The State of Disunion
Posted by BrianI’ll give Bush a C+ for his State of the Union speech tonight, which is a fairly high mark for him these days. I consider the bulk of the domestic agenda he laid out to be pure rubbish. Fortunately very few of Bush’s SOTU proposals ever see the light of day.
Wasn’t it a year ago that Bush declared that we are addicted to oil? It took him a year to come up with some possible solutions?! One of the few points I am in concert with him on is raising fuel economy standards for automobiles to decrease our reliance on foreign oil. Decreasing our monetary support of unfriendly nations is a critical national security issue - one that calls for government intrusion into the free market process. Mandatory fuel economy improvement is a “least bad” way of achieving greater energy independence.
On healthcare front, Bush proposed taxing health care benefits for the first time, creating even more complexity in our shoddy income tax system. At first blush I would expect to see strong Democratic opposition to this plan. They’ll frame their disapproval by saying it doesn’t go to far or it shifts the burden to the employee, but those aren’t the real reasons. The real reason is their union base - many of whom receive 100% employer furnished health care plans. Many non-union workers have to pay some portion of the premium. Under Bush’s proposal those union members and others with very generous health care plans could see their taxes increase.
Immigration reform. Ugh. I am an advocate of simplifying the process for admitting both skilled and unskilled workers on either a temporary or permanent basis. I agree with Bush that it would relieve the pressure on the borders and allow federal agents to focus on people with nefarious intentions rather than people looking for work. I would like to see a free and open border with Mexico one day, although that is quite a ways from being realistic. But I cannot support granting amnesty (a rose by any other name…) to people who knowingly violated the sovereignty of our borders to get here.
Bush called for balancing the budget without raising taxes. Good idea - why didn’t you try that a few years ago. Shortly thereafter he announced a bundle of costly plans he would like to see implemented in the coming years. Increasing the Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 troops over five years. Creating a “Civilian Reserve Corps.” Funding for health problems in Africa. What programs are going to be put on the chopping block to balance the budget and make room for these plans?
One of the low points of the speech that really riled me up was when Bush called for earmark reform and pretended that none of the problem was his fault. First of all, he has sat in the Oval Office for six years and has never attempted to curb earmarks while his loyal patsies were in control of Congress. I guess that was the price that we paid for their seemingly blind allegiance to him. Now that Dems are in control Bush has magically found his economic Jesus. Bush had ample opportunity to veto at least one bill on the sole basis of unacceptable earmarks and he did not. Now he sanctimoniously stands in front of the whole country and claims ignorance!
Iraq. Nothing new there.
The Democratic response to the SOTU was provided by freshman Virginia Senator James Webb. I’ll admit I was eager to hear Mr. Webb. I’ve always thought he looks a little like the farmer from Men in Black after the alien cockroach takes over his body, but his (the senator’s, that is) credentials are impressive and he ran a good enough campaign to unseat an incumbent and possible presidential candidate. I thought he did an admirable job in his speech.
I’m more than a little tired of the “two Americas” populist rhetoric that he espoused. Webb also pointed out the items that have increased in cost after accounting for inflation in recent years, but he conveniently left out the many items that are more affordable now than ever.
Webb provided a restrained, but still rightly scathing, critique of Bush’s foreign policy and his management of the war. This particular field is clearly Webb’s strong suit.
Webb was able to strike a confident, almost adversarial (although I think that is too strong a word) tone. He made it known that the Dems’ political capital is much higher than the president’s at this point.
Related content:
January 24th, 2007 at 12:45 am
[...] –Ezra Klein:”He’s weak, and you sense he knows it. The speech hit the notes it needed to and no more. It was, this time, a formality, a book report bound and delivered to Congress, just as the assignment called for. He sought checkmarks for attendance and completion, and went home.” –The Jawa Report:”One of Bush’s better speeches. Which means the content was good, the delivery a bit lacking as usual…So do you think Nancy and Dick will become best friends after sharing that pack butterrum of Lifesavers during the speech? Hey, anything is possible.” –Powerline’s John Hinderaker:”I thought President Bush was back on his game tonight. The speech was a reminder that it’s a good thing to be President. When he offered a sentence about Iraq that ended with the word “victory,” the Democrats had no alternative but to stand up and cheer. Apart from the ceremonial trappings, there was a good reason why so many Senators and Congressmen had to voice their approval: the President’s logic was compelling. The importance of Iraq; the disastrous consequences of failure; the grave long-term stakes in the Global War on Terror; and the need to give our new strategy a chance to succeed, are all hard to dissent from.” –An interesting summary from No More Mister Nice Blog.. –Flashpoint:”I ’ll give Bush a C+ for his State of the Union speech tonight, which is a fairly high mark for him these days. I consider the bulk of the domestic agenda he laid out to be pure rubbish. Fortunately very few of Bush’s SOTU proposals ever see the light of day.” [...]