[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 41, Number 15 (Monday, April 18, 2005)]
[Pages 607-615]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks in a Discussion on Strengthening Social Security in Kirtland, 
Ohio

April 15, 2005

    The President. Thank you all for coming. Please be seated. I 
appreciate you coming, Steve, thanks. Glad to give you a ride home on 
Air Force One. [Laughter] I really do like working with Steve. He's a 
thoughtful fellow who cares about issues, and this is--what we're here 
to talk about is an important issue, which is Social Security.
    Before I do, I want to thank the community college for hosting us. 
I'm a big believer in community colleges. Community colleges have got 
the capacity to change curriculum to meet the needs of a local 
workforce, for example. And one of the real challenges of the 21st 
century is to make sure people have got the skills necessary to fill the 
jobs of the 21st century. And a fabulous place to find those skills is 
our community colleges.
    So thanks for what you do. Thanks for being a host. Thanks for 
letting us come and have a--what I think you'll find to be a really 
interesting educational experience about a vital issue confronting the 
country.
    I want to thank Lieutenant Governor Bruce Johnson for joining us 
today. I appreciate State Treasurer Jennette Bradley for joining us 
today.
    I want to thank the mayor, Ed Podojil, who is here. I appreciate 
you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank Dave Anderson. The last time I saw 
Dave, I said to Dave, I said, ``Dave, fill the potholes.'' [Laughter] 
That's just a piece of advice. [Laughter] And so I saw him in line 
coming in. He said, ``I'm just here to report for duty, Mr. President. I 
did fill the potholes.'' [Laughter] You'd get reelected if you want to 
run again. [Laughter]
    Anyway, I want to thank Anita Isom, who's with us. Anita is a young 
lady I met when we landed there at the airport in Cleveland. She is a 
volunteer, and she has helped and been awarded because of her reading-
related activities that benefit others. The reason I like to mention a 
soul like Anita is that, no matter what your age, no matter where you 
live, you can help this country by becoming a volunteer, by helping 
somebody who hurts, by teaching somebody to read, or feed somebody who's 
hungry, or put your arm around somebody who needs love.
    I like to remind people that the greatest strength of this country 
is the heart and souls of our fellow citizens and the great compassion 
of our people. And so if you're interested in serving America, do so by 
becoming a volunteer in the community in which you live and help change 
this country one heart and one soul at a time.
    So, Anita, thanks for coming. Thanks for meeting me at the airport.
    Let me talk about Social Security. I could be talking about a lot of 
things, peace and freedom. The world is changing right now because 
societies are becoming more free. And as societies become more free, 
more democratic, the world will become more peaceful.
    Today I went to a little restaurant, and the owner happens to be 
Lebanese American. And he said, ``Thank you, Mr. President, for staying 
focused on a country like Lebanon and insisting that Lebanon be allowed 
to have free elections.'' And I assured him, like I'll assure you, that 
when America speaks, we mean what we say. When we say ``free elections'' 
to the Syrians, we mean free elections. Get out of Lebanon, and let this 
good country have a free election as scheduled. When I say, ``Get out of 
Lebanon,'' I mean out of Lebanon with all your troops and all your 
security services and all the people trying to influence that 
Government. It is in the world's interest that Lebanon be allowed to 
have free elections because a free society will help spread the peace.
    We're dealing with a lot of issues, and in Washington, DC, I've 
submitted a tough budget and expect the Congress to be wise about how 
they spend your money. I also know that Congress needs to stop debating 
and get an energy bill to my desk now, during this session.
    Congress also needs to take serious this issue about Social 
Security. People say, ``Why did you bring it up?'' I said, ``I brought 
it up because I see a serious problem that needs to be fixed now, before 
it's too late. I also brought it up because the job of a President is to 
confront problems and not pass them on.'' The easy route in politics is 
to say, ``Well, we got us a problem. We'll

