Text 437, 569 rader
Skriven 2005-02-08 23:45:46 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0502083) for Tue, 2005 Feb 8
===================================================
===========================================================================
President Discusses Economy, Budget at Detroit Economic Club
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 8, 2005

President Discusses Economy, Budget at Detroit Economic Club
COBO Conference and Economic Center
Detroit, Michigan


˙˙˙˙˙In Focus: Economy

12:23 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. (Applause.) I've seen head
tables before -- (laughter.) I've never seen one quite so long. (Laughter.)
Thanks for having me. It's great to be back in Detroit. You know, we're
only a few weeks into the New Year, but at the White House we've already
had a lot of excitement. There was the inauguration. Then we had Iraqi
elections, and then a visit from a group of very tall men -- (laughter and
applause) -- the mighty Pistons of Detroit. (Applause.)

I appreciate you having me. I appreciate you giving me a chance to come and
share some thoughts with you. Dieter, thank you very much for that fine
introduction. Never mind about the English language thing. (Laughter.)
Beth, thank you very much for organizing this event. It's good to be here
with Rick Wagoner and Bill Ford, part of the mighty Big Three in the
Detroit area. I want to thank Joe Knollenberg and Sandy, the Congressmen
from the great state of Michigan. Cardinal Maida, it's great to see such a
strong leader and one of the great faith leaders of not only this state,
but the country.

I appreciate the Mayor being here. Mr. Mayor, it's good to see you. I may
see your mother this afternoon, and I'll tell her you're looking just fine.
(Laughter.)

Glad to be here with the Secretary of State of Michigan, Terri Lynn Land;
the Attorney General Mike Cox. I appreciate all the state and local
officials who have come out. I want to thank all the college students,
middle school, high school and college students who are here as part of the
Detroit Economic Club student program. It was my honor to have shaken a lot
of hands. I hope my advice was good, which was to aim high, make right
choices, and listen to your mother. (Applause.) I'm still listening to
mine. (Laughter.)

Today when I landed at the airport, at the base of Air Force One was a
fellow named Jim Comer. He is an active volunteer in the VIP Mentoring
Program. The reason I like to bring up people like Jim is to remind people
that the greatest strength of the country is the hearts and souls of the
citizens of our country. That's our true might. And every chance I get I
like to herald those individuals who are taking time out of their lives to
make a difference in somebody else's life.

And what Jim Comer does is he mentors children who have got a parent who
may be -- who is incarcerated. I can't think of a greater gift, a more
noble cause than to surround a child who may hurt with love. And so, Jim, I
want to thank you for being here. For those of you who may wonder how best
to serve our country, find somebody who hurts and help them with your
compassion and your decency. (Applause.)

Thank you, sir. I'm glad they gave you a good table. (Applause.) Thanks for
doing it.

This is my second trip to the Detroit Economic Club. I was here as a
presidential candidate back in 2000, right before the Michigan primary. You
can't win them all. (Laughter.) That day I said no generation could afford
to take its prosperity for granted -- and that the job of the President is
not to think about the Dow Jones today, but to look down the road. That's
exactly what I told the folks that were here. Little did I realize what
that road would mean.

We've been down a challenging road -- together -- since the last time I
came to address the Detroit Economic Club. After all, we had a stock market
decline and recession; we've had corporate scandals; we had an attack on
our homeland; and we've got the demands of an ongoing war. But this nation
confronted these challenges head on. And as a result, we have rebuilt our
economy and we're improving the security of our nation.

What I said in 2000 remains true today: No President should ever take
America's economic growth for granted. We have an obligation to do what
Americans have always done, and that is to build a better tomorrow for our
children and our grandchildren. And that's what I'm here to talk about
today.

We're moving forward with an ambitious agenda to ensure that our economy
remains the freest, the most flexible, and the most prosperous in the
world. Our strategy has three pillars. We will insist on a budget that
limits and tames the spending appetite of the federal government. We will
work with Congress to pass legislation that promotes economic growth and
makes sure the entrepreneurial spirit is strong all throughout America. And
we'll reform the institutions fundamental to American society.

I understand these are big goals. But the job of the President is to
confront problems, not to pass then on to future generations, future
Presidents, and future Congresses. (Applause.)

