State of the Union

Having just watched it, I suppose I'd ought to post a response like any good political student. First off, a very interesting feel to the entire speech- Bush had a half-smirk on his face for the entire speech; he gave an attitude almost of defiance. Someone with whom I watched commented, "He doesn't even care anymore." That might be going a little far, but I think what we might have seen tonight is a President that is truly living in his own political world, who no longer cares (even more than before) what anyone thinks of his ideas. Take his comments on taxes, for instance, saying that he would veto any raise in taxes (or repealing of his current tax breaks) sent his way. His jab at Bill Clinton was completely unnecessary- he said that for people who've said they're willing to pay higher taxes, the IRS takes checks and money orders. Bill Clinton made a strong point that as a wealthy man, he should pay higher taxes than the farmers he was talking to. In the end, Bush's plan to make the tax cuts permanent, along with the rest of his economic stimulus package, really make it seem as though he is truly underestimating the economy's problems.

Meanwhile, Bush made another unlikely proposal, to turn the deficit into a surplus by the year 2012. This is a noble goal, yes, and the means are just as noble (if questionable in terms of potential effectiveness)- removing 12 billion dollars of pork and wasteful projects from government funding and the budget. However, like many things he does, Bush took it too far. He announced he's be issuing an executive order that government agencies shouldn't follow any earmark slipped into a bill without debate in congress, as these pork requisitions usually are. But if every item in a bill is debated, the glacial pace at which congress currently moves will seem like a full sprint by comparison.

Bush trumpeted some successes of his last year, and as expected, the surge was the most important. “American and Iraqi surges have achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago," he said, invoking numbers of new Iraqi security forces, Al-Qaeda members killed, and the fact that 20 thousand troops will soon be coming home, which got the biggest applause of the night. He offered a warning to congress and the future President, as well- that the commanders, and only the commanders, should decide when troop levels should be reduced. It was tough to believe any positive comments he made about the "young democracy" in Afghanistan when, in the same sentence, he announced 3,000 new troops would be sent to the country. The two don't mesh, and I'm inclined to doubt the President's optimistic statements as a result.

Of course, there were good things about the speech. Bush made sure to differentiate between the American attitude towards the Iranian people and their leaders, which many Americans might not think of as very different. He wants to double AIDS relief to Africa, and if the money is spent well, this will be significant. And he is trying to reform some veteran care, including letting unused educational benefits be transferred to soldiers' spouses or children.

Two barely veiled commands made to congress included one for the Senate to confirm his Supreme Court Justice appointees faster and to extend the domestic wiretapping rights by this Friday. Here you see the President doing his best to influence Congress beyond his tenure- but based on the stark lack of Democratic enthusiasm during the speech, it seems unlikely this will have much effect. (Side note: Bush wants the US to continue to fund charitable choice, which funnels government money to religious organizations. Thanks, but no thanks- the words "church" and "state" come to mind for some reason...)

I wasn't impressed, though, by the Democratic response of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. While purporting to represent the response of the "American People" rather than just her party, the governor consistently prefaced her statements by referring to the Democratic majority and painting a picture that the Democrats could solve all the nation's problems if those pesky Republicans would just stay out of the way. “If more Republicans in Congress stand with us this year, we won’t have to wait for a new president to restore America’s role in the world, and fight a more effective war on terror," she said. Her ideas of stepping across partisan lines were noble- but she sure focused an awful lot on those partisan lines to make her point. In the end, she was very repetitive, contradictory, and offered little real substance.

I'm happy to discuss anything I said here with anyone, IM me at zkdoom or email me at zskineke@syr.edu. The transcript for the address can be helpful. Good night!