Freddie Jackson Tell Me Your Dreams Mp3 Download [VERIFIED]

[Rosaline Lathrop]

President Bush Discusses Economy in Fredericksburg, Virginia
Holiday Inn
North Fredericksburg, Virginia Play Video
Presidential Remarks
Audio
Photos
In Focus: Economy
11:25 A.M. ESTTHE PRESIDENT:Thank you, all. Please be seated. Ralph, thanks for theinvitation. Thanks for the gift, it was planted by the first George W. (Laughter.) I'm glad to be here at the Rotary Club. I have spent somequality time at rotary clubs -- whether it was asking for votes or sellingbaseball tickets. (Laughter.)I could never get admitted to any of theclubs in Texas because my voice wasn't good enough. (Laughter.) But I'mproud to be with you; thanks for letting me come by and share some thoughtswith you about our economy, what's happening in Washington and, if timepermits, I'll be glad to answer some questions if you have any.I also want to thank the Chamber for having me, as well. I appreciate whatyou're doing. People say, they're probably wondering why would -- oldGeorge W. has got something important to say, why would he bother to cometo a place out in the country?And the answer is because this is wherejobs are created; this is where dreams are lived; this is where values areupheld. And so I'm proud to be with you. It kind of reminds me of beingin Texas, to come to a place where there's just down-to-earth people thatare trying to do what's best for their families and their communities.Andso I'm honored to be with you.I appreciate you letting me come by.Ralph, thanks for the invitation. I also want to thank Bob Hagin. I'mproud to be here with Congressman Eric Cantor, from Richmond, Virginia, aswell as newly elected Congressman Rob Wittman -- appreciate you being here;good luck, I'm looking forward to working with you. I want to thank theSpeaker of the House -- of delegates, you call them delegates, right? Yes. Bill Howell, a good man. Good to see you, Mr. Speaker. Appreciate youbeing here. Senator-elect Richard Stuart, is that right? Yes, appreciateyou, Richard. Thanks for coming, as well. James Lacy, past President ofRotary International has bothered to come over. Mr. Lacy, thank you forserving.You know, I tell the people of our country, every time I can, that thegreat strength of America is not our military -- although I intend to keepit strong -- or the size of our wallets; but the great strength of Americaare the hearts and souls of our fellow citizens who take time out of theireveryday lives to love a neighbor like they would like to be lovedthemselves. That's what rotaries mean to me.People are saying, well, how can we best foster the well being of thecommunity in which we live; what can we do as loving human beings to workwith our youth, like you do at this -- here at this rotary club. And so Iwant to thank you for what you're doing. I thank you for adding to thegreat compassion of our country. Societies change one heart and one soulat a time. And I hope you have found what others have found, that ifyou're part of that helping somebody's live improve, it improves your own.Laura sends her very best. She's doing just fine. She's a fabulous wife,great mother, and a wonderful First Lady. And she is -- she and I arehaving the great joy of welcoming people to the White House during theholiday season. It's a pretty spectacular place when you see the trees andall the great garlands. They do a fine job of decorating the White House. I just put on the lights on the trees.(Laughter.) But we're having ajoyous time.I want to talk a little bit about our economy and some of the challenges weface, and then answer some questions. First of all, I put forth what somewould consider a controversial proposal -- that's in Washington, D.C., atleast those in Washington consider it controversial, and that is cuttingtaxes on people helps the economy. There's quite an appetite for yourmoney in Washington. People can figure out all kinds of ways to spend thetaxpayers' money. My attitude was, particularly in the face of recessionand after a terrorist attack, that the best way to help this economyrecover was to let people keep more of their own money.And so I worked with the Congress to cut taxes on everybody who pays taxes. Now, sometimes in the nation's capital, they'll say, some people get taxcuts and others don't.That's not my attitude. My attitude was, if you'repaying taxes, you ought to get tax relief. And so we cut taxes. And Imean we cut them on everybody.And when you cut them on individuals, itturns out you also are cutting taxes on small business owners.Most smallbusinesses in America are Subchapter-S corporations, or limited liabilitypartnerships, which means that the owners of the companies pay individualtaxes.In other words, the company is subject to the individual tax rates. And so cutting individual taxes not only helps consumers and families, butit also helps small businesses.And the plan worked. If you think about where we were coming out of 2001and where we are