It is wonderful to be back at GW. I want you to know that one of the
reasons that I worked so hard with Democrats and Republicans to keep the
government open was so that I could show up here today. I wanted to make
sure that all of you had one more excuse to skip class. (Laughter.)
Youfre welcome. (Laughter.)
I want to give a special thanks to Steven Knapp, the president of GW. I
just saw him -- where is he? There he is right there.
(Applause.)
We've got a lot of distinguished guests here -- a couple of people I want to
acknowledge. First of all, my outstanding Vice President, Joe Biden, is
here. (Applause.) Our Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, is in
the house. (Applause.) Jack Lew, the Director of the Office of
Mangement and Budget. (Applause.) Gene Sperling, Chair of the National
Economic Council, is here. (Applause.) Members of our bipartisan
Fiscal Commission are here, including the two outstanding chairs -- Erskine
Bowles and Alan Simpson -- are here. (Applause.)
And we have a number of members of Congress here today. I'm grateful
for all of you taking the time to attend.
What wefve been debating here in Washington over the last few weeks will
affect the lives of the students here and families all across America in
potentially profound ways. This debate over budgets and deficits is about
more than just numbers on a page; itfs about more than just cutting and
spending. Itfs about the kind of future that we want. Itfs about the
kind of country that we believe in. And thatfs what I want to spend some
time talking about today.
From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and
free enterprise as the engine of Americafs wealth and prosperity. More
than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant
people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.
But therefs always been another thread running through our history -– a
belief that wefre all connected, and that there are some things we can only do
together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican
President, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what
we cannot do as well for ourselves.
And so wefve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools
and universities to educate our citizens. Wefve laid down railroads and
highways to facilitate travel and commerce. Wefve supported the work of
scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed
repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire new
industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and wefre a
more prosperous country as a result.
Part of
this American belief that wefre all connected also expresses itself in a
conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security and
dignity. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives,
hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff may strike any one of
us. gThere but for the grace of God go I,h we say to ourselves. And
so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee
us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work;
unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and
Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor
children, those with disabilities. Wefre a better country because of these
commitments. Ifll go further. We would not be a great country
without those commitments.
Now, for much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these
investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens. As a
country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally borne a
greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less
fortunate. Everybody pays, but the wealthier have borne a little
more. This is not because we begrudge those whofve done well -– we rightly
celebrate their success. Instead, itfs a basic reflection of our belief
that those whofve benefited most from our way of life can afford to give back a
little bit more. Moreover, this belief hasnft hindered the success of
those at the top of the income scale. They continue to do better and
better with each passing year.
Now, at certain times -– particularly during war or recession -– our nation
has had to borrow money to pay for some of our priorities. And as most
families understand, a little credit card debt isnft going to hurt if itfs
temporary.
But as far back as the 1980s, America started amassing debt at more alarming
levels, and our leaders began to realize that a larger challenge was on the
horizon. They knew that eventually, the Baby Boom generation would retire,
which meant a much bigger portion of our citizens would be relying on programs
like Medicare, Social Security, and possibly Medicaid. Like parents with
young children who know they have to start saving for the college years, America
had to start borrowing less and saving more to prepare for the retirement of an
entire generation.
To meet this challenge, our leaders came together three times during the
1990s to reduce our nationfs deficit -- three times. They forged historic
agreements that required tough decisions made by the first President Bush, then
made by President Clinton, by Democratic Congresses and by a Republican
Congress. All three agreements asked for shared responsibility and shared
sacrifice. But they largely protected the middle class; they largely
protected our commitment to seniors; they protected our key investments in our
future.
As a result of these bipartisan efforts, Americafs finances were in great
shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was
actually on track to becoming completely debt free, and we were prepared for the
retirement of the Baby Boomers.
But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the
1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending
dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program -– but we
didnft pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem
worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts -– tax cuts that went to
every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to
borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.
To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our nationfs checkbook,
consider this: In the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for
the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be
at low historical levels in the coming years.
