White House

TEXT: Obama’s Remarks on Deficit Plan — As Delivered

Add to Briefcase
National Journal Staff
Sept. 19, 2011, 7:19 a.m.

Cla­ri­fic­a­tion: Be­low is the text of the pres­id­ent’s re­marks as de­livered, fol­lowed by a re­marks re­leased be­fore he spoke in the Rose Garden.

Here are the pres­id­ent’s re­marks as de­livered:

Good morn­ing, every­body. Please have a seat.

A week ago today, I sent Con­gress the Amer­ic­an Jobs Act. It’s a plan that will lead to new jobs for teach­ers, for con­struc­tion work­ers, for vet­er­ans, and for the un­em­ployed. It will cut taxes for every small busi­ness own­er and vir­tu­ally every work­ing man and wo­man in Amer­ica. And the pro­pos­als in this jobs bill are the kinds that have been sup­por­ted by Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans in the past. So there shouldn’t be any reas­on for Con­gress to drag its feet. They should pass it right away. I’m ready to sign a bill. I’ve got the pens all ready.

Now, as I said be­fore, Con­gress should pass this bill know­ing that every pro­pos­al is fully paid for. The Amer­ic­an Jobs Act will not add to our na­tion’s debt. And today, I’m re­leas­ing a plan that de­tails how to pay for the jobs bill while also pay­ing down our debt over time.

And this is im­port­ant, be­cause the health of our eco­nomy de­pends in part on what we do right now to cre­ate the con­di­tions where busi­nesses can hire and middle-class fam­il­ies can feel a ba­sic meas­ure of eco­nom­ic se­cur­ity. But in the long run, our prosper­ity also de­pends on our abil­ity to pay down the massive debt we’ve ac­cu­mu­lated over the past dec­ade in a way that al­lows us to meet our re­spons­ib­il­it­ies to each oth­er and to the fu­ture.

Dur­ing this past dec­ade, prof­lig­ate spend­ing in Wash­ing­ton, tax cuts for multi-mil­lion­aires and bil­lion­aires, the cost of two wars, and the re­ces­sion turned a re­cord sur­plus in­to a yawn­ing de­fi­cit, and that left us with a big pile of IOUs. If we don’t act, that bur­den will ul­ti­mately fall on our chil­dren’s shoulders. If we don’t act, the grow­ing debt will even­tu­ally crowd out everything else, pre­vent­ing us from in­vest­ing in things like edu­ca­tion, or sus­tain­ing pro­grams like Medi­care

So Wash­ing­ton has to live with­in its means. The gov­ern­ment has to do what fam­il­ies across this coun­try have been do­ing for years. We have to cut what we can’t af­ford to pay for what really mat­ters. We need to in­vest in what will pro­mote hir­ing and eco­nom­ic growth now while still provid­ing the con­fid­ence that will come with a plan that re­duces our de­fi­cits over the long-term.

These prin­ciples were at the heart of the de­fi­cit frame­work that I put for­ward in April. It was an ap­proach to shrink the de­fi­cit as a share of the eco­nomy, but not to do so so ab­ruptly with spend­ing cuts that would hamper growth or pre­vent us from help­ing small busi­nesses and middle-class fam­il­ies get back on their feet.

It was an ap­proach that said we need to go through the budget line-by-line look­ing for waste, without short­chan­ging edu­ca­tion and ba­sic sci­entif­ic re­search and road con­struc­tion, be­cause those things are es­sen­tial to our fu­ture. And it was an ap­proach that said we shouldn’t bal­ance the budget on the backs of the poor and the middle class; that for us to solve this prob­lem, every­body, in­clud­ing the wealth­i­est Amer­ic­ans and biggest cor­por­a­tions, have to pay their fair share.

Now, dur­ing the debt ceil­ing de­bate, I had hoped to ne­go­ti­ate a com­prom­ise with the Speak­er of the House that ful­filled these prin­ciples and achieved the $4 tril­lion in de­fi­cit re­duc­tion that lead­ers in both parties have agreed we need — a grand bar­gain that would have strengthened our eco­nomy, in­stead of weakened it. Un­for­tu­nately, the Speak­er walked away from a bal­anced pack­age. What we agreed to in­stead wasn’t all that grand. But it was a start — roughly $1 tril­lion in cuts to do­mest­ic spend­ing and de­fense spend­ing.