today, you can't help but say the plan worked; cuttingtaxes helped stimulate economic growth. Why? Because most new jobs arecreated by small business owners. And if you let a small business ownerhave more money to save or invest or spend, it means he or she is morelikely to hire somebody. And so we've had a pretty good economic run herein the country: six years of growth; we've had 51 straight months ofincreased job employment, it's the largest -- longest period ofuninterrupted job growth in the nation's history; people are working;productivity is high, in other words, our economy is becoming moreproductive as a result of the advent of new technologies. And that meanspeople are more likely to get paid more.And yet there are some challenges. There's a credit issue and a housingissue.In other words, what I'm about to tell you is, is that the Congresscannot take economic vitality for granted. There are some positive thingsCongress can do to make sure that the economy continues to grow and peopleare working and realizing dreams, and there's some negative things they cando. And the most negative thing the Congress can do in the face of someeconomic uncertainty is to raise taxes on the American people.If you wantto figure out a way to slow this economy down, just start taking money outof people's pockets, or making it harder for small businesses to grow andinvest.So one thing I want to share with you today is, I'll veto any tax increase. I don't think Congress needs more money. I think they need to learn howto set better priorities.And that's what you're watching play out here in Washington. The Presidentsubmits a budget and then the Congress can either accept it, run over it,ignore it, and then the Congress -- or the Constitution wisely gives aPresident veto power, in order to make sure the President stays involved inthe process. And I'm pleased to report that we're making some pretty goodprogress toward coming up with a fiscally sound budget -- one that meetspriorities, helps on some emergencies, and enables us to say that we'vebeen fiscally sound with the people's money.The next couple of days will be interesting to watch. As I say, I'mhopeful, and I appreciate those on Capitol Hill are working hard to come upwith a good appropriations package. And that appropriations package, bythe way, must also include funding for our troops in harm's way.Now, I understand people in Washington and people around the country maynot have agreed with my decisions on how to protect America. I know that,and that's fair. That's what democracy should be all about. When peoplehave a difference of opinion with the President, they ought to feelcomfortable expressing that difference. And it turns out, quite a fewcitizens are willing to do that. (Laughter.)But there should be no difference of opinion when it comes to making sureour troops have the funding they need, and there should be no difference ofopinion about whether our commanders on the ground ought to be those whodecide or those who recommend to the President and the Congress the bestway to proceed. And so we'll be -- we'll be watching very carefully as theCongress works through how to spend your money coming down the stretch herebefore Christmas. They can't have any gimmicks, accounting gimmicks inthere -- you know, sometimes they'll use the appropriations process to passlaw that otherwise didn't make it to the floor of the House or the Senate. I'm sure that doesn't happen, Mr. Speaker, in -- (laughter.) Sometimes ithappens in Washington, though.(Laughter.)And so I'm looking forward to working with them to come up with a goodbill. But they need to fund these troops, and they don't need to beputting artificial timetable for withdrawal on the money that we're askingto make sure the men and women who courageously serve the United States ofAmerica have what it takes to do the job they've been asked to do.If the Congress can't get the job done -- in other words, those jet fumeswill start to be moving out pretty soon here, later on this week -- if theycan't get the job done, then I've got a suggestion for them: just pass aone-year continuing resolution. That's all they got to do. If they can'tget the job done, like I'm hopeful they will, then all they got to do isjust take what's called a continuing resolution, get the people's businessdone that way and go on home. They got to make sure they fund the troops,though, on the way out of town.There's another issue that's coming down I want to bring your attention to-- and by the way, the House looks like they're coming up with areasonable plan, Eric and Rob.So we're watching very carefully. I don'tknow if you ever heard of the alternative minimum tax -- (laughter) -- thiswas aimed at super-rich years ago, but the plan wasn't indexed forinflation and all of a sudden middle class citizens are fixing to be stuckwith this bill. And Congress needs to fix the AMT, and they need to do itquickly.The Senate, by the way, passed a good version of an AMT fix, so