The first pillar of sound economic policy is spending restraint in
Washington, D.C. Yesterday I sent a budget to the United States Congress. I
would call it a disciplined budget. My budget reduces spending -- reduces
spending -- on non-security discretionary programs by one percent -- the
most disciplined proposal since Ronald Reagan was in office. It holds
discretionary spending below the rate of inflation. It includes vital
reforms in mandatory spending that will save taxpayers $137 billion over
the next decade. It meets our nation's essential needs; it keeps us on
track to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

Now, all budgets have got to be based on priorities, and mine are clear:
The government's most solemn duty is to defend and protect the American
people. In a time of war, we will always provide our military and homeland
security personnel with the tools they need to do their jobs. And so our
budget raises defense spending by almost 5 percent, and funds critical
upgrades in homeland security, such as a new program to secure our chemical
plants, ports, and public transportation systems.

Protecting America imposes costs that are large and they are necessary.
That means we have a duty to show even more discipline about spending in
other areas. Leaders in Congress and in the business sector have expressed
their concerns about federal spending, and I've listened. And so I've
delivered a budget that reflects our mutual concerns. And now Congress
needs to join with me to bring real spending discipline to the federal
budget. (Applause.)

Spending discipline requires difficult choices. Every government program
was created with good intentions -- but not all are matching good
intentions with good results. And so we looked at how programs are working.
As I told my Director of the OMB, Josh Bolten, let's focus on results. My
2006 budget eliminates, or substantially reduces, more than 150 federal
program that are not succeeding, that are duplicating existing efforts, or
that are not fulfilling an essential priority. For example, there's a
program called Even Start. It was created more than 16 years ago to build
literacy in low-income families. We're all for that. I can't think of
anybody in the Congress who is not for helping low-income families become
literate. The problem is, is that after three separate evaluations it has
become abundantly clear that the program is not succeeding. People are not
becoming more literate. Families in Even Start have made no progress toward
literacy -- no more progress than a similar group of families outside the
program.

See, I think it makes sense for all of us involved in public policy to say
to the appropriators, show us whether something works. Even Start is not
working, and so I've asked that the program be eliminated and focus
resources on things that do work. (Applause.)

We're also working on mandatory programs. These are programs fixed by
formula, over which the Congress and appropriators have no discretion
except to fix the formula. For example -- let me give you one example of
where I think there needs to be change to save taxpayers' money. It's
common-sense change. It is a reasonable approach to farm policy. Right now,
the federal government pays individual farmers as much as $360,000 a year
in subsidy. I think that no farmer should get [sic] $250,000 a year in
subsidy. That makes sense. That will save the American taxpayer $1.2
billion over the next decade. These are the kind of reforms that are
necessary to earn the trust of the American people. And to bring budget
discipline, it is essential that those who spend the money in Washington
adhere to this principle: A taxpayer dollar ought to be spent wisely, or
not spent at all. (Applause.)

To reduce deficits, we must do more than just spending restraint. We've got
to make sure we have pro-growth economic policies. We've got to do things
to make sure this economy continues to expand, in order to create jobs,
increase wages, and enhance the entrepreneurial spirit. I mean, I love the
entrepreneurial spirit of America. I think it's what makes us a unique
place. I can't tell you how positive it is when I hear the stories of
person after person who creates his or her own job, regardless of their
status in America. There's nothing better than to be a part of a society in
which, if you dream the big dream, you can achieve that dream. And that's
why pro-growth economic policies are vital for a positive future for
America.

So the second pillar of a sound economic policy is to build on an
environment that encourages initiative, lowers the cost of doing business,
and constantly thinks about how to promote economic vitality and growth.

Pro-growth policies have helped to overcome a recession and helped make
this country's economy the fastest growing of any major industrialized
nation in the world. Over the past year, America has created more jobs than
Germany, Japan, Great Britain, Canada, and France combined. (Applause.)

Parts of our country struggle, just like Michigan. I'm very aware of that.
But that's all the more reason to make sure our economy is more flexible,
and that we remain competitive. The goal out to be America must be the best
place in the world to do business.

A pro-growth strategy must ensure that tax relief is here to stay. Most new
jobs in America -- (applause) -- most new jobs in America are created by
small businesses. Many of those business owners pay business taxes at the
individual tax rate. In other words, they're subchapter S corporations,
sole proprietorships. And when individual tax rates are high, it affects
the capacity of a small business to accumulate and spend capital. The tax
relief we passed lowered all tax rates on people who pay taxes. Yet in
2011, those tax rates are scheduled to go back up. If Congress fails to
act, taxes on dividends and capital gains will also go up; and the child
credit will be reduced; and the death tax will come back to life.
(Laughter.) Allowing these scheduled tax increases to take effect, allowing
taxes to go back up, would only discourage growth and cost this country
jobs, and reduce paychecks. The United States Congress needs to make the
tax relief permanent. (Applause.)

A pro-growth strategy must address the growing burden of junk lawsuits.
(Applause.) Last month I met Bruce McFee, who runs a manufacturing company
in North Lansing. A few years back, Bruce bought a company called Sullivan
Palatek. In the 1940s, another company with the name "Sullivan" in it made
a product with asbestos. The two companies are in no way related. But that
hasn't stopped trial lawyers from filing 53 asbestos claims against Bruce's
company.

Here's what he said about the lawsuits: "If they put us out of business,
the replacement is going to be an overseas business -- I believe there are
hundreds of companies in the same mess. And it's sucking money out of our
state." And he's right. (Applause.)

Junk lawsuits have driven the cost of America's tort system to more than
$240 billion a year -- greater than any major industrialized nation. Think
about that. It creates a competitive disadvantage in a global economy, for
the American economy to have so many lawsuits. It imposes unfair costs on
job creators. It raises prices for consumers. Our legal system must serve
the cause of justice, not the interests of trial lawyers. (Applause.)
Congress needs to pass meaningful class action and asbestos legal reform
this year. (Applause.)

A pro-growth strategy must roll back excessive federal regulation. Many of
you in this room probably spend hours filling out paperwork to send to
Washington, D.C. I can't promise you any of it has ever been read.
(Laughter.) We've got to understand that. People writing the regulations
must understand that, the people who are implementing regulations must
understand that. And we're making some progress. We streamlined tax
reporting requirements for small businesses, and that saved American
entrepreneurs an estimated 50 hours -- 50 million hours of unproductive
work. And there's more to be done. We've got to strip away unnecessary
mandates. We want people figuring out how to hire people, not hiring people
to fill out forms.

A pro-growth strategy must confront the cost of -- the rising cost of
health care. I understand that -- whether it be the automaker or the family
restaurant in Michigan. Escalating health costs are making it difficult for
people to do business and to get the coverage they need for their workers.
More than half of the uninsured are small business employees. To me, that
makes sense to start there. To make sure the health care system works, why
don't we address the reason why small businesses aren't able to afford
health care? And one of the reasons why is because they're not able to get
the economies of purchase that big companies are able to do. We ought to
allow small businesses to pool across jurisdictional boundaries so they can
get the same discounts that big companies are able to do. (Applause.)

I'm a big believer in tax-free health savings accounts. If you're a small
business owner, or a sole proprietor, I urge you to look at health savings
accounts. They're innovative ways for people to control their own destiny
when it comes to health care, get catastrophic coverage to give them
security, and be able to pass from one year to the next on a tax-free basis
any money you do not spend in your health account. And to make them more
widely available, we ought to -- we will, if Congress passes laws that
allow us to provides incentives for small businesses and low-income workers
to open up health savings accounts.

We should create a national marketplace for health insurance, so people can
shop on the Internet across state lines to get high-quality coverage at
lower prices. That makes sense, doesn't it? To break down barriers to
create a marketplace for the consumer when it comes to health care.
(Applause.) To reduce the cost of medicine for every doctor, every patient
and every business, Congress needs to pass medical liability reform this
year. (Applause.)

A pro-growth strategy must ensure affordable, reliable supplies of energy.
It is hard to be in a growing economy if you're not sure whether or not you
got energy, if you're not sure whether or not there's cost certainty when
it comes to energy. As you found out here in Detroit, and others found out
across our nation during the blackout that hit this city two summers ago, a
disruption in energy supplies can cause, and will cause, serious problems
in our economy. And so that's why I sent Congress a comprehensive energy
strategy almost four years ago. And as I said in the State of the Union the
other night, four years of debate is enough. We don't need debate. We need
action when it comes to an energy plan. (Applause.)

And that plan must modernize the electricity grid, and it must encourage
conservation, and it must encourage increases in domestic production. And
we can do so in an environmentally friendly way. We're spending money --
and important money and good money -- on new technologies such as clean
coal technologies, and ethanol, and hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. I
believe that we ought to expand the use of safe and clean nuclear power.
(Applause.) And I think we ought to allow for exploration in
environmentally responsible ways in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
(Applause.)

For the sake of this economy, and for the sake of national security,
Congress needs to pass an energy plan and get it to my desk as soon as
possible, so we can become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.
(Applause.)

A pro-growth strategy requires a policy of free and fair trade. America is
the home to about 5 percent of the world's population. That means 95
percent of our potential customers are abroad. Millions of American jobs --
and this is important for the people of Detroit to understand -- millions
of Americans jobs are supported by exports, including one in every five
factory jobs. Here in America, it's the fifth largest exporting state. You
know firsthand that economic isolationism would mean economic disaster.

My administration has worked hard to open up markets for U.S. products.
We've completed free-trade agreements with 12 countries that will open up
markets of 124 million consumers, and that's good. That's good for
entrepreneurs. Listen, if you're good at something -- and we're good at a
lot of things -- we ought to break down barriers so we can be selling to
people. And I'm going to continue to work to open up markets. And at the
same time, we will vigorously enforce trade laws that are on the books. You
see, with a level playing field, our businesses, our entrepreneurs, and our
workers can compete with anybody, any time in the world. (Applause.)

The third pillar of a sound economic policy is to put in place reforms that
will keep America's businesses and workers competitive in the century
ahead. It is time to confront great challenges. If you care about the
quality of life for our children and grandchildren, now is the time -- not
later, but now is the time to confront problems.

To keep America competitive, we've got to make sure that the education
system works. The No Child Left Behind Act is working. We have challenged,
and are challenging, the soft bigotry of low expectations. We will not
stand for a school system that gives up on kids and just moves them
through. So now we're asking the question, can you read and write and add
and subtract. And when we find a child that needs help, we're providing
help early, before it's too late. There's nothing better than setting high
standards and having accountability to make sure every child learns. And
it's working. There's an achievement gap in America that is growing -- is
narrowing every year. And we've now got to extend those reforms to our high
schools so that a high school diploma means something. (Applause.)

The fastest growing occupations in America require at least two years of
college. And so we're going to reform our job training system and
strengthen our community colleges to help thousands of workers get the --
gain the skills they need to fill the jobs of the 21st century. You know,
one of the wonderful things about the community college system is that
they're flexible, and they're available, and they're affordable. And for
those youngsters who cannot afford a community college, or for those
workers who cannot, we're going to increase the size of Pell grants to help
them afford a community college -- and/or a college education. (Applause.)

What we want is we want the education system to actually educate people for
the jobs which exist. And that's why I'm such a big believer in the
community college system. Curricula can change with the times. Flexibility
is important when it comes to helping our workers gain the skills necessary
to fill the jobs of the 21st century.

To keep this country competitive, we've got to change our outdated
immigration laws. This economy will be stronger and our nation will be more
secure by having a rational system when it comes to immigration. First, I
don't believe and I'm against blanket amnesty. Secondly, we need to know
who's coming in and out of our country. And thirdly, I believe that we
ought to allow a willing worker and a willing employee to match up so long
as an American won't fill the job.

I don't like a system which encourages illegal trafficking on the borders,
fake documents, smuggling in the desert in the heat of the day. We're more
compassionate than that. This country ought to say, if you're a willing
worker and an employer can't find an American, we ought to match them up
for a period of time. This is a guest worker program that will bring sense
to border policy and employment policy in the United States of America, and
at the same time, treat people with dignity. (Applause.)

We got to simplify the tax code if we want to have pro-growth economy.
Today, this code of ours and its accompanying regulations are almost 11
times longer than the complete works of Shakespeare. (Laughter.) And he
wrote a lot. (Laughter.) To help you determine how much you owe the IRS,
our government kindly offers hundreds of separate forms, instructions,
worksheets, and publications. (Laughter.) A growing number of Americans
also have to calculate their tax burden twice, once under the regular tax
rules, and once for the alternative minimum tax. And then when you're done
figuring out both totals, you get to pay the higher amount. (Laughter.) No
wonder we now have more people in the business of preparing tax returns
than we do in the entire United States Army.

Americans shouldn't need advanced degrees in accounting to fill out their
tax returns. So I've appointed a bipartisan commission, led by former
Senators John Breaux, Democrat, and Connie Mack, Republican, to examine the
tax code, top to bottom. I will receive their recommendations, and I will
work with the United States Congress to deliver a tax code that is
pro-growth, easy to understand, and fair to everyone. (Applause.)

