David Rodeback's Blog
Local Politics and Culture, National Politics,
Monday, February 6, 2006
The State of the Union Speech: Domestic Policy, except Education
The President mentioned immigration, energy independence, health care, and entitlements. So will I. There was even a good, positive Bill Clinton joke.
Here continue my notes on last Tuesday's State of the Union speech by President Bush. Why the delay, you wonder? Well, there was Groundhog Day to celebrate, and one must also attend to LBB occasionally. Life Beyond the Blog, that is.
Turning mostly to domestic matters in the latter part of the speech, President began with these insights. (No quibbles with these general expressions.)
There was talk of making temporary tax relief permanent (good) and cutting government programs that don't work (good if it happens). He expressed pleasure that Congress is talking about eliminating earmarks, which is very good, if it happens. I'll take my cue from the biblical Thomas here: I'll believe it when I see it.
Discussion of entitlements came next, bringing what I thought was the most humorous line of the speech:
I haven't read the talking heads' commentary on the speech yet, but I'm going to guess that some conservatives took the President to task for backing off from his earlier proposal to reform Social Security, which is basically dead, and proposing instead a commission to examine Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, in light of the looming crisis. We'll see how it goes, but I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Sometimes, if you find you're attacking with little effect, you back off and find a more vulnerable point to attack. Maybe this is the only way to get reforms through Congress; maybe not even this will work. It's too soon to tell.
I would like to have seen more substance on immigration. This is what we got:
In foreign policy, this President's words and actions have been closely linked. In domestic policy, and particularly with respect to immigration, there isn't much action to go with the talk. And he's still not touching an essential feature of any effective approach to illegal immigration: Making it difficult to live in the US as an illegal immigrant. If the illegals were unable to get driver licenses, wire money home (across the border), or access subsidized education, health care, etc., the problem at the border would be a lot more manageable. That said, I'm not opposed to immigrants, not in the least. But I am very much in favor of one of those core American values, the rule of law. I think we can have both: a healthy, abundant stream of legal immigrants and effective enforcement of prudent laws against illegals.
Let's now parse his paragraphs on health care. These are direct quotations, except for my comments in blue and in [brackets] and the "(applause)" notations.
Next topic: We're addicted to oil, not that that's news, and the President proposes to reduce that by 75 percent over the next 20 years, mostly by increasing research funding to develop new technologies. He said, "We are on the threshold of incredible advances." Could be, but you never really know until you actually have made the advances and look back.
I can imagine a more radical approach, though I'm not ready to advocate it. I think the political consequences would be catastrophic for the ruling party, for at least a decade, and we can't afford to have that other party ruling at all in their present condition. We can barely afford the party we have. Whatever the long-term advantages of energy independence, they may not be worth that price. But here it is, anyway.
If the President were really serious about making us independent of foreign oil, and if he were politically suicidal, he might try to fund the effort with a large gasoline tax, to help encourage the switch from gasoline to domestically produced ethanol, which obviously would not be taxed. But I doubt that Congress would ever pass such a thing; imagine the public outcry if gasoline were suddenly $5.00 per gallon, and most of it were tax! (Unlike the White House, the House and Senate don't have term limits, you know.) As a colleague noted, we'd want to avoid a tax on diesel, at least at first, to avoid crippling the transportation industry, but even so, the short-term cost of the transition to the average American consumer would be significant and in some cases very difficult to bear.
Imagine the pain of such a transition! Imagine the reprisals at the ballot box! We won't convert until we have no alternative -- in other words, when the actual price of gasoline goes up and stays a lot higher than it has lately. Meanwhile, I guess we'll see if "half measures," as Yevgeny Yevtushenko called them, will work at all, or if the problem will simply remain unsolved.
There was some talk of cultural and ethical matters, which you can read yourself, and I'll address my last topic, education, in my next post.
Copyright 2006 by David Rodeback.