you're notgoing to get stuck with a higher tax bill. And by the way, it's just notindividuals -- again, if you're incorporated through a limited partnershipor Subchapter-S, you'll end up paying higher taxes as well. But they needto move quickly on this piece of legislation because the longer they delay,the more likely it is that there's $75 billion of refund checks that willbe late; people are going to be wondering why they didn't get their refundcheck on time.And the answer is it's because there's been a delay in theAMT fix. Now the positive news is the Senate passed a good bill and theHouse of Representatives needs to get it done quickly.People are concerned around this country about housing. Here's my attitudeon housing: one, the government should never bail out lenders; two, somepeople bought a house that they shouldn't have been in the market; three,there are speculators who thought they could get -- buy nice, one of thesereset mortgages and flip it, make some money -- I'm sure none of them arein the chamber, but nevertheless -- (laughter) -- that's what happened. But there are some people that are creditworthy that should be encouragedto stay in their homes.And the issue -- the housing issue has changed. I can remember the firsthome I bought in Midland, Texas. I remember going down to the savings andloan and sitting down with the savings and loan officer and negotiatingwith the savings and loan officer. Well, this day and age you're going touse -- mortgages have been bundled, so the savings and loan doesn't own themortgage anymore, or the bank doesn't loan [sic] the mortgage anymore, thelocal lending institute doesn't loan [sic] the mortgage anymore: it'sowned by some international group, perhaps, or it's been bundled into anasset.And so there's hardly anybody to negotiate with. And so somelenders [sic] aren't sure where to turn. They have credit-worthiness, theymay get pinched as their interest rates reset.But it seems like to me it's in our interests to help people stay in theirhomes.And we've got a couple of ways to do so. One is through theFHA-secure, it's a way for -- Alphonso Jackson and his department, which isHUD, to help creditworthy people renegotiate and stay in their homes. Congress needs to get a bill to my desk that will make it easier for FHA tocontinue to help people stay in their homes. We're not bailing people out-- we're helping them refinance their money, we're helping them, you know-- we're helping them stay in a part of the American Dream is what we'redoing, and it's worthwhile to do that.And the other is what's called HOPE NOW, and this is the TreasuryDepartment bringing the private sector together -- lenders, investors,mortgage counselors -- to help people renegotiate, to help peopleunderstand what is possible when it comes to finance and recourse and stayin your house.So I am concerned; I know you're concerned about the housing industry -- weall should be.We've been building a lot of homes, and all of a suddenfewer buyers are showing up. And it's going to take a while to workthrough the housing bubble. But we can mitigate some of the issues, andI'm concerned about people who are creditworthy enough to live in theirhomes not being able to deal with the resets. And so I just want to letyou know we got a strategy.And Congress can help.They can pass the FHA modernization bill, whichwill help us. And the other issue that they can pass that would reallyhelp the homeowner is that when you renegotiate, if you happen to have amortgage that you're going to have trouble meeting, you can find somebodyto renegotiate with and you do, and part of that loan may be forgiven fortax purpose -- you actually have to pay tax. It doesn't make any sense ifsomebody is struggling to stay in their house and the tax code says you getto pay more tax after you've renegotiated your loan. So we need to fix thetax code, and the Senate bipartisan way is passing a good piece oflegislation. I hope the House takes it up.Two other issues, and then I'll answer some questions.One, I know ifyou're a small business owner, you're concerned about health care, and youshould be. And the fundamental question facing the country is what can thegovernment do to make health care more affordable and more available. Andthere's a classic philosophical divide in Washington. On the one handthere are those who believe that government is the fix; that government canbest decide the allocation of resources in health care. And then thereare those of us who believe that we ought to push for more consumer -- aconsumer-driven health care system.Part of the problem in health care is that there is no consumerism -- Ishouldn't say "no consumerism," obviously there is some consumerism. Butwhen a third party pays your bill, you tend not to worry about price. Ifsomebody else pays your bill, you're not really an active consumer. Andtherefore the question is -- part of the issue with price is, how do youencourage consumerism?And here's one way: Change the tax