But thatfs not what happened. And so, by the time I took office, we
once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a Baby Boom
retirement that is now starting to take place. When I took office, our
projected deficit, annually, was more than $1 trillion. On top of that, we
faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that, like most recessions,
led us to temporarily borrow even more.
In this case, we took a series of emergency steps that saved millions of
jobs, kept credit flowing, and provided working families extra money in their
pocket. It was absolutely the right thing to do, but these steps were
expensive, and added to our deficits in the short term.
So thatfs how our fiscal challenge was created. Thatfs how we got
here. And now that our economic recovery is gaining strength, Democrats
and Republicans must come together and restore the fiscal responsibility that
served us so well in the 1990s. We have to live within our means. We
have to reduce our deficit, and we have to get back on a path that will allow us
to pay down our debt. And we have to do it in a way that protects the
recovery, protects the investments we need to grow, create jobs, and helps us
win the future.
Now, before I get into how we can achieve this goal, some of you,
particularly the younger people here -- you don't qualify, Joe.
(Laughter.) Some of you might be wondering, gWhy is this so
important? Why does this matter to me?h
Well, herefs why. Even after our economy recovers, our government will
still be on track to spend more money than it takes in throughout this decade
and beyond. That means wefll have to keep borrowing more from countries
like China. That means more of your tax dollars each year will go towards
paying off the interest on all the loans that we keep taking out. By the
end of this decade, the interest that we owe on our debt could rise to nearly $1
trillion. Think about that. That's the interest -- just the interest
payments.
Then, as the Baby Boomers start to retire in greater numbers and health care
costs continue to rise, the situation will get even worse. By 2025, the
amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our health care
programs -- Medicare and Medicaid -- Social Security, and the interest we owe on
our debt. Thatfs it. Every other national priority -– education,
transportation, even our national security -– will have to be paid for with
borrowed money.
Now, ultimately, all this rising debt will cost us jobs and damage our
economy. It will prevent us from making the investments we need to win the
future. We wonft be able to afford good schools, new research, or the
repair of roads -– all the things that create new jobs and businesses here in
America. Businesses will be less likely to invest and open shop in a
country that seems unwilling or unable to balance its books. And if our
creditors start worrying that we may be unable to pay back our debts, that could
drive up interest rates for everybody who borrows money -– making it harder for
businesses to expand and hire, or families to take out a mortgage.
Herefs the good news: That doesnft have to be our future. That
doesnft have to be the country that we leave our children. We can solve
this problem. We came together as Democrats and Republicans to meet this
challenge before; we can do it again.
But that starts by being honest about whatfs causing our deficit. You
see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but
like the stuff that it buys. Most of us, regardless of party affiliation,
believe that we should have a strong military and a strong defense. Most
Americans believe we should invest in education and medical research. Most
Americans think we should protect commitments like Social Security and
Medicare. And without even looking at a poll, my finely honed political
instincts tell me that almost nobody believes they should be paying higher
taxes. (Laughter.)
So because all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats
alike, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager
to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating
waste and abuse. Youfll hear that phrase a lot. gWe just need to
eliminate waste and abuse.h The implication is that tackling the deficit
issue wonft require tough choices. Or politicians suggest that we can
somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even
though foreign aid makes up about 1 percent of our entire federal
budget.
So herefs the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget -- two-thirds --
is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security.
Two-thirds. Programs like unemployment
insurance, student loans,
veteransf benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20
percent. Whatfs left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for
everything else. Thatfs 12 percent for all of our national priorities --
education, clean energy, medical research, transportation, our national parks,
food safety, keeping our air and water clean -- you name it -- all of that
accounts for 12 percent of our budget.
Now, up till now, the debate here in Washington, the cuts proposed by a lot
of folks in Washington, have focused exclusively on that 12 percent. But
cuts to that 12 percent alone wonft solve the problem. So any serious plan
to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take
on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget.
A serious plan doesnft require us to balance our budget overnight –- in fact,
economists think that with the economy just starting to grow again, we need a
phased-in approach –- but it does require tough decisions and support from our
leaders in both parties now. Above all, it will require us to choose a
vision of the America we want to see five years, 10 years, 20 years down the
road.
Now, to their credit, one vision has been presented and championed by
Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their
partyfs presidential candidates. Itfs a plan that aims to reduce our
deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years, and one that addresses the
challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.
These are both worthy goals. Theyfre worthy goals for us to
achieve. But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a
fundamentally different America than the one wefve known certainly in my
lifetime. In fact, I think it would be fundamentally different than what
wefve known throughout our history.
A 70 percent cut in clean energy. A 25 percent cut in education.
A 30 percent cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell Grants that will
grow to more than $1,000 per year. Thatfs the proposal. These arenft
the kind of cuts you make when youfre trying to get rid of some waste or find
extra savings in the budget. These arenft the kinds of cuts that the
Fiscal Commission proposed. These are the kinds of cuts that tell us we
canft afford the America that I believe in and I think you believe in.
I believe it paints a vision of our future that is deeply pessimistic.
Itfs a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we canft
afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive
and the will but not the money to go to college, we canft afford to send
them.
Go to China and youfll see businesses opening research labs and solar
facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and
science. Theyfre scrambling to figure out how they put more money into
education. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run
half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but on biofuels. And yet, we
are presented with a vision that says the American people, the United States of
America -– the greatest nation on Earth -– canft afford any of this.
Itfs a vision that says America canft afford to keep the promise wefve made
to care for our seniors. It says that 10 years from now, if youfre a
65-year-old whofs eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400
more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you
will get a voucher. And if that voucher isnft worth enough to buy the
insurance thatfs available in the open marketplace, well, tough luck -– youfre
on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.
Itfs a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health
insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. Who are these 50 million
Americans? Many are somebodyfs grandparents -- may be one of yours -- who
wouldnft be able to afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are
poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with
autism or Downfs syndrome. Some of these kids with disabilities are -- the
disabilities are so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the
Americans wefd be telling to fend for
themselves.
And worst of all, this is a vision that says even though Americans canft
afford to invest in education at current levels, or clean energy, even though we
canft afford to maintain our commitment on Medicare and Medicaid, we can somehow
afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think
about that.
In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of all
working Americans actually declined. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent saw
their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars
each. Thatfs who needs to pay less taxes?
They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut thatfs paid for by asking
33 seniors each to pay $6,000 more in health costs. Thatfs not
right. And itfs not going to happen as long as Ifm President.
(Applause.)
This vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the
basic social compact in America. Ronald Reaganfs own budget director said,
therefs nothing gserioush or gcourageoush about this plan. Therefs nothing
serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion
dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. And I don't think
therefs anything courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least
afford it and donft have any clout on Capitol Hill. That's not a vision of
the America I know.
The America I know is generous and compassionate. Itfs a land of
opportunity and optimism. Yes, we take responsibility for ourselves, but
we also take responsibility for each other; for the country we want and the
future that we share. Wefre a nation that built a railroad across a
continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a
generation to college on the GI Bill and we saved millions of seniors from
poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in
scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed
millions of lives. Thatfs who we are. This is the America that I
know. We donft have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one
where we forfeit our investment in our people and our country.
To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need
to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe
in. And as long as Ifm President, we wonft.
So today, Ifm proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in
deficit reduction over 12 years. Itfs an approach that borrows from the
recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission that I appointed last year,
and it builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed
in my 2012 budget. Itfs an approach that puts every kind of spending on
the table -- but one that protects the middle class, our promise to seniors, and
our investments in the future.
The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by
building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week. That step
alone will save us about $750 billion over 12 years. We will make the
tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs that I care
deeply about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments that we need to grow
and create jobs. We will invest in medical research. We will invest
in clean energy technology. We will invest in new roads and airports and
broadband access. We will invest in education. We will invest in job
training. We will do what we need to do to compete, and we will win the
future.