Every­one knows we have to do more, and a spe­cial joint com­mit­tee of Con­gress is as­signed to find more de­fi­cit re­duc­tion. So, today, I’m lay­ing out a set of spe­cif­ic pro­pos­als to fin­ish what we star­ted this sum­mer — pro­pos­als that live up to the prin­ciples I’ve talked about from the be­gin­ning. It’s a plan that re­duces our debt by more than $4 tril­lion, and achieves these sav­ings in a way that is fair — by ask­ing every­body to do their part so that no one has to bear too much of the bur­den on their own.

All told, this plan cuts $2 in spend­ing for every dol­lar in new rev­en­ues. In ad­di­tion to the $1 tril­lion in spend­ing that we’ve already cut from the budget, our plan makes ad­di­tion­al spend­ing cuts that need to hap­pen if we’re to solve this prob­lem. We re­form ag­ri­cul­tur­al sub­sidies — sub­sidies that a lot of times pay large farms for crops that they don’t grow. We make mod­est ad­just­ments to fed­er­al re­tire­ment pro­grams. We re­duce by tens of bil­lions of dol­lars the tax money that goes to Fan­nie Mae and Fred­die Mac. We also ask the largest fin­an­cial firms — com­pan­ies saved by tax dol­lars dur­ing the fin­an­cial crisis — to re­pay the Amer­ic­an people for every dime that we spent. And we save an ad­di­tion­al $1 tril­lion as we end the wars in Ir­aq and Afgh­anistan.

These sav­ings are not only coun­ted as part of our plan, but as part of the budget plan that nearly every Re­pub­lic­an on the House voted for.

Fi­nally, this plan in­cludes struc­tur­al re­forms to re­duce the cost of health care in pro­grams like Medi­care and Medi­caid. Keep in mind we’ve already in­cluded a num­ber of re­forms in the health care law, which will go a long way to­wards con­trolling these costs. But we’re go­ing to have to do a little more. This plan re­duces waste­ful sub­sidies and er­ro­neous pay­ments while chan­ging some in­cent­ives that of­ten lead to ex­cess­ive health care costs. It makes pre­scrip­tions more af­ford­able through faster ap­prov­al of gen­er­ic drugs. We’ll work with gov­ernors to make Medi­caid more ef­fi­cient and more ac­count­able. And we’ll change the way we pay for health care. In­stead of just pay­ing for pro­ced­ures, pro­viders will be paid more when they im­prove res­ults — and such steps will save money and im­prove care.

These changes are phased in slowly to strengthen Medi­care and Medi­caid over time. Be­cause while we do need to re­duce health care costs, I’m not go­ing to al­low that to be an ex­cuse for turn­ing Medi­care in­to a vouch­er pro­gram that leaves seni­ors at the mercy of the in­sur­ance in­dustry. And I’m not go­ing to stand for bal­an­cing the budget by deny­ing or re­du­cing health care for poor chil­dren or those with dis­ab­il­it­ies. So we will re­form Medi­care and Medi­caid, but we will not aban­don the fun­da­ment­al com­mit­ment that this coun­try has kept for gen­er­a­tions.

And by the way, that in­cludes our com­mit­ment to So­cial Se­cur­ity. I’ve said be­fore, So­cial Se­cur­ity is not the primary cause of our de­fi­cits, but it does face long-term chal­lenges as our coun­try grows older. And both parties are go­ing to need to work to­geth­er on a sep­ar­ate track to strengthen So­cial Se­cur­ity for our chil­dren and our grand­chil­dren.

So this is how we can re­duce spend­ing: by scour­ing the budget for every dime of waste and in­ef­fi­ciency, by re­form­ing gov­ern­ment spend­ing, and by mak­ing mod­est ad­just­ments to Medi­care and Medi­caid. But all these re­duc­tions in spend­ing, by them­selves, will not solve our fisc­al prob­lems. We can’t just cut our way out of this hole. It’s go­ing to take a bal­anced ap­proach. If we’re go­ing to make spend­ing cuts — many of which we wouldn’t make if we wer­en’t fa­cing such large budget de­fi­cits — then it’s only right that we ask every­one to pay their fair share