code. The taxcode now says if you work for corporate America -- big company -- you get atax benefit. But if you're a small business owner or you're out on yourown, you have to buy health care with after-tax dollars.And therefore, there's a disincentive for people to be purchasing healthcare on the individual market and, therefore, the individual market hasn'tgrown.So I proposed to Congress that we allow families -- everybody,regardless of your employment status -- to be able to deduct $15,000 offyour income taxes, or $7,500 as an individual -- all aimed at level theplaying field so that an individual market begins to grow. So step one toconsumerism is for individuals to have more options in the marketplace sothey can become involved directly in buying better insurance for theirfamilies.Step two is for there to be transparency in pricing and quality, and thefederal government can help. We're a huge health care consumer. And oneof the things that Secretary Leavitt is doing is saying that if you'reinterfacing with the federal government, then you got to post your price. I don't know how many of you ever go to your doctor and say, what are youcharging, you know, compared to your neighbor.I suspect you do that whenit comes an automobile, but you don't when it comes to purchasing healthcare. I never have, frankly. I don't remember asking my buddies inMidland, who are my doctors, how much are you charging relative to theperson down the street.So the government can help with pricing transparency. So we're now gettingpeople to providers to not only post a price, but also we're developing aqualitative index, so that people are able to compare price and quality. Now, this is a novel concept, I readily concede. But if you're interestedin more consumerism, then there has to be transparency in the health careindustry.Third, there needs to be products like health savings accounts expanded. If you're a small business owner, I strongly urge you to look at a healthsavings account for a way to help your employees or yourself save foreveryday expenses -- medical expenses on a tax-free basis, coupled with acatastrophic health plan. The whole purpose there is to give you moredecision-making in your health care -- with your health care, andportability.Because one of the issues facing America, particularly if you're ayoungster, is can you take your health care plans with you. It turns outmost young Americans have changed jobs, like, seven or eight times by thetime they're 35 years old. And the inability to carry a good health careplan with you -- a plan that you own, a plan which the dollars inside yourplan are earning tax-free -- creates frustrations for people. This economyis changing. And therefore the health care industry needs to change withit and provide flexibility for our workers.Fourth, small businesses ought to be allowed to pool risk acrossjurisdictional boundaries. Well, that means if you're a restaurant ownerhere, you ought to be able to pool your employees with a restaurant ownerin Texas, so that you can go into the market and buy insurance at the samediscounts that larger companies get.Fifth, health care needs to be better at incorporating informationtechnologies. I suspect you'll find some of your docs still writing filesby hand. That's a little antiquated these days. The trouble is, mostdoctors aren't very good writers to begin with. (Laughter.) And so we'reusing government leverage to help information technology take hold, so thatthere is higher productivity increases in health care, less inefficiencyand waste. My dream is for all of us to have a medical electronics recordwithin a decade. My only caveat is I want to make sure that your materialis private, that nobody can access it; it's your material alone. Butnevertheless, it makes sense for all your medical records to be on a singlechip so it'll help take the inefficiencies out of health care and help keepthe pressure off cost.Finally, if you're truly interested in making sure health care is availableand affordable, then you need to join the outcry on these frivolous andjunk lawsuits.There are too many lawsuits running too many doctors out ofpractice. We have an OB/GYN crisis in America -- in some states -- becausejunk lawsuits are making it impossible for people to practice their skills. And they get sick of it, and say, I'm out of here; I don't want topractice anymore. And plus every time there's a lawsuit, it drives up thecost of medicine. That means you have to pay more. Because why? Becausemany doctors practice defensive medicine. They say, well, if I'm fixing toget sued, I want to make sure I administer as many tests as possible, sothat my practice and my techniques can stand up in a court of law, whichruns up the cost of medicine.Now, obviously there needs to be recourse for malpractice. Nobody wants todeny anybody their right to have a claim in the court of law. That's oneof the great things about America, is if you've got a claim, you ought tobe able to take it