The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense
budget. Now, as Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than
protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise
our ability to defend our homeland or Americafs interests around the
world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said,
the greatest long-term threat to Americafs national security is Americafs
debt. So just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must
do the same in defense. And we can do that while still keeping ourselves
safe.
Over the last two years, Secretary Bob Gates has courageously taken on
wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I
believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and
improve efficiency and effectiveness, but wefre going to have to conduct a
fundamental review of Americafs missions, capabilities, and our role in a
changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs
on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after itfs
complete.
The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in
our budget. Now, here, the difference with the House Republican plan could
not be clearer. Their plan essentially lowers the governmentfs health care
bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our
approach lowers the governmentfs health care bills by reducing the cost of
health care itself.
Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit
by $1 trillion. My approach would build on these reforms. We will
reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on
prescription drugs by using Medicarefs purchasing power to drive greater
efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will
work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability
from Medicaid.
We will change the way we pay for health care -– not by the procedure or the
number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and
hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the
growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors,
nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and
recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access
to the services that seniors need.
Now, we believe the reforms wefve proposed to strengthen Medicare and
Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving
us $500 billion by 2023, and an additional $1 trillion in the decade after
that. But if wefre wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect,
then this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make
additional savings by further improving Medicare.
But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care
programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not
allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of
the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs.
I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to
fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not
abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for
generations.
That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While
Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term
challenges in a country thatfs growing older. As I said in the State of
the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security
for future generations. But we have to do it without putting at risk
current retirees, or the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without
slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americansf
guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market. And it can
be done.
The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code,
so-called tax expenditures. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts
for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax
hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of
tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. We canft
afford it. And I refuse to renew them again.
Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like
itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these
deductions, from homeownership to charitable giving, we canft ignore the fact
that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 but do nothing
for the typical middle-class family that doesnft itemize. So my budget
calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans
-- a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over 10
years.
But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. And thatfs
why Ifm calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair
and simple -- so that the amount of taxes you pay isnft determined by what kind
of accountant you can afford.
I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth,
and build on the fiscal commissionfs model of reducing tax expenditures so that
therefs enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I
called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as
well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.
So this is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 12
years. Itfs an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts
across the budget. It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1
trillion. It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in tax
expenditures -- spending in the tax code. And it achieves these goals
while protecting the middle class, protecting our commitment to seniors, and
protecting our investments in the future.
Now, in the coming years, if the recovery speeds up and our economy grows
faster than our current projections, we can make even greater progress than Ifve
pledged here. But just to hold Washington -- and to hold me ---
accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan
includes a debt failsafe. If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall
as a share of the economy -– if we havenft hit our targets, if Congress has
failed to act -– then my plan will require us to come together and make up the
additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the
tax code. That should be an incentive for us to act boldly now, instead of
kicking our problems further down the road.
So this is our vision for America -– this is my vision for America -- a
vision where we live within our means while still investing in our future; where
everyone makes sacrifices but no one bears all the burden; where we provide a
basic measure of security for our citizens and we provide rising opportunity for
our children.
There will be those who vigorously disagree with my approach. I can
guarantee that as well. (Laughter.) Some will argue we should not
even consider ever -- ever -- raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest
Americans. Itfs just an article of faith to them. I say that at a
time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a
century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I
donft need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesnft need another tax
cut. Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for
Medicare. Or by cutting kids from Head Start. Or by taking away
college scholarships that I wouldnft be here without and that some of you would
not be here without.
And herefs the thing: I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree
with me. They want to give back to their country, a country thatfs done so
much for them. Itfs just Washington hasnft asked them to.
Others will say that we shouldnft even talk about cutting spending until the
economy is fully recovered. These are mostly folks in my party. Ifm
sympathetic to this view -- which is one of the reasons I supported the payroll
tax cuts we passed in December. Itfs also why we have to use a scalpel and
not a machete to reduce the deficit, so that we can keep making the investments
that create jobs. But doing nothing on the deficit is just not an
option. Our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the
economy if we donft begin a process now to get our fiscal house in
order.