And to keep this America -- country of ours competitive in the 21st
century, we have got to honestly and openly address the structural problems
of Social Security. In the last few days, I've traveled to North Dakota and
Florida, and now to Michigan, to discuss my ideas and plans. And I'm going
to continue traveling. I'm going to spend a lot of time on this issue
because I feel strongly that we better address it. And I'll tell you why.

I've reminded everybody I've spoke in front of that the Social Security
system was one of the great moral successes of the 20th century, and I
believe it was. And I assured them that today's seniors do not have a
problem with Social Security. For those who have retired or nearing
retirement, born before 1950, the Social Security system is fiscally sound
and will not change at all. (Applause.)

And that's an important message for our seniors to hear. You're in fine
shape, and nothing is changing. But I warned every audience I've spoken in
front of that the government has made promises to our younger workers that
it cannot pay for. Social Security will go broke when some of our
youngsters get ready to retire, and that's a fact. And the whole world is
watching to see whether or not we've got the courage to fix this problem.
It's part of our structural deficit. Social Security means that we've got
unfunded liabilities, debts that we owe to future generations that are
going to be real hard to pay. And here's why.

Half a century ago, about 16 workers paid into the system for every one
person drawing benefits. That's a nice, healthy contribution ratio -- 16 to
one. But today, it's 3.3 three workers to one. And over the next few
decades the numbers paying in for every beneficiary will be two to one --
two workers for every beneficiary. But that's only half the problem. The
other problem is people like me, what they call baby boomers, are fixing to
retire. And there's a lot of us. And not only are we fixing to retire,
we're living longer, much longer than when the Social Security system was
first designed. And not only that; the benefits that the government has
promised are going up. They're increasing. So think about it. With every
passing year, you've got fewer workers who will be paying ever higher
benefits to an ever larger number of retirees.

And that is the math. Thirteen years from now, in 2018, the Social Security
system will be paying out more than it takes in. That's called being in the
red. And every year afterwards, the problem gets worse. The shortfall is
bigger than the year before. So, for example, in the year 2027, the
government will somehow have to come up with an extra -- above and beyond
the payroll taxes being collected -- an extra $200 billion in that year
alone to keep the system afloat. And in the year 2033, that shortfall will
have grown to $300 billion. We got a problem. And it is plain to see. It is
such a problem that in the year 2042, the system is going to be broke.

If you're a younger person, you ought to be asking members of Congress and
the United States Senate and the President what you intend to do about it.
If you see a train wreck coming, you ought to be saying, what are you going
to do about it, Mr. Congressman, or Madam Congressman? Are you going to sit
there and let the train run over workers, or are you going to act?

I'm calling upon the Congress to act. (Applause.) Because if we don't act
now, imagine what life is going to be like trying to fill the hole. When
you're $200 billion short, and a couple of years later you're $300 billion
short, and the shortfalls grow every year, there aren't many options
available to you if you don't do something now. In other words, you can
raise taxes significantly. That will wreck the economy. You can
dramatically slash benefits. You can borrow a lot of money. But whatever
the case is, the closer you get to the day in which we start going into the
red, the problem only accelerates.

And that's why I stood in front of the United States Congress and said, why
don't we work together to fix this system -- not for those who've retired;
you're fine -- but for a young generation of Americans coming up. And I
fully understand that any long-term solution is going to require the
discussion of a lot of options. And that's why I told the Congress, with
the exception of running up payroll taxes or raising payroll taxes, all
options are on the table.

There have been a lot of interesting suggestions from the United States
Senator from New York named Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who, unfortunately,
passed away, or to President Clinton. Over time people have suggested
different options, different ideas as to how to permanently fix Social
Security for younger workers. Nothing changes for older workers. Some have
suggested limiting the benefits for wealthy retirees. Others have suggested
indexing benefits to prices rather than wages. Some have been bold enough
to suggest increasing the retirement age. Some have thought it's a good
idea to change the benefit formulas, or include penalties for early
collection of Social Security benefits. I'm going to work with Congress. To
any Congressman or woman, regardless of party, bring forth your ideas.

Now, there are some who say we don't have a problem. I suspect over time
the voters are going to say to those folks, you better figure out we got a
problem. Just don't pass it on. Show some leadership. And then they're
going to say to people like me and those of us who recognize we have a
problem, come on, show me your ideas. And that's what I want to assure the
people of the Detroit Economic Club -- I'll be open to anybody's ideas.