to the court of law. But we can -- and we can pass lawthat protects somebody's right to go to the court of law and do somethingabout these junk lawsuits. It's tough. Boy, the trial lawyers are toughin Washington.In all due respect to the trial lawyers here, you're verypowerful politically. We got the bill out of the House of Representatives,time and time again it got blocked in the United States Senate.So here's a common sense way to move forward to help small businesses andindividuals deal with health care costs. And that stands in contrast tothose who really believe the federal government can run it better than theindividual consumer. I'm not saying those are bad people who articulatethat position, I'm just telling you I think it's wrong for America.Finally, energy. We're too dependent on oil from overseas. That soundsstrange for a Texas guy to say, I know. But dependency on oil createseconomic security issues and national security issues and environmentalissues. So I proposed a bill that would encourage -- most oil is consumedthrough automobile usage. So I want to talk to you about automobile usageand electricity, and then I'll answer some questions.I have proposed a bill, and I'm hopeful it will get passed by the Congress,that increases CAFE standards -- which is the fuel economy standards -- ina reasonable way, without sacrificing automobile safety. And I've alsoproposed that we reduce gasoline usage by 20 percent over the next 10 yearsby using alternative fuels. I wouldn't have done that if I didn't think itwas practical and possible.If you're a hog grower, which I suspect there's not too many around here,but you're a little concerned about the use of ethanol with corn as itsbase, because the price of corn is high. Ethanol is beginning to spread inthe Midwest, and it's causing the price of corn to go up.But that's going to be relieved as a result of research and development. One of these days, the scientists tell me -- and I believe -- that we'll beable to manufacture fuel for your automobiles from switchgrass or biomassor wood chips.And then all of a sudden, if you really think about it andare optimistic about America's capacity to use technology to change our wayof life, then all of a sudden you begin to see the rationale for sayingthat we can reduce gasoline usage by 20 percent over the next 10 years. Ibelieve it's coming, I really do.I also believe that a part of that mix is going to be new batterytechnologies that will enable you to drive the first 40 miles onelectricity. And for those of you who are worried about the size of thevehicle, it won't look like a golf cart. (Laughter.) It will be a normalsize vehicle.On electricity, there's a lot of talk about electricity -- I understandthat -- and there should be. If America wants to solve its dependency onforeign sources or wants to solve its environmental -- deal withenvironmental concerns, we need to aggressively spread nuclear power. Ifyou're generally an environmentalist, if you're worried about greenhousegases, then you need to be in the forefront of supporting nuclear powerplants. If you're worried about whether or not we can continue to have theelectricity necessary to foster economic growth and vitality, you ought tobe for nuclear power. I know that's not necessarily politically correct insome circles, but I believe the engineering is safe and I know we can comeup with ways to dispose of the waste in a safe way.And so those are some of my thoughts -- other than I hope you all have agreat holiday season. I'd be glad to -- I hope you can tell I'm anoptimistic fellow. We've been through a lot over the last seven years, wereally have. But I'm absolutely convinced this country is strong andvibrant. We're in the lead when it comes to the Freedom Agenda. I believethe decisions that have been made over the last seven years are going tolead to peace.Sometimes I know it's hard for you to tell it.But I'mconvinced that when people look back at this era, they're going to say,thank goodness the United States of America never abandoned its belief thatfreedom is universal.I happen to believe there's an Almighty, and a gift of that Almighty toevery man, woman and child is freedom.And I believe it's in our nation'sinterest to act upon that belief. And so I come to you today as a manhonored to serve a great country, with some ideas on how we can stay strongeconomically, and a great faith in the capacity of freedom to bring thepeace we want.And with that, I'll be glad to answer any questions. (Applause.) Fromanybody other than the press corps. (Laughter.) If I wanted to have apress conference, I'd call a press conference, right Herman?MR. HERMAN: (Inaudible.)THE PRESIDENT:I can't hear you. He's from Texas, forgive him. (Laughter.)Yes, ma'am.Q (Inaudible).THE PRESIDENT:There you go. We love Oklahoma in Texas, except when youcome down and beat our football teams.