You know, last week, Speak­er of the House John Boehner gave a speech about the eco­nomy. And to his cred­it, he made the point that we can’t af­ford the kind of polit­ics that says it’s “my way or the high­way.” I was en­cour­aged by that. Here’s the prob­lem: In that same speech, he also came out against any plan to cut the de­fi­cit that in­cludes any ad­di­tion­al rev­en­ues what­so­ever. He said — I’m quot­ing him — there is “only one op­tion.” And that op­tion and only op­tion re­lies en­tirely on cuts. That means slash­ing edu­ca­tion, sur­ren­der­ing the re­search ne­ces­sary to keep Amer­ica’s tech­no­lo­gic­al edge in the 21st cen­tury, and al­low­ing our crit­ic­al pub­lic as­sets like high­ways and bridges and air­ports to get worse. It would cripple our com­pet­ive­ness and our abil­ity to win the jobs of the fu­ture. And it would also mean ask­ing sac­ri­fice of seni­ors and the middle class and the poor, while ask­ing noth­ing of the wealth­i­est Amer­ic­ans and biggest cor­por­a­tions

So the Speak­er says we can’t have it “my way or the high­way,” and then ba­sic­ally says, my way — or the high­way. (Laughter.) That’s not smart. It’s not right. If we’re go­ing to meet our re­spons­ib­il­it­ies, we have to do it to­geth­er.

Now, I’m pro­pos­ing real, ser­i­ous cuts in spend­ing. When you in­clude the $1 tril­lion in cuts I’ve already signed in­to law, these would be among the biggest cuts in spend­ing in our his­tory. But they’ve got to be part of a lar­ger plan that’s bal­anced —- a plan that asks the most for­tu­nate among us to pay their fair share, just like every­body else.

And that’s why this plan elim­in­ates tax loop­holes that primar­ily go to the wealth­i­est tax­pay­ers and biggest cor­por­a­tions —- tax breaks that small busi­nesses and middle-class fam­il­ies don’t get. And if tax re­form doesn’t get done, this plan asks the wealth­i­est Amer­ic­ans to go back to pay­ing the same rates that they paid dur­ing the 1990s, be­fore the Bush tax cuts.

I prom­ise it’s not be­cause any­body looks for­ward to the pro­spects of rais­ing taxes or pay­ing more taxes. I don’t. In fact, I’ve cut taxes for the middle class and for small busi­nesses, and through the Amer­ic­an Jobs Act, we’d cut taxes again to pro­mote hir­ing and put more money in­to the pock­ets of people. But we can’t af­ford these spe­cial lower rates for the wealthy -— rates, by the way, that were meant to be tem­por­ary. Back when these first — these tax cuts, back in 2001, 2003, were be­ing talked about, they were talked about tem­por­ary meas­ures. We can’t af­ford them when we’re run­ning these big de­fi­cits.

Now, I am also ready to work with Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans to re­form our en­tire tax code, to get rid of the dec­ades of ac­cu­mu­lated loop­holes, spe­cial in­terest carve-outs, and oth­er tax ex­pendit­ures that stack the deck against small busi­ness own­ers and or­din­ary fam­il­ies who can’t af­ford Wash­ing­ton lob­by­ists or fancy ac­count­ants. Our tax code is more than 10,000 pages long. If you stack up all the volumes, they’re al­most five feet tall. That means that how much you pay of­ten de­pends less on what you make and more on how well you can game the sys­tem, and that’s es­pe­cially true of the cor­por­ate tax code.

We’ve got one of the highest cor­por­ate tax rates in the world, but it’s riddled with ex­cep­tions and spe­cial in­terest loop­holes. So some com­pan­ies get out pay­ing a lot of taxes, while the rest of them end up hav­ing to foot the bill. And this makes our en­tire eco­nomy less com­pet­it­ive and our coun­try a less de­sir­able place to do busi­ness.

That has to change. Our tax code shouldn’t give an ad­vant­age to com­pan­ies with the best-con­nec­ted lob­by­ists. It should give an ad­vant­age to com­pan­ies that in­vest in the United States of Amer­ica and cre­ate jobs in the United States of Amer­ica. And we can lower the cor­por­ate rate if we get rid of all these spe­cial deals.

So I am ready, I am eager, to work with Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans to re­form the tax code to make it sim­pler, make it fairer, and make Amer­ica more com­pet­it­ive. But any re­form plan will have to raise rev­en­ue to help close our de­fi­cit. That has to be part of the for­mula. And any re­form should fol­low an­oth­er simple prin­ciple: Middle-class fam­il­ies shouldn’t pay high­er taxes than mil­lion­aires and bil­lion­aires. That’s pretty straight­for­ward. It’s hard to ar­gue against that. War­ren Buf­fett’s sec­ret­ary shouldn’t pay a high­er tax rate than War­ren Buf­fett. There is no jus­ti­fic­a­tion for it.

