Posted on 01/22/2004 7:07:09 AM PST by Wolfstar
ED. NOTE: On Tuesday evening, January 20, 2004, the President of the United States gave one of the most conservative State of the Union addresses in at least a generation. For a SOTU speech, it had a remarkably short spending wish list. Instead, it had passages such as those excerpted below — none of which would have been spoken by a Democrat or liberal (i.e., Leftist), or even a "RINO." Check it out:
[BEGIN EXCERPTS: Bold/underscore emphasis by Wolfstar]
Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11th, 2001 — over two years without an attack on American soil. And it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting — and false.
[SNIP]
The once all-powerful ruler of Iraq was found in a hole, and now sits in a prison cell. Of the top 55 officials of the former regime, we have captured or killed 45. Our forces are on the offensive, leading over 1,600 patrols a day and conducting an average of 180 raids a week. We are dealing with these thugs in Iraq, just as surely as we dealt with Saddam Hussein's evil regime.
Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons.
[SNIP]
Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America.
Many of our troops are listening tonight. And I want you and your families to know: America is proud of you. And my administration, and this Congress, will give you the resources you need to fight and win the war on terror.
I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all. They view terrorism more as a crime, a problem to be solved mainly with law enforcement and indictments. After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted and tried and convicted, and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.
[SNIP]
Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands — (applause) — Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices.
From the beginning, America has sought international support for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.
We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare. Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.
[SNIP]
In the last three years, adversity has also revealed the fundamental strengths of the American economy. We have come through recession, and terrorist attack, and corporate scandals, and the uncertainties of war. And because you acted to stimulate our economy with tax relief, this economy is strong, and growing stronger.
You have doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reduced the marriage penalty, begun to phase out the death tax, reduced taxes on capital gains and stock dividends, cut taxes on small businesses, and you have lowered taxes for every American who pays income taxes.
Americans took those dollars and put them to work, driving this economy forward. The pace of economic growth in the third quarter of 2003 was the fastest in nearly 20 years; new home construction, the highest in almost 20 years; home ownership rates, the highest ever. Manufacturing activity is increasing. Inflation is low. Interest rates are low. Exports are growing. Productivity is high, and jobs are on the rise.
These numbers confirm that the American people are using their money far better than government would have — and you were right to return it.
[SNIP]
We're requiring higher standards [in schools]. We are regularly testing every child on the fundamentals. We are reporting results to parents, and making sure they have better options when schools are not performing.
[SNIP]
We must continue to pursue an aggressive, pro-growth economic agenda. Congress has some unfinished business on the issue of taxes. The tax reductions you passed are set to expire. Unless you act — (applause) — unless you act — unless you act, the unfair tax on marriage will go back up. Unless you act, millions of families will be charged $300 more in federal taxes for every child. Unless you act, small businesses will pay higher taxes. Unless you act, the death tