[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 42, Number 41 (Monday, October 16, 2006)]
[Pages 1796-1799]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks on the National Economy and the Federal Budget

October 11, 2006

    Thank you all. Please be seated. Good afternoon. Thanks for coming 
to the White House.
    In 2004, I made a promise to the American people: we would cut the 
Federal budget deficit in half over 5 years. Today I'm pleased to report 
that we have achieved this goal, and we've done it 3 years ahead of 
schedule.
    This morning my administration released the budget numbers for 
fiscal 2006. These budget numbers are not just estimates; these are the 
actual results for the fiscal year that ended February the 30th 
[September 30th]. * These numbers show that the budget deficit has been 
reduced to $248 billion and is down to just 1.9 percent of the economy. 
As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now lower than it has 
been for 18 out of the last 25 years. These budget numbers are proof 
that progrowth economic policies work. By restraining spending in 
Washington and allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn, we're 
creating jobs, reducing the deficit, and making this Nation prosperous 
for all our citizens.
    * White House correction.
    Today I'm going to talk about the progrowth economic policies that 
helped bring a dramatic reduction in the Federal deficit. I'm going to 
remind the American people that we cannot afford to be complacent. I'll 
discuss some of the issues that I intend to address over the next 2 
years to help ensure that our dynamic economy continues to grow and 
provide jobs.
    Before I do so, I do want to recognize members of my Cabinet who 
have joined us. I want to thank the Secretary of the Treasury, Hank 
Paulson, for being here today. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your 
service. And the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 
affectionately known as OMB--Rob Portman. Thanks for coming, Rob. I 
thank Steve Preston, who is the Administrator of the U.S. Small Business 
Administration. Thanks for being here, Steve.
    I see members of my staff who are here, who probably should be 
working--[laughter]--instead of taking time off. But I thank you for 
coming.
    The reduction of the deficit I've announced today is no accident. It 
is the result of the hard work of the American people, and because of 
sound fiscal policies here in Washington. When I first came to office, I 
thought taxes were too high--and they were--and this economy of ours was 
headed into a recession. Some people said the answer was to centralize 
power in Washington and to let politicians decide what to do with the 
people's money. I had a different approach. I have a different view. And 
therefore, we chose a different course of action.
    See, I believe that our economy prospers when we trust the people to 
make the decisions on how to save, spend, or invest. And so starting in 
2001, we worked with Members of the United States Congress to pass the 
largest tax relief ever passed since Ronald Reagan was the President. We 
cut taxes on everybody who pays income taxes. I was concerned about this 
kind of selective tax cutting. I didn't think that was fair. Our 
attitude was if you pay income taxes, you ought to get relief.
    We reduced the marriage penalty. We doubled the child tax credit, 
and we put the death tax on the road to extinction. We cut the tax rate 
paid by most small businesses. Most small businesses are a subchapter S 
corporation, for example, or a limited partnership, and therefore, pay 
tax at the individual income tax rate. And therefore, when you cut the 
rates on people who pay income taxes, you're cutting tax on small 
businesses.
    And by the way, it was really the cornerstone in many ways of our 
economic recovery policy, because we understand that 70 percent of new 
jobs in America are created by small businesses, and therefore, when 
small businesses have more capital to spend, it is more likely they'll 
create jobs.
    We increased the amount small businesses can expense, on the 
knowledge that providing incentive for people to buy plant and equipment 
will cause somebody to have to

[[Page 1797]]

make the plant and equipment that the person purchases. We encouraged 
economic expansion by cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains, 
understanding that by cutting those types of taxes, we're reducing the 
cost of capital, which makes it easier for people to borrow so we can 
expand our economy. In other words, we had a comprehensive plan that 
when enacted, has left nearly $1.1 trillion in the hands of American 
workers, families, investors, and small-business owners. And they have 
used this money to help fuel economic expansion that's now in its 37th 
straight month of growth.
    The theory was, was that if we can encourage entrepreneurship and 
investment and consumption by reducing taxes, it will cause the economy 
to recover from a recession and a terrorist attack, corporate scandals, 
war, hurricanes--and it has. The progrowth policies have worked. Since 
August of 2003, this economy of ours has added more than 6.6 million new 
jobs. And the national unemployment rate is down to 4.6 percent. People 
are working, and that's good for our country.
    Behind these numbers are millions of individual workers who start 
each day with hope because they have a job that will enable them to do 
their duties to support their families, or to put food on the table. 
Behind these numbers are small-business owners that are being rewarded 
for taking risk. Government can't make anybody successful; we can make 
the environment such that people are willing to take risk. And when 
small businesses take risk, the economy flourishes and grows.
    You know, last week I went to a FedEx facility here in DC. The 
Secretary and I went, and we met with a group of entrepreneurs who are 
helping to drive this economic growth. It was a fascinating meeting. It 
was really exciting, wasn't it, Hank? I mean, it was so wonderful to sit 
with dreamers and doers. We met a guy--I think he said he was an 
engineering graduate from Purdue--who on his way from upstate New York 
to Purdue to go to college, he and his brother would stop and dive for 
golf balls--[laughter]--and then they'd sell the golf balls to help pay 
for college. He has since--he and his brother have since started an 
Internet company that sells golf clubs. And he's successful, and he's 
employing people, and he's excited, and he appreciates the tax cuts. 
[Laughter]
    We talked to the Under Armour man. I don't know if you ever heard of 
that product. I know I'm not supposed to advertise--[laughter]--so I 
won't. [Laughter] But here's a dreamer. The man had an idea. He didn't 
like the way the cotton shirts that he wore absorbed his bodily fluids 
when he exercised, so he came up with a better product. And it worked. 
And now he's built a huge business, and he's talking about how to 
continue to expand, and he's worried about our trade policy. Here's a 
small-business guy who came out of a garage, and he's talking to the 
Secretary of the Treasury and the President of the United States about 
making sure we have intellectual property rights protection in China.
    My point to you is, is that America must remain entrepreneurial 
heaven if we want to be the leading economy in the world, and we will do 
so through good policy. And that's by keeping taxes low. As a matter of 
fact, the best policy would be for Congress to have certainty in the Tax 
Code by making the tax cuts we passed permanent.
    Back to the budget. When we announced--when I announced the plan to 
cut the deficit in half by 2009, a lot of folks said it's just simply 
not going to be done. They said that we had to choose between cutting 
the deficit and keeping taxes low--or another way to put it, that in 
order to solve the deficit, we had to raise taxes. I strongly disagree 
with those choices. Those are false choices. Tax relief fuels economic 
growth, and growth--when the economy grows, more tax revenues come to 
Washington. And that's what's happened. It makes sense, doesn't it? As 
businesses expand, people pay more taxes, and when you pay more taxes, 
there's more revenues that come to our Treasury.
    Tax revenues grew by $253 billion in 2006. That's an increase of 
11.8 percent. Over the last 2 years, we've seen the largest back-to-back 
increases in tax revenues ever, and the largest percentage increase in 
25 years. In other words, when you put policies in place that cause the 
economy to grow, tax revenues increase.
    I know that sounds counterintuitive for some here in Washington. 
People say, ``Well,

[[Page 1798]]

they're cutting taxes; that means less revenue.'' But that's not what 
happened over the past 2 years. As a matter of fact, I'm convinced that 
if we had raised taxes, it would cause there to be an economic decline, 
which would make it harder to balance the budget over the years.
    In February this year, we projected the Federal budget deficit for 
2006 would be $423 billion. That was the best guess. Today's report, as 
I mentioned to you, shows that the deficit came out at 248 billion--so, 
$175 billion less than anticipated. The difference is because we have a 
growing economy, and the difference is because we've been wise about 
spending your money.
    Congress votes every year on day-to-day spending, and it's called 
discretionary spending. There's two types of spending in Washington: 
discretionary spending, over which Congress has got discretion--and 
we're involved; we submit a budget; and we've got the capacity to veto 
to help bring some discipline to the process--or mandatory spending. 
Mandatory spending helped--just happens. It's formula driven. It's--the 
Congress doesn't allocate money for it; it just comes to be, based upon 
the circumstances involved.
    Every year since I took office, we have reduced the growth of 
discretionary spending that is not related to the military and the 
homeland. And the reason that's the case is, I believe it's important 
for the President to lead and to set budget priorities, and so long as 
we've got kids in combat, they're going to have what it takes to do 
their job. And so long as there's an enemy that wants to strike us, 
we'll spend money to protect the homeland. Those are the most important 
jobs we have.
    The last two budgets have actually cut nondefense, nonhomeland 
discretionary spending. And I want to applaud the Congress for making 
hard choices. Every program sounds fantastic in Washington, until you 
actually determine whether or not they're working. And a lot of times, 
the nice-sounding programs are not delivering the results that the 
people expect. And so we worked with Congress to focus on those programs 
that work and do away with those that don't work. It's not easy, by the 
way, to get rid of somebody's pet project that's not working. But you've 
just got to know that Rob and his office are working hard to do just 
that.
    I believe Congress can make the President's job more effective in 
dealing with bad spending habits if they gave me the line-item veto, and 
let me tell you why. The President is presented with a dilemma: On the 
one hand, we sit down and we negotiate the budget with the Congress. We 
say, ``Here's the top line we can live with,'' and they'll pass 
appropriations that meet our top line. But the problem is, within the 
appropriations are oftentimes programs that may not have been properly 
debated, in other words, stuck in--earmarked. They may not be meeting 
national priorities. And therefore, the President is confronted with 
either vetoing a good budget bill because he doesn't like parts of the 
bill, or accepting the overall bill and the bad parts exist in it.
    And so one way to remedy that is to give the President the capacity 
to analyze the appropriations process, to remove--approve spending that 
is necessary, redline spending that is not, and send back the wasteful 
and unnecessary spending to Congress for an up-or-down vote. That's how 
we define line-item veto.
    It makes sure that the President is directly involved with the 
process in deciding the size of the slices of the pie, once the size of 
the pie has been delivered. But it also makes sure that Congress is 
involved with the process of approving, up or down, whether or not the 
spending is needed or not needed.
    Governors have got this power; 43 Governors have got the authority, 
and they use it effectively. One of the advantages is this, that they 
know--if the chief executive has got the line-item veto, then 
legislators will understand that a program they may try to sneak into a 
bill will see the light of day, and therefore, make it less likely 
somebody will try to sneak something into the bill. It's kind of 
preventative maintenance.
    The House has passed the bill. The Senate really needs to get the 
line-item veto to my desk. If Senators from both political parties are 
truly interested in helping maintain fiscal discipline in Washington, 
DC, and they want to see budgetary reform, one way to do so

[[Page 1799]]

is to work in concert with the executive branch and pass the line-item 
veto.
    And for those of you who are here, who are helping us get that 
legislation out of the Senate, I want to thank you for your work. The 
reason I brought it up is, I am absolutely convinced it is necessary to 
make sure that we continue to maintain budget discipline here in 
Washington, DC.
    We've made good progress, as I mentioned to you, in getting the 
fiscal house in order, but there's another problem with our budget, and 
that has to do with mandatory spending, particularly with Social 
Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These are really important programs. 
They're called entitlement programs because when each of us retire, 
we're entitled to a benefit, in Social Security for example.
    And yet the health of these programs--the health is in serious 
jeopardy. Why? Because there's a lot of people like me and Paulson who 
are fixing to retire. [Laughter] As a matter of fact, both of us reach 
retirement age at the same time, which is in 2008. That's quite 
convenient in my case. [Laughter]
    But unlike the previous generation, there's a lot more of us, and 
we've been promised greater benefits than the previous generation. In 
other words, the Government has made promises with a future generation's 
money that we can't keep. And so the fundamental question facing the 
Government in Washington, DC, is, will we have the will necessary to 
deal with these entitlement programs to leave behind a better budget 
picture, to deal with the unfunded liabilities and the mandatory 
programs for future generations?
    One reason Secretary Paulson came to work in this administration is 
because he wanted to understand whether or not we were committed to 
continue trying to bring Social Security reform, to modernize the 
system. Look, you don't have to cut benefits. You've just got to slow 
the rate at which benefits are growing in order to make sure a future 
generation is not strapped with a budgetary system that is unaffordable.
    And I assured Hank that I was deeply committed to working to solve 
Social Security, because I believe the call for those of us who are 
blessed to be in public service is to confront problems now. It's so 
much easier to quit and just say, ``Let's let another Congress deal with 
it.'' The problem is, is that the longer we wait, the more costly it 
becomes for future Congresses. And so now is the time. Now is the time. 
And Hank and I are going to--after these elections come and go, we're 
going to work with the leaders and--to say, ``We're all responsible for 
getting something done.'' My hope is, in the last 2 years of this 
administration, we can set aside needless politics and focus on what's 
right for the United States of America and solve these entitlement 
programs once and for all.
    I hope you're optimistic about this country's future, because I sure 
am. I am optimistic because I have great faith in American ingenuity, 
and I know how hard our people work. I am optimistic because we're an 
innovative society, and there's a lot of really capable, smart people 
continuing to make sure we remain innovative. I'm optimistic because the 
public sector and private sector encourages important research and 
development to make sure America is on the leading edge of change. I'm 
optimistic that we have put good policy in place that will encourage the 
entrepreneurial spirit. And I firmly believe, so long as this is an 
entrepreneurial-oriented country, America will remain the economic 
leader we want her to be.
    I want to thank you all for coming to hear this proclamation of good 
news. [Laughter] God bless.

Note: The President spoke at 2:10 p.m. in Room 450 of the Dwight D. 
Eisenhower Executive Office Building. In his remarks, he referred to 
H.R. 4890, the ``Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006.''