and clear, the role of small 
businesses in our society when it comes to new job creation; 75 percent 
of the new jobs created in America are created by small-business people. 
And so tax relief is aimed not only at helping people at the bottom end 
of the economic ladder, but the tax relief package also is aimed at 
encouraging and stimulating entrepreneurial growth in America. And 
that's what Congress must hear.
    Now, they'll try to debate the issue all kinds of ways and throw all 
kinds of smokescreens up. But reality is that a real, meaningful tax 
relief plan is good for investment in the private sector and job 
creation.
    One of the most interesting moments of the budget debate came when I 
was in Council Bluffs, Iowa, and a lady stood up and said, now she was a 
proud mom and proud grandmother, and that she had baked cookies for a 
long time in her family. And every time she left a plate of cookies on 
the table, her children, her grandchildren ate them. She's really 
talking about the budget when she talked about that story. [Laughter] 
And so the fundamental question is not only how do we stimulate economic 
growth but what happens to the cash flow if it's not returned back to 
the people or not taken in the first place--let's put it that way.

[[Page 564]]

    And I can tell you what's going to happen to it. It's going to be 
used to increase the size of the Federal Government; that's what's going 
to happen. And so this is not only a debate about how to stimulate 
economic growth; it's a debate about who do you trust with the people's 
money. And it's a fundamental debate, and it's a good debate, and I'm 
glad it's taking place here in Washington.
    See, I would rather trust you with your own money to make the proper 
investment. Once we meet priorities--and, remember, we pay down $2 
trillion of debt in the budget I've submitted; we increase discretionary 
spending by 4 percent; we've set aside money for contingencies. Once we 
meet those obligations and priorities, I would rather you have your own 
money so you can make the investments you think are necessary.
    I'd rather working people have their own money so they can decide 
what to do with their hard-earned dollars, as opposed to the Federal 
Government making those decisions. And that's the debate, and there's a 
big philosophical divide.
    Oh, some folks up here may not want to see it that way, but it's 
clear to me that it's a matter of trust. And I'm here in Washington; I 
readily concede I'm a part of the Federal Government--proudly so. But I 
trust people with their own money. I would rather have people have--once 
priorities are met--I'd rather have people have their own cash flow, so 
they can decide how to save and invest.
     I don't think 535 people ought to be making the decisions for 
people with money that I don't think is necessary to remain here in 
Washington, DC. And I hope you help me spread that message, because it's 
an important message for this country. It's a fundamental debate about 
how wealth is created. It's a fundamental debate about who does our 
Government trust.
    I like our position, because when the people begin to hear outside 
the filter of Washington, DC, you know, when we get beyond those who 
decide how words sometimes are translated out there in the hinterlands, 
once people realize Social Security obligations will be met and the 
Medicare obligations will be met, once they understand, for example, in 
the first 4 months of this year, there's $40 billion more coming into 
our Treasury than anticipated, that even though the economy ground down 
to growth of one percent in the last quarter, $40 billion more will come 
into our Treasury than we thought--once people hear the facts, they will 
realize that tax relief doesn't mean somebody is going to suffer; tax 
relief is a positive.
    For too long in Washington, people had to put tax relief in zero-sum 
politics. We've got one winner and one loser. If you keep more of your 
tax money, somebody's going to lose. But that's not reality--that's not 
reality.
    Let me reiterate what I just said: $40 billion more in the first 
quarter of this year, in spite of the fact--anticipated--in spite of the 
fact that our economy grew at only one percent. The way I like to put it 
is, it sounds like somebody is overcharged. [Laughter]
    And there is another issue that's going to be debated here pretty 
soon, and that's the death tax. I firmly believe that our Nation must 
get rid of the death tax. You know, I think of all the folks that I met 
who are struggling with their own small business, not only trying to 
fight the battles of cash flow and employment and workers' comp and all 
the issues that small-business owners deal with--liability--but I'm also 
thinking about all those who dream about leaving their assets to a 
child. And what a wonderful thought that is, that somebody's worked all 
their life to start their own business, so that a son or daughter can 
run it as part of a family legacy. And yet our Tax Code makes it really 
hard for that to happen.
    There's a lot of small-business owners, a lot of restaurant owners 
who inherent a restaurant and are unable to pay the cash necessary to 
accommodate the evaluation and, therefore, are out of business. There's 
a lot of farmers and ranchers who have to do the same thing, and that's 
not fair. It's not fair to tax a person's assets twice.
    I urge the Congress to listen to the voices of the people who are 
working all day long to build up their asset base and their business. It 
doesn't matter who you are or where you're from, this affects all 
Americans in a negative way. And I think we're going to get a positive 
response out of Congress.