(Laughter.)Q That is a bad thing. They seem to be closing a lot of the refineriesand capping off different oil wells, et cetera. Are they saving our oil? What are they doing?THE PRESIDENT:What happens -- you know, an oil field plays out. And manyof the fields you're referring to in Oklahoma or parts of Texas are justold and there's little to recover.One of the interesting things that is taking place around the country,though, is that the higher price of oil has caused people to invest in newtechnologies, and the new technologies are enabling some to be able to getmore of the reserves out of the reservoirs. But when a person caps off anoil well, plugs an oil well, at this price it pretty well means it's playedout, there's not any left.Now, refineries is a different issue. We haven't built any new refineries. Now, we've expanded some refineries. We're not building new refineries,and it makes no sense not to increase the supply of gasoline. If you'reconcerned about the price of gasoline, one way to deal with it is toencourage the expansion of refineries.And so one of the proposals I put forth to the Congress was, as we shutdown bases, through the BRAC process, why don't we provide land on thoseold bases for refineries to encourage the expansion of refineries here inthe United States. And it's just -- anyway, it's -- there are some who --I don't know why they wouldn't be for something as commonsensical as that.I'll tell you another thing we ought to be doing, is we ought to beexploring for oil and gas in the Arctic -- up in Alaska. You can't believethe technologies that are now available. You can drill on a small pad,without creating much of an impact on the environment, and explorelaterally, in order to develop a field. And they tend to drill in thewinter, on ice, and they move the rig off in the summer during the melt. So we've got the technologies capable of finding oil and gas reserves andhardly leaving a scratch on the environment up there. But it's become acause celebre with a lot of the special interests in Washington, D.C.So I can't tell you why people aren't for refinery expansion. I'm justtelling you they ought to be. There are some examples where refineries areexpanding, like down there in Mississippi, for example, in the Pascagoula. A big refinery has gotten permits on its current footprint to expand itscapacity, and that's going to be good for the country.It's going to takea while. We will be using oil and gas for a while. And it's going to takea while to diversify. Therefore, for the sake of our consumers and oureconomy, we need to make sure we've got reliable supplies as we develop newtechnologies. And new technologies are coming. It's going to be anexciting era, in my judgment.Thank you. Yes, sir.Q I'm a commercial lender here in Fredericksburg.THE PRESIDENT:How do you like the mortgage plan? (Laughter.)Q The mortgage plan is a little bit tough. And I'm a commercial lender,as well, so it's great to hear from the President (inaudible) issues thatwe're looking at (inaudible) evaluating financial statements daily, or theincome statements, health care expenses, fuel expenses. What about my bigcustomers that are driving diesel-powered equipment? (Inaudible) fuel goesto $3.25 a gallon to $5.00, while at the same time that you're having anescalated health care expenses. So it's great to see you here today andpreaching that message because, again,revenues aren't necessarilyexpanding in this soft economy that we're in. So what happens in '08 and'09 when the --THE PRESIDENT:No, I appreciate that.That's why I'm against raising thegasoline tax. In other words -- we need to raise the gasoline tax. Itcomes up about every year in Congress.I'm against it for precisely thatreason, and -- is somebody for it over there? (Laughter.) I said, thefederal gasoline tax. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, I wasn't talking about thestate gasoline tax. (Laughter.) But it's -- yes, look, that's the concern,and I fully understand the pinch some of your folks are going to feel.Having said that, this economy is pretty good.There are some -- there'sdefinitely some storm clouds and concerns, but the underpinning is good,and we'll work our way through this period. But I couldn't agree with youmore that there's -- your people have got some concerns. There's just somefundamental questions that we're going to have to make on issues likehealth care. The quick fix -- at least what sounds like a quick fix -- isgoing to be, don't worry, we'll handle it for you at the federalgovernment.And to me that would mean that the greatest health care system in the worldwould head toward mediocrity quite rapidly. We don't want rationing,people standing in lines. We want the great innovation and the privatemedicine to flourish. So my only caution is, is that people see the healthcare rising -- I hope they don't leap to what sounds like a simple solutionthat would lead to a long-term problem for the country.Yes, sir.Q You may have noticed that transportation is an issue for us in thisarea, and --THE PRESIDENT:Actually, the helicopter didn't get stuck i