It is wrong that in the United States of Amer­ica, a teach­er or a nurse or a con­struc­tion work­er who earns $50,000 should pay high­er tax rates than some­body pulling in $50 mil­lion. Any­body who says we can’t change the tax code to cor­rect that, any­one who has signed some pledge to pro­tect every single tax loop­hole so long as they live, they should be called out. They should have to de­fend that un­fair­ness — ex­plain why some­body who’s mak­ing $50 mil­lion a year in the fin­an­cial mar­kets should be pay­ing 15 per­cent on their taxes, when a teach­er mak­ing $50,000 a year is pay­ing more than that — pay­ing a high­er rate. They ought to have to an­swer for it. And if they’re pledged to keep that kind of un­fair­ness in place, they should re­mem­ber, the last time I checked the only pledge that really mat­ters is the pledge we take to up­hold the Con­sti­tu­tion.

Now, we’re already hear­ing the usu­al de­fend­ers of these kinds of loop­holes say­ing this is just “class war­fare.” I re­ject the idea that ask­ing a hedge fund man­ager to pay the same tax rate as a plumb­er or a teach­er is class war­fare. I think it’s just the right the thing to do. I be­lieve the Amer­ic­an middle class, who’ve been pres­sured re­lent­lessly for dec­ades, be­lieve it’s time that they were fought for as hard as the lob­by­ists and some law­makers have fought to pro­tect spe­cial treat­ment for bil­lion­aires and big cor­por­a­tions.

Nobody wants to pun­ish suc­cess in Amer­ica. What’s great about this coun­try is our be­lief that any­one can make it and every­body should be able to try -— the idea that any one of us can open a busi­ness or have an idea and make us mil­lion­aires or bil­lion­aires. This is the land of op­por­tun­ity. That’s great. All I’m say­ing is that those who have done well, in­clud­ing me, should pay our fair share in taxes to con­trib­ute to the na­tion that made our suc­cess pos­sible. We shouldn’t get a bet­ter deal than or­din­ary fam­il­ies get. And I think most wealthy Amer­ic­ans would agree if they knew this would help us grow the eco­nomy and deal with the debt that threatens our fu­ture.

It comes down to this: We have to pri­or­it­ize. Both parties agree that we need to re­duce the de­fi­cit by the same amount — by $4 tril­lion. So what choices are we go­ing to make to reach that goal? Either we ask the wealth­i­est Amer­ic­ans to pay their fair share in taxes, or we’re go­ing to have to ask seni­ors to pay more for Medi­care. We can’t af­ford to do both.

Either we gut edu­ca­tion and med­ic­al re­search, or we’ve got to re­form the tax code so that the most prof­it­able cor­por­a­tions have to give up tax loop­holes that oth­er com­pan­ies don’t get. We can’t af­ford to do both.

This is not class war­fare. It’s math. (Laughter.) The money is go­ing to have to come from some­place. And if we’re not will­ing to ask those who’ve done ex­traordin­ar­ily well to help Amer­ica close the de­fi­cit and we are try­ing to reach that same tar­get of $4 tril­lion, then the lo­gic, the math says every­body else has to do a whole lot more: We’ve got to put the en­tire bur­den on the middle class and the poor. We’ve got to scale back on the in­vest­ments that have al­ways helped our eco­nomy grow. We’ve got to settle for second-rate roads and second-rate bridges and second-rate air­ports, and schools that are crum­bling.

That’s un­ac­cept­able to me. That’s un­ac­cept­able to the Amer­ic­an people. And it will not hap­pen on my watch. I will not sup­port — I will not sup­port — any plan that puts all the bur­den for clos­ing our de­fi­cit on or­din­ary Amer­ic­ans. And I will veto any bill that changes be­ne­fits for those who rely on Medi­care but does not raise ser­i­ous rev­en­ues by ask­ing the wealth­i­est Amer­ic­ans or biggest cor­por­a­tions to pay their fair share. We are not go­ing to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vul­ner­able.

None of the changes I’m pro­pos­ing are easy or polit­ic­ally con­veni­ent. It’s al­ways more pop­u­lar to prom­ise the moon and leave the bill for after the next elec­tion or the elec­tion after that. That’s been true since our found­ing. George Wash­ing­ton grappled with this prob­lem. He said, “To­wards the pay­ment of debts, there must be rev­en­ue; that to have rev­en­ue there must be taxes; [and] no taxes can be de­vised which are not more or less in­con­veni­ent and un­pleas­ant.” He un­der­stood that deal­ing with the debt is — these are his words — “al­ways a choice of dif­fi­culties.” But he also knew that pub­lic ser­vants wer­en’t elec­ted to do what was easy; they wer­en’t elec­ted to do what was polit­ic­ally ad­vant­age­ous. It’s our re­spons­ib­il­ity to put coun­try be­fore party. It’s our re­spons­ib­il­ity to do what’s right for the fu­ture.