And I got an interesting idea for younger workers that I want the Congress
to consider. I believe we have a chance to make a better deal for our
younger workers, and that is I believe younger workers, if they so choose,
ought to be allowed to set aside some of their own money in the form of
payroll taxes into a personal retirement account. (Applause.)

I think the first principle involved here is that it's the younger workers'
money. It's not the government's money, to begin with. It's your money.
You're working hard. (Applause.)

And a personal account would allow that person to invest in a conservative
mix of stocks and bonds. You know, you can't take it to the lottery.
(Laughter.) You can't go across the river and roll dice with it.
(Laughter.) There's guidelines about that which you can invest in. And
these accounts would have low administrative fees. They would provide
simple and easy to understand choices, just like the thrift savings plans
used by federal employees. (Applause.) These monies would be available for
retirement. In other words, you couldn't withdraw money prior to
retirement. And, obviously, there would be a limit on that which you could
withdraw. You can't pull it all out at one time. It's meant to supplement
the Social Security check you'll be getting from the federal government.

And so why does this make sense? And by the way, we will phase these plans
in -- the retirement accounts in, over time, eventually allowing a worker
to set aside 4 percent of his or her gross pay in the form of a personal
account. And the reason you allow them to phase in is so that they become
easier to pay for the transition cost, is a fiscally sound way of
approaching this issue.

Now, here's why I think they're -- I know they're a better deal for younger
workers. The rate of return on a conservative mix of stocks and bonds will
be greater in a personal account than that which the younger worker is
earning in the Social Security trust. In other words, you get -- your money
works for you better.

And that's important. Take the young person who earns an average of $35,000
a year over his or her working career. By the time he or she retired, their
personal account would be nearly $250,000. Think about that. That's the
power of the compounding rate of money. That's what that means. Over time,
your money grows, in the most conservative of stocks and bonds.

That money would provide a nest egg for the owner of the account. It would
supplement that person's Social Security retirement income. It is money
that that person can pass on to whomever he or she chooses. Best of all,
the accounts would be replacing the empty promises of government with the
real assets of ownership. A personal account would be your account, you
would own it, and the government could never take it away. (Applause.)

Now, I'm looking forward to discussing with Congress this issue. We have a
fantastic opportunity to show our country that people can put aside their
party and work what's best for the future. And I'm looking forward to it.
And I'm looking forward to traveling the country, telling people as plainly
as I can that we've got a problem and I'm willing to work with people to
come up with a solution. And I'm willing to put out interesting ideas -- at
least I think they're interesting -- (laughter) -- to help people
understand there is a way forward, and at the same time, promote what I
like to call an ownership society.

I think all public policy, or as much public policy as possible, ought to
encourage people to own something. I want more people owning their own
home. I can't -- I can't tell you how exciting it is to meet a first-time
homeowner. I've never seen this, personally, as the President, but I can
just imagine somebody opening their door of their home and say, welcome to
my home; welcome to my piece of property. I like the idea of people from
all walks of life starting their own business. I met entrepreneurs all
across America who said, I've started my business; I'm an employer; I'm
excited about the future.

We want people owning and managing their own health care accounts. That's
why I believe health savings accounts are an important part of helping to
control the cost of medicine. And we want people controlling and owning
their own assets when it comes to their retirement. The more people own
something in America, the more likely it is a -- future generations of
America will have a vital stake in the future of this country. (Applause.)

No one knows the power of ownership better than American entrepreneurs.
John Bailey is with us. It's an interesting story about entrepreneurship
and optimism. Nine years ago, after a life in public relations, he found
himself trapped in a company that offered no hope for advancement. His wife
-- sounds like a pretty straightforward woman, I'm about to quote her --
kind of reminds me of Laura. She said, "What part of writing on the wall
can't you understand? (Laughter.) They don't want people over 50, is what
the wife was telling John. He didn't get discouraged. He responded in true
American fashion: He went out and he founded his own firm. And today,
John's business is one of the largest public relations firms in Michigan.

And here's what he had to say: "It's very daunting to go out there. But I
learned that it can be done, that hard work and strong ethic pays." He went
on to say, "It sounds corny, but good guys do finish on top."

The dream of a hopeful America is to say that if you work hard and dream
big, no matter who you are, you can finish on top.

Thanks for letting me come. God bless. (Applause.)

END 1:08 P.M. EST
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050208-3.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)