Finally, there are those who believe we shouldnft make any reforms to
Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, out of fear that any talk of change to
these programs will immediately usher in the sort of steps that the House
Republicans have proposed. And I understand those fears. But I
guarantee that if we donft make any changes at all, we wonft be able to keep our
commitment to a retiring generation that will live longer and will face higher
health care costs than those who came before.
Indeed, to those in my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a
progressive vision of our society, we have an obligation to prove that we can
afford our commitments. If we believe the government can make a difference
in peoplefs lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works -– by making
government smarter, and leaner and more effective.
Of course, there are those who simply say therefs no way we can come together
at all and agree on a solution to this challenge. Theyfll say the politics
of this city are just too broken; the choices are just too hard; the parties are
just too far apart. And after a few years on this job, I have some
sympathy for this view. (Laughter.)
But I also know that wefve come together before and met big challenges.
Ronald Reagan and Tip OfNeill came together to save Social Security for future
generations. The first President Bush and a Democratic Congress came
together to reduce the deficit. President Clinton and a Republican
Congress battled each other ferociously, disagreed on just about everything, but
they still found a way to balance the budget. And in the last few months,
both parties have come together to pass historic tax relief and spending
cuts.
And I know there are Republicans and Democrats in Congress who want to see a
balanced approach to deficit reduction. And even those Republicans I
disagree with most strongly I believe are sincere about wanting to do right by
their country. We may disagree on our visions, but I truly believe they
want to do the right thing.
So I believe we can, and must, come together again. This morning, I met
with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to discuss the approach that
I laid out today. And in early May, the Vice President will begin regular
meetings with leaders in both parties with the aim of reaching a final agreement
on a plan to reduce the deficit and get it done by the end of June.
I donft expect the details in any final agreement to look exactly like the
approach I laid out today. This a democracy; thatfs not how things
work. Ifm eager to hear other ideas from all ends of the political
spectrum. And though Ifm sure the criticism of what Ifve said here today
will be fierce in some quarters, and my critique of the House Republican
approach has been strong, Americans deserve and will demand that we all make an
effort to bridge our differences and find common ground.
This larger debate that wefre having -- this larger debate about the size and
the role of government -- it has been with us since our founding days. And
during moments of great challenge and change, like the one that wefre living
through now, the debate gets sharper and it gets more vigorous. Thatfs not
a bad thing. In fact, itfs a good thing. As a country that prizes
both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of
the most important debates that we can have.
But no matter what we argue, no matter where we stand, wefve always held
certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order to preserve our own
freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we canft just think about
ourselves. We have to think about the country that made these liberties
possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a
community. And we have to think about whatfs required to preserve the
American Dream for future generations.
This sense of responsibility -- to each other and to our country -- this
isnft a partisan feeling. It isnft a Democratic or a Republican
idea. Itfs patriotism.
The other day I received a letter from a man in Florida. He started off
by telling me he didnft vote for me and he hasnft always agreed with me.
But even though hefs worried about our economy and the state of our politics --
herefs what he said -- he said, gI still believe. I believe in that great
country that my grandfather told me about. I believe that somewhere lost
in this quagmire of petty bickering on every news station, the eAmerican Dreamf
is still alivecWe need to use our dollars here rebuilding, refurbishing and
restoring all that our ancestors struggled to create and maintainc We as a
people must do this together, no matter the color of the state one comes from or
the side of the aisle one might sit on.h
gI still believe.h I still believe as well. And I know that if we
can come together and uphold our responsibilities to one another and to this
larger enterprise that is America, we will keep the dream of our founding alive
-- in our time; and we will pass it on to our children. We will pass on to
our children a country that we believe in.
Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of
America. (Applause.)
END
2:31 P.M. EDT
April 13, 2011 12:51 PM EDT