And that’s what this de­bate is about. It’s not about num­bers on a ledger; it’s not about fig­ures on a spread­sheet. It’s about the eco­nom­ic fu­ture of this coun­try, and it’s about wheth­er we will do what it takes to cre­ate jobs and growth and op­por­tun­ity while fa­cing up to the leg­acy of debt that threatens everything we’ve built over gen­er­a­tions.

And it’s also about fair­ness. It’s about wheth­er we are, in fact, in this to­geth­er, and we’re look­ing out for one an­oth­er. We know what’s right. It’s time to do what’s right.

Thank you very much.

Here’s the text of Pres­id­ent Obama’s let­ter to from Monday morn­ing:

This con­tin­ues to be a time of chal­lenge for our coun­try. We face an eco­nom­ic crisis that has left mil­lions of our neigh­bors job­less, and a polit­ic­al crisis that has made things worse. Mil­lions of Amer­ic­ans are look­ing for work. Across our coun­try, fam­il­ies are do­ing their best just to scrape by — giv­ing up nights out with the fam­ily to save on gas or make the mort­gage, or post­pon­ing re­tire­ment to send a child to col­lege.

These men and wo­men grew up with faith in an Amer­ica where hard work and re­spons­ib­il­ity paid off. They be­lieved in a coun­try where every­one gets a fair shake and does their fair share; they be­lieved that if you worked hard and played by the rules, you would be re­war­ded with a de­cent salary and good be­ne­fits. If you did the right thing, you could make it in Amer­ica.

For dec­ades now, Amer­ic­ans have watched that com­pact erode. They have seen the decks too of­ten stacked against them. And they know that Wash­ing­ton has not al­ways put their in­terests first. Too of­ten, our Na­tion’s cap­it­al has been con­sumed by par­tis­an­ship. Too of­ten, the needs of spe­cial in­terests or polit­ics have been put ahead of what is best for the coun­try.

That is what must change. The Amer­ic­an people work hard to meet their re­spons­ib­il­it­ies. Now, as the Na­tion faces an eco­nomy that is not grow­ing and cre­at­ing jobs as it should, so must its lead­ers. While the con­tin­ued re­cov­ery of our eco­nomy will be driv­en by the busi­nesses and work­ers across our land, poli­cy­makers in Wash­ing­ton can take steps to help Amer­ic­ans right now and set the most fa­vor­able con­di­tions we can for growth and job cre­ation for years to come. We can live with­in our means and in­vest for the fu­ture.

That is why last week I presen­ted to the Con­gress and the Amer­ic­an people the Amer­ic­an Jobs Act, to provide a jolt to the eco­nomy and give com­pan­ies con­fid­ence that if they in­vest and hire, there will be cus­tom­ers for their products and ser­vices. This jobs bill will put more people back to work and more money in the pock­ets of those who are work­ing. It will cre­ate more jobs for con­struc­tion work­ers, more jobs for teach­ers, more jobs for vet­er­ans, and more jobs for the long-term un­em­ployed. It will provide a tax break for com­pan­ies that hire new work­ers, and it will cut payroll taxes in half for every work­ing Amer­ic­an and every small busi­ness. It will cre­ate jobs for people to re­build our aging in­fra­struc­ture and re­pair and mod­ern­ize at least 35,000 schools. Moreover, the pro­pos­als in the Amer­ic­an Jobs Act are the kind of pro­pos­als that have been sup­por­ted by Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans in the past.

I am com­mit­ted to pay­ing for this jobs bill. The Budget Con­trol Act that I signed in­to law last month will cut an­nu­al Gov­ern­ment spend­ing by about $1 tril­lion over the next 10 years. It also charges the Joint Se­lect Com­mit­tee on De­fi­cit Re­duc­tion with find­ing an ad­di­tion­al $1.5 tril­lion in sav­ings. As part of this jobs bill, I am ask­ing the Con­gress to in­crease that amount so that it cov­ers the full cost of the Amer­ic­an Jobs Act. In ad­di­tion, I be­lieve that the Con­gress should seize the op­por­tun­ity that this new Com­mit­tee presents and do much more so that we can put the coun­try on a sus­tain­able fisc­al path, which is crit­ic­al for our long-term eco­nom­ic growth and com­pet­it­ive­ness.

For this reas­on, I am send­ing to the Con­gress this de­tailed plan to pay for this jobs bill and real­ize more than $3 tril­lion in net de­fi­cit re­duc­tion over the next 10 years. Com­bined with the ap­prox­im­ately $1 tril­lion in sav­ings from the first part of the Budget Con­trol Act, this would gen­er­ate more than $4 tril­lion in de­fi­cit re­duc­tion over the next dec­ade. This would bring the Na­tion to the point where cur­rent spend­ing is no longer adding to our debt and where our debt is no longer in­creas­ing as a share of our eco­nomy — an im­port­ant mile­stone on the way to restor­ing fisc­al dis­cip­line and mov­ing us to­ward bal­ance.

This plan is a bal­anced one that asks every­one to do their part. It in­cludes nearly $580 bil­lion in cuts and re­forms to man­dat­ory pro­grams of which $320 bil­lion is sav­ings from Fed­er­al health pro­grams such as Medi­care and Medi­caid. These changes are ne­ces­sary to main­tain the prom­ise of Medi­care as we know it.

The plan also real­izes more than $1 tril­lion in sav­ings over the next 10 years from our draw­downs in Afgh­anistan and Ir­aq. And the plan calls for the Con­gress to un­der­take com­pre­hens­ive tax re­form that lowers tax rates, closes loop­holes, boosts job cre­ation here at home, cuts the de­fi­cit by $1.5 tril­lion, and ob­serves the Buf­fett Rule — that people mak­ing more than $1 mil­lion a year should not pay a smal­ler share of their in­come in taxes than middle-class fam­il­ies pay.

To as­sist the Com­mit­tee in its work, I also in­cluded spe­cif­ic tax loop­hole closers and meas­ures to broaden the tax base. To­geth­er with the ex­pir­a­tion of the high-in­come tax cuts from 2001 and 2003, these meas­ures would be more than enough to reach this $1.5 tril­lion tar­get. They in­clude cut­ting tax pref­er­ences for high-in­come house­holds, elim­in­at­ing tax breaks for oil and gas com­pan­ies, clos­ing the car­ried in­terest loop­hole for in­vest­ment fund man­agers, and elim­in­at­ing be­ne­fits for those who use cor­por­ate jets.

In sum, the plan I am send­ing to the Con­gress today is a blue­print for how we can re­duce this de­fi­cit, pay down our debt, and pay for the Amer­ic­an Jobs Act in the pro­cess. I have little doubt that some of these pro­pos­als will not be pop­u­lar with those who be­ne­fit from these af­fected pro­grams. And some of these changes are ones that we would not make if it were not for our fisc­al situ­ation. But we are all in this to­geth­er, and all of us must con­trib­ute to get­ting our eco­nomy mov­ing again and on a firm fisc­al foot­ing.

After all, we are all con­nec­ted. No single in­di­vidu­al built Amer­ica on his or her own. We built it to­geth­er. We have been, and al­ways will be, “one Na­tion, un­der God, in­di­vis­ible, with liberty and justice for all.” We have al­ways been a people with re­spons­ib­il­it­ies to ourselves and with re­spons­ib­il­it­ies to one an­oth­er. This means that as Amer­ic­ans work hard to find a job, keep their busi­nesses afloat and grow, and provide for their kids, their rep­res­ent­at­ives in Wash­ing­ton must meet their re­spons­ib­il­it­ies and make the tough choices needed to get our eco­nomy back on track.

This plan lives up to a simple idea: as a Na­tion, we can live with­in our means while still mak­ing the in­vest­ments we need to prosper. It fol­lows a bal­anced ap­proach: ask­ing every­one to do their part, so no one has to bear all the bur­den. And it says that every­one — in­clud­ing mil­lion­aires and bil­lion­aires — has to pay their fair share.

These may be tough times for our coun­try, but I have a deep faith in the Amer­ic­an spir­it, and we are tough­er than the times we live in and big­ger than the polit­ics we have re­cently seen. If we all put par­tis­an­ship aside and roll up our sleeves, I have no doubt that we can meet the chal­lenges of the mo­ment and show the world once again why the United States of Amer­ica re­mains the greatest coun­try on Earth.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.