[[Page 608]]

just let the next person handle it.'' The easy route for a Member of the 
United States Senate is to say, ``There is a problem, but it perhaps can 
wait. We'll just let another United States Senate fix it or send it to 
the House.'' That's not the way I think. I think I got elected because 
people expect me, when I see a problem, to bring it to the fore and to 
work with people to get it solved.
    And here's the problem in Social Security. There's a lot of people 
like me getting ready to retire. [Laughter] As a matter of fact, I'm 
retiring in 4 years--at least I hit retirement age in 4 years, which is 
convenient--[laughter]--in my case. I turn 62 in 2008. And I'm not the 
only one turning 62 in 2008. As a matter of fact, there's a lot of us. 
We're called the baby boomer generation. And not only is my generation 
fixing to retire, we are living longer than previous generations. And 
not only are we living longer than previous generations, we have been 
promised greater benefits than the previous generation. In other words, 
people running for office say, ``Put me in office, and I'll increase 
your Social Security benefits for you.'' And guess what? They did.
    And so a lot of us are getting ready to retire, and the problem 
comes because there's not a lot of people paying into the system. See, 
in 1950, there were 16 workers for every beneficiary. So you can imagine 
the load was somewhat lighter than today, when there's now 3.3 workers 
for every beneficiary. And soon there's going to be two workers for 
every beneficiary. You've got fewer workers paying into a system that is 
going to require more and more out-flow, because a lot of us are 
retiring, living longer, and been promised greater benefits. And the 
math just doesn't work.
    It's a pay-as-you-go system, by the way. That means, when the money 
goes in, it comes right out. It's not a trust. I mean, some people in 
America, I suspect, think that the Federal Government all these years 
has been collecting your payroll taxes and we're holding it for you, and 
then when you get ready to retire, we give it back to you. That's not 
the way it works. The way it works is, is that we collect your payroll 
taxes and we pay the current retirees their benefits, and then with 
leftover money, we spend it on other things. That's the way the system 
works. It's pay-as-you-go.
    And in 2017, the pay-as-you-go system is going to go negative. In 
other words, more money goes out than comes in through payroll taxes. 
And every year thereafter, if we don't do something, it gets worse and 
worse and worse and worse. To give you an example of how bad it gets, in 
2027 the Federal Government is going to have to come up with $200 
billion more a year just to make good on the payments, and it gets worse 
the next year and the next year and the next year.
    I also want to assure those of you who are on Social Security, you 
will get your check. See, nothing changes for somebody born prior to 
1950. And that's very important for people in Ohio to hear, because I 
fully understand a lot of people count on that Social Security check. 
That Social Security check means a lot to a lot of people in America, 
and they're counting on it. That's why, for example, in some political 
campaigns people try to say to seniors, ``You know, if so-and-so gets 
into office, he's going to take your check away from you.'' That's the 
old scare tactics. Sometimes during this debate it seems like people are 
resorting to those scare tactics. They're telling seniors, ``Really what 
they're talking about is taking your check away.'' Let me just tell you 
point-blank, if you're receiving a Social Security check in Ohio, this 
Government of ours will continue to honor you, honor that commitment.
    This issue isn't about you. This issue is about your grandchildren. 
The issue confronting the Social Security system is an issue for young 
workers, young people coming up. One time I was having a discussion, and 
the person said, ``I saw a survey.'' I said, ``Oh, yeah, what did it 
say?'' ``It said young workers like me are more likely to see--think 
we're more likely to see a UFO than get a Social Security check.'' 
[Laughter] That may be pretty close to accurate.
    I'll tell you this, if this Federal Government doesn't act, your 
bill, your payroll taxes are going to have to go up a lot in order to 
pay the promises made to me, or the Government is going to have to slash 
the benefits, or the Government is going to have to make dramatic cuts 
in other programs. And so I

[[Page 609]]

see a problem. I think the math is clear. And so now is the time to get 
something done.
    And so I stood up in front of the United States at my State of the 
Union Address and said to the Congress, ``Here's the problem. And I'm 
going to put some ideas on the table,'' ideas that I didn't necessarily 
think of; ideas that President Clinton had thought of or Senator 
Moynihan, a great Member of the United States Senate from New York who, 
unfortunately, has passed away, or former Congressman Tim Penny--good 
ideas about different ways to permanently fix the problem. And that's 
what Congress must do. It must permanently fix the problem.
    In 1983, one of my predecessors, President Ronald Reagan, got 
together with Speaker O'Neill from Massachusetts, and they said, ``We 
got a problem. Let's fix it.'' See, the math wasn't working then, 
either. It was called a 75-year fix. They signed a bill--I love the 
spirit, by the way, of Republicans and Democrats setting aside their 
political parties and focusing on getting something done for the 
American people. And the President did that; the Speaker did that for 
the 75-year fix. The only problem is, 22 years later we're still talking 
about it. And so now is the time to bring people together from both 
parties to have a permanent fix, and all ideas are on the table. And I'm 
looking forward to discussing any good idea with a Democrat or a 
Republican.
    I imagine there's some people fearful in Washington, DC, about maybe 
laying out an interesting idea and that one of the political parties 
will get all over them for laying it out. If I had anything to do with 
it, it would be political amnesty for people bringing good ideas 
forward. Now is not the time to play political ``gotcha'' with a member 
of any political party for stepping up and bringing forth ideas to do 
what they think is right to help solve this problem permanently for 
generations of Americans to come.
    Now, one of the ideas that I think is important for the Congress to 
consider is to allow a younger worker to be able to set aside some of 
her or his own money in a personal savings account, as a part of a 
Social Security solution. See, I think Government ought to say, ``We'll 
give you an opportunity, if you want to--your choice.'' We're not 
saying, ``You must set aside money.'' We're saying, ``You ought to have 
the opportunity to. It ought to be voluntary to set aside some money so 
that you can earn a better rate of return on your money.'' People ought 
to be given a chance to invest in a conservative mix of bonds and 
stocks.
    In other words, it's part of a permanent solution in order to make 
sure the younger worker gets a better deal. The younger worker ought to 
be allowed to set aside some of the payroll taxes. And this is a 
concept, by the way, that has been tried before. I haven't invented the 
idea. As a matter of fact, the Federal--Congress before has said we 
ought to allow people working in the United States Congress and 
Congressmen and United States Senators to do just what I described. The 
Federal employee Thrift Savings Plan allows Members of Congress and the 
United States Senate to take some of their money and set it aside in a 
personal savings account. Why? Because they know they'll get a better 
rate of return on their money than if the Federal Government held it. 
And it seems fair to me that if setting aside money in a personal 
savings account is good enough for a Member of the United States 
Congress, it's good enough for workers all across America.
    Okay, so I went to school with a guy who made all A's. It's probably 
recognized by now I didn't do all that well in college at times--
[laughter]--and I brought him with me. He's an expert. He's my National 
Economic Adviser. But I want you to notice, you students out there, 
who's the President and who's the adviser. [Laughter]
    I've got a fabulous staff. People need to judge the President based 
upon who he listens to. And as you know in foreign policy matters, I 
listen to some really capable people, Condi--Condoleezza Rice, the 
Secretary of State; Secretary Rumsfeld. And on the domestic side, I've 
got great people working with me. One of them is Al Hubbard, a business 
guy out of Indiana, started businesses, ran businesses, entrepreneurial. 
He's agreed to come and serve as the National Economic Adviser to the 
President. He briefs me on a regular basis. And one of the big issues 
that I've got him working on is Social Security.

[[Page 610]]

    I want to thank you for coming, Al. And if you got something to say, 
now is your opportunity. [Laughter] Please don't try to defend yourself 
because the President always has the last word. [Laughter]
    Allan B. Hubbard. Yes, sir, I've learned that very quickly. Thanks 
for giving me this opportunity.

[At this point, Mr. Hubbard made brief remarks.]

    The President. You're the guy who authored the bill?
    Raymond Sines. I had the first bill in 1994.
    The President. Really.
    Mr. Sines. Introduced it.
    The President. If you got any spare time, you might want to come up 
to Washington and work the issue with me. [Laughter]
    Mr. Sines. Well, Mr. President, I really like Lake County. 
[Laughter]

[Mr. Sines, commissioner, Lake County, OH, made further remarks, 
concluding as follows.]

    Mr. Sines. I have three daughters, and kind of in the same mode as 
you, we're in a special club when you raise daughters.
    The President. Yes. Your hair is about as white as mine. [Laughter]
    Mr. Sines. Yes, it is, and it's getting whiter--and it's getting 
whiter.

[Mr. Sines made further remarks.]

    The President. It must make you feel good to be able to sit here in 
front of all these TV cameras and say, ``I saw a problem. I worked with 
people from both sides of the aisle to fix it, and it's working.'' 
That's the spirit the people in the United States Congress must hear. 
It's not time to play politics. It's time to fix the problem. It's time 
to set aside all this business about, my party may look good, or so-and-
so may look good, and so-and-so may look bad. We've really got an 
opportunity, a need to fix it.
    And secondly, I am--I just want you to know that like you went 
through, there were some moments as to whether or not you thought the 
thing would pass. Yes, well, you know something, I'm going to be 
relentless on the subject because I believe the American people, once 
they understand there's a problem, once they understand the math, and 
once seniors understand that nothing is going to change, the next 
question to Members who have been elected is, ``Why aren't you doing 
something about it?'' See, if there's a problem--you saw the problem--
and people begin to recognize the nature of the problem and the size of 
the problem and the cost of inactivity, and senior citizens understand 
that the propaganda they may have heard about somebody taking away their 
check simply isn't true, the next logical extension of the debate and 
the discussion is, ``Say, if we got a problem and I'm going to get my 
check, what are you going to do about my grandkids?'' It's a 
generational issue.
    And we're just starting. So don't worry about me, Ray. I'm feeling 
pretty good about where we stand. The American people are wise. They 
just need to know the facts.
    Part of the facts is understanding we have a problem, and part of 
the facts is what you're going to do about it. And today, this is an 
interesting opportunity for people to see a system that is--I bet most 
people in America don't understand what happens here in Ohio when it 
comes to the retirement system. And so thank you for being an innovator, 
and thank you for being a leader.
    Now, who's next, Hubs?
    Mr. Hubbard. Mr. Scott Johnson, who is very involved with the Ohio 
Public Employees Retirement System. And he can describe this new 
innovation that Ray provided through the legislature.
    The President. Good. Tell us what you do.
    Scott Johnson. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm Scott Johnson. I'm 
Governor Taft's director of administrative services. That's a central 
services organization similar to your General Services Administration, 
only adding human resources and personnel.

[Mr. Johnson made further remarks.]

    The President. By the way, I went to West Virginia the other day and 
saw the asset base of the so-called Social Security trust. You know 
what? It was about four or five file cabinets full of paper. [Laughter] 
It was the IOU left behind from one hand of Government to the other hand 
of Government.

[[Page 611]]

    Mr. Johnson. We've been operating that since 1935, but of course, 
society has changed a bit over that period of time.

[Mr. Johnson made further remarks.]

    The President. Sorry to interrupt you. Presidents do that sometimes. 
[Laughter] Portability--so if somebody is listening, and they're not 
exactly sure what that means and why that would be important to them----
    Mr. Johnson. University professors typically move around----
    The President. Right.
    Mr. Johnson. ----and in mid-career may move from one university to 
another. And so they've already gotten some sort of retirement system 
underway and would like to move that from where they are to where 
they're going.
    The President. If they change jobs, they could take their retirement 
account with them.
    Mr. Johnson. Exactly.
    The President. Yes. That's important for people to know. That's a 
concept that's an important part of any good plan, would be to recognize 
the needs of the person that is receiving a part of their retirement. 
They can move.
    Go ahead.

[Mr. Johnson made further remarks.]

    The President. I think that's a reasonable concept. Don't you, 
folks? Government says to the people, ``You have a choice to make,'' you 
know?
    Mr. Johnson. So what you, therefore, have with that combined program 
is a system where the portion that the employer, the State or the county 
or the city, contributes is administered by the professionals at the 
system. And the amount that the employee himself or herself contributes 
could be managed by that employee.

[Mr. Johnson made further remarks.]

    The President. Yes, I guess you can't take the money and put it in 
the lottery----
    Mr. Johnson. Well, even though we run a lottery----
    The President. ----or on the trotting jockey--trotters or whatever 
it is next door here.
    Mr. Johnson. No, sir, you can't do that.
    The President. The point is that there is a relatively conservative 
or conservative mix of what's available for people to invest in. Is that 
an accurate assessment of the choices people have to make?
    Mr. Johnson. The choices are all responsible ones, Mr. President.
    The President. I don't know about the lottery being irresponsible--
[laughter].
    Mr. Johnson. But there is a great deal of variety and individual 
ability to be aggressive or not so aggressive as one chooses.
    The President. That's right. See, it's an interesting concept that 
the people of Ohio have put in place. And the government basically said, 
``Hey, why don't we trust people? After all, it's their own money. Why 
don't we give them a chance to''--but you just can't go--there is a 
certain set of parameters, I presume, Scott, that--just like there is 
for the Federal employees, by the way. In other words, ``Here's some 
options for you.''
    Some people think about whether or not people ought to be allowed to 
invest. They call it risky. I don't think it's risky to let people earn 
a better rate of return on their money, but obviously there's some 
parameters. There's some go-bys. And as you said, I think there's eight 
different options--nine different options.
    Mr. Johnson. Nine, yes.
    The President. In other words, the Government says--the Government 
does play a role and says, ``Here's nine different opportunities for you 
to have a mix of stocks and bonds.'' Or it can go totally bonds, totally 
stocks, or is it generally a mixture? How does it----
    Mr. Johnson. Mr. President, there are layers of choices you can 
make. You could, if you wish, choose one of three pre-mixed options.
    The President. Got it.
    Mr. Johnson. One would be conservative, one less conservative, and 
one, frankly, aggressive. Or you could, if you wish, develop your own 
asset mixture. You could have some bonds. You could have some equities. 
You could have TIPS. Conceivably, you could invest it all in bonds.
    The President. Yes.
    Mr. Johnson. You could do that if you wish to do so.

[[Page 612]]

    The President. Okay. You got any average rate of return on these 
programs? Or is that impossible to do?
    Mr. Johnson. It's not impossible to do, but it's beyond my level of 
expertise. [Laughter]
    The President. Okay. Well, I was talking with Senator McCain, who 
told me that he thought his rate of return, I think, was over 7 percent 
in his employee retirement Thrift Savings Plan, over time. In other 
words, a conservative mix of stocks and bonds that the Government--
Federal Government allows Federal employees to make, a rate of return 
over 7 percent. You see, if you're keeping your money in the Social 
Security system, it's about 1.8 percent. And the difference for a 
younger worker between 7 percent and 1.8 percent over time is a lot of 
money, because interest compounds. It grows. Money grows over time.
    And I think that's one of the reasons why employees said, ``If it's 
good enough for professors, why don't you let me have a taste of this 
too? Why don't you give me a chance to watch my money grow and let me 
control it, and let me own it?''
    So, I appreciate you bringing that forward, Scott. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
    The President. Very good job.
    Betty Young, welcome. What do you do, Betty?
    Betty Young. Thank you, Mr. President, and it's an honor and a 
pleasure to be here. I'm the executive director of human resource 
services for the University of Cincinnati.

[Ms. Young made further remarks.]

    The President. First, you notice that Betty talked about 401(k)s and 
IRAs. I don't remember 401(k)s when I was growing up. In other words, 
there is a new culture in America when it comes to people managing their 
own assets; 401(k)s encourage management of your own assets--IRAs. In 
other words, more and more people in America are now becoming used to 
controlling their--managing their own money.
    I presume you find a certain reticence initially, when--that says, 
``I'm not so sure I can do this.''
    Ms. Young. But you don't have to be a Wall Street wiz.
    The President. Right.
    Ms. Young. For example, the university requires that the different 
providers that offer these programs, that they provide educational 
materials.

[Ms. Young made further remarks.]

    The President. That's good. You know, interesting thing that Betty 
talked about was encouraging people to open up a quarterly statement, or 
if you so choose, you can look at your wealth on a daily basis. I think 
that's an interesting concept. It seems like to me we'd like all of 
America doing that, watching their assets grow, not just Wall Street 
wizzes but everybody. I mean, if more people owned something--I like the 
idea of having a program in Ohio where it encourages ownership--not just 
one type of person but all people have got access to ownership.
    It seems like to me a more hopeful America is going to be one in 
which people say, ``I'm watching my assets grow, and I'm more''--let me 
just say, politicians will be--their actions will be a lot more 
scrutinized when somebody is watching whether or not the decisions made 
in Washington is affecting their work on a daily or quarterly basis. In 
other words, the more people paying attention to their assets, the more 
people will be paying attention to what happens in Washington, DC, or in 
Columbus, Ohio.
    So thanks for bringing that to my mind. Let me ask you this: 
Obviously, there's a certain role for the State, and that is the State 
has chosen the providers--is that right, screened and chosen the 
providers?
    Ms. Young. Yes. The Ohio Department of Insurance screens and chooses 
the providers that participate in the Ohio Alternative Retirement 
Program.
    The President. So the charge that somehow a fly-by-night is going to 
get a hold of somebody's retirement account and fritter it away is just 
frivolous.
    Ms. Young. Correct, because if there's ever a problem, for example, 
with one of the providers, then as the person that manages the program 
at the University of Cincinnati, then I can contact the Department of 
Insurance or go directly to that company about any issues that we may 
have.

[[Page 613]]

    The President. One of the other things that Betty talked about was 
mixing risk. And people need to understand that you can constantly 
change the risk of your asset base, that, for example, if you're 20 
years old, you can take a little more risk. And when it comes time for 
fixing to retire, you switch from, perhaps, stocks--mix of stocks and 
bonds to a greater mix of bonds to stocks, so that you're able to decide 
for yourself what kind of asset base you have relative to where you are 
in the retirement--how close you are to retirement age. And I presume 
people are doing that, constantly switching in and out all the time to 
manage their assets.

[Ms. Young made further remarks, concluding as follows.]

    Ms. Young. So I have my funds in a portion that is guaranteed 6 
percent. That won't change during the life of the account.
    The President. About 6 percent--it's a lot better than 1.8 percent 
in the Social Security system. And the difference between the 6 percent 
and the 1.8 percent over Betty's lifetime is a significant amount of 
money. And that's important for people to understand. What we're trying 
to do is to learn lessons from a State like Ohio, apply it at the 
Federal level, so workers get a better deal. And part of a better deal 
is a better rate of return. And part of a better deal, by the way, is 
saying, ``I own it.''
    You listen to Betty's language. She's talking about her assets. 
She's not relying upon the Government. She says, ``These are my assets, 
and I own these assets.'' And that's important. The more people own an 
asset, and the more people are able to say, ``I'm going to pass it on to 
my son or daughter, whoever I choose,'' the better off America is, you 
see, being able to spread wealth.
    Thank you, Betty. Good job.
    Let me say one thing about the Social Security system before we get 
to Rick. Do you realize the system today is structured so that if you 
die early and you leave behind a spouse--say, you started working and 
contributing to the system at age 21, and you died at 51, 30 years of 
work, and you leave behind a spouse, and the spouse works--like many 
families in America, there's two spouses working--that the--and the 
spouse is the same age as the husband or wife, there are no death 
benefits if you're younger than 62 years old. And secondly, when the 
surviving spouse retires, he or she will get to choose between the 
survivor benefits or the contributions that he or she has made--is owed 
by the Government, whichever is greater, but not both.
    Now, think about that. That's a system in which the person who's 
worked for 30 years, put in the money, and it's just gone. I don't think 
that makes sense for a good retirement system. The system here in Ohio 
essentially says that, if the principle were applied to the Federal 
Government, you have an asset. It grows. You watch it. You manage it, 
and if you pass away, you can leave it to your spouse to help that 
person transition, then help that person live life. It's an asset. This 
asset doesn't exist in a file cabinet in West Virginia. It's yours. It's 
an asset that you call your own, that can help you.
    Now, when people retire here, I presume you can't spend all your 
asset base at once.
    Ms. Young. You could take a withdrawal on a lump-sum basis, but 
normally, again, your ARP provider is going to work with you to design 
how you should now start drawing down on your money to ensure a level of 
income throughout your remaining lifetime.
    The President. That's what the--that's the vision at the Federal 
level for a personal account, is that there will be a drawdown to help 
complement the check, however big it's going to be, from the Federal 
Government. All I'm telling you is, we made promises to younger workers 
we can't keep. In other words, we've said, ``We can pay you.'' We can't. 
Do you realize that in order to make sure that the payments that we 
promised to retirees are kept, that a younger worker may have to pay 
upwards of an 18-percent payroll tax? Try that on if you're a small-
business owner. Try that on if you're struggling to get ahead. We need 
to fix it now, and one way to--a part of making sure the retirement 
system works well is to listen to the example right here in the State of 
Ohio.
    Rick, ready to roll?
    Richard Stenger. I certainly am.
    The President. Okay. What do you do?
    Mr. Stenger. I'm currently one of the directors of the Lake 
Metroparks system. We

[[Page 614]]

want to welcome you back to Lake County. The last time you were here----
    The President. Yes, I know--[inaudible]. Thank you.
    Mr. Stenger. You and 20,000 friends came and had a good day. 
[Laughter]
    The President. I hope LaTourette stayed behind to clean up. 
[Laughter]
    Mr. Stenger. Steve got busy. He was there, but he was watching us. 
[Laughter]
    The President. Okay. He was an executive. [Laughter]

[Mr. Stenger made further remarks.]

    The President. How did your money do in the Social Security system?
    Mr. Stenger. Yes, 1.8, I think, right?
    The President. Yes. You take a 6-percent differential, or 5.2-
percent differential over a number of years, and you're going to see 
some serious money. And it ought to grow. The Government ought to give 
opportunities to our fellow citizens to have their money grow in a 
conservative mix of stocks and bonds, just like they did. It seems to 
make sense to me.
    Mr. Stenger. Mr. President, one of the things that I found very 
helpful and interesting is the system does a good job of educating, 
because you come in and you're not sure what to do, and many people are 
afraid of change. They had a battery of questions you could answer, I 
think 20-some questions, and it sort of guided you as to where you fit 
on the investment scale. If you answered the questions, it would give 
you a score, and the score sort of categorized you into, you're okay to 
aggressively do it, conservatively do it, moderately do it. So people 
who are afraid of it don't know--you answer this battery of questions, 
and it gives you a pretty neat answer.
    The President. Yes. See, that's an interesting point. I think some 
people are fearful of the obligation, I guess, if that's what it--of 
investing their own money. They're not exactly sure what the words mean. 
It's kind of an interesting assumption here in America, the investor 
class is only a certain type of person. I don't buy into that. I think 
all people are capable of learning what investment means. People from 
all walks of life, all neighborhoods have got the capacity to manage 
their own money. And you say the system helps people learn the words and 
learn what all this means. I mean, it's kind of fancy--rate of return, 
bonds and stocks.
    Mr. Stenger. And the nice thing about it too, as Betty mentioned 
earlier, you can change. If you realize, ``Well, I went real 
aggressive,'' and your lifestyle changes for whatever reason and you 
want to change, you can get online--you can do it daily if you so 
desire--you can take your quarterly statement, analyze it, make changes 
appropriately if you so desire. It's not like you're stuck with the 
choice you made.
    The President. How do you make sure, like, these firms don't gouge 
you when it comes to fees? They've got a captive audience. They've got 
you pretty well roped in once you make the decision. How does Ohio make 
sure that these fees aren't going up, that they're reasonable?
    Mr. Stenger. The fees are defined--Scott would know more than I do, 
but if I read right, the fees are defined, depending on the plan you 
chose. I think the plan I chose, they're about .24, if I'm not mistaken.
    The President. .24--sounds reasonable.

[Mr. Hubbard made further remarks.]

    The President. I appreciate that.
    What else you got, Ricky?

[Mr. Stenger made further remarks.]

    The President. Well, I appreciate that. Listen, thanks for sharing 
this with us.
    I got on the airplane; I started paying attention to what I was 
going to hear today; and I was amazed at the willingness of the great 
State of Ohio to think differently on behalf of the people who live 
here. And it struck me about how relevant this conversation was going to 
be, for others to listen to what is possible for Social Security.
    Now, look, we need to come together in Washington, and we need to 
work on a permanent fix. All options are on the table. But part of that 
solution, in order to make it a better deal for younger workers, is for 
people of both parties to trust people with their own money, to devise a 
system that would work similar to the State of Ohio, that would say, 
``We're going to let you earn a better rate

[[Page 615]]

of return for your money,'' that would enable a mom or a dad to pass on 
their assets to whomever they chose, that would encourage portability, 
but that makes sense. It makes sense. The more somebody owns something 
in America, the more they're going to have a vital stake in the future 
of this country.

    The State of Ohio has incorporated a lot of really important 
principles in this bill, Ray, and I want to thank you for that. One of 
the key principles is, Government has got to trust people. The more 
Government trusts people, trusts people with their own money, the more 
content, the more prosperous our society will be.

    And so I want to thank you all for sharing with us. I hope you found 
it as educational as I have. I look forward to continuing to take this 
message to the people of the United States of America. I have great 
faith in the wisdom of the people of this country, and I fully 
understand that when the people of this country understand the depth of 
the problem that a young generation of Americans is going to face, and 
when senior citizens understand that they're going to get their check, 
the question is going to start to be to Members of Congress of both 
political parties, ``How come you're not fixing it,'' because America is 
going to realize that every year we wait it's going to cost the young 
generation of Americans $600 billion to make this right.

    And here's a fascinating idea, started right here in the great State 
of Ohio, sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats, that's working. 
And Congress needs to pay attention to things that work.

    Thank you all for coming, and God bless.
      
      
      

Note: The President spoke at 1:03 p.m. at Lakeland Community College. In 
his remarks, he referred to Representative Steven C. LaTourette of Ohio, 
who introduced the President; Mayor Edward J. Podojil of Kirtland, OH; 
and Mayor David E. Anderson of Willoughby, OH. Discussion participant 
Scott Johnson referred to Gov. Bob Taft of Ohio.