[[Page 565]]

    And you can help. You can help by talking to the Congresspeople from 
your district and the Senators from your States. I truly believe--I 
believe you can have a great presence here in Washington. I know there's 
a lot of frustrated folks outside in the country that say, ``Well, I 
can't influence Washington.'' I disagree. I think you can. I truly think 
you can.
    I think one of the reasons why we've gone as far as we have in the 
tax relief plan is because a lot of people in America are beginning to 
hear reality and hear the truth that we've got enough money to meet 
needs and let people keep their own money. A lot of people are beginning 
to realize that this is a plan that is fair, an eminently fair plan. If 
you pay taxes, you ought to get relief.
    The idea of Washington, DC--of people in Washington saying, ``We're 
going to have targeted tax cuts''--you know what that says to me? It 
says, people can decide you win, and you don't win, and that's not good 
public policy. It seems like, to me, if you pay taxes, you ought to get 
relief, and I think that's the American way.
    I think most Americans understand the role of our Government is not 
to create wealth but an environment in which small businesses can 
flourish, in which people can work hard to realize their dream. So we're 
making great progress.
    I remember campaigning during last summer, and people would say, 
``Well, are you ready to abandon your tax relief plan? It doesn't seem 
like anybody wants it in America.'' And I said, ``No, I'm not abandoning 
it. It's the right thing to do. It's the absolute right thing to do.'' 
And so now, the debate no longer is, are we going to have tax relief? 
The debate is, how large will the tax relief package be? And I 
appreciate your helping getting us to this point.
    But we need to work more, because until I sign that bill, I'm going 
to be relentless on the subject. It is the absolute right thing to do 
for America. It is the right thing to trust people with their own money. 
It is the right thing for our economy to accelerate tax relief. It is 
the right thing to create an environment that is optimistic about the 
future by having real, meaningful tax reform. It's the right thing to 
get rid of the death tax. And the American people are hearing it, and 
they're coming our way.
    And a lot of it has to do with leadership such as yourself, who go 
back to your States and your communities, and says, ``Let's pay 
attention to what's going on in the Nation's Capital. It will affect 
us--have a direct effect on our livelihoods.''
    And so, I want to thank you for giving me a chance to come and make 
my point and make my case, and more importantly, Denise, I want to thank 
you and your organization for joining us as we get something positive 
done on behalf of the people.
    I am so optimistic about the tone in Washington; it's beginning to 
change. The habitual name-calling seems to be subsiding somewhat. Even 
the President, me, when somebody says some things I don't like, I'm 
willing to smile. [Laughter] And there is a spirit of accomplishment; 
we're beginning to get something done. And that's so important. It's so 
important, so that when people look at Washington, they're not disgusted 
at what they see--what they see, as opposed to this needless 
partisanship that sends a signal that, all of a sudden, the people don't 
matter. We need to replace that with a spirit of, at least, respectful 
disagreement, and I think we're making pretty good progress.
    So I'm pleased with the progress we're making. I'm mindful that 
we've got a lot more work to do, and I want to thank you all for giving 
me the chance to come and make my case.
    God bless.

Note: The President spoke at 2:11 p.m. in Presidential Hall at the 
Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building. In his remarks, he 
referred to Denise Marie Fugo, chairman, National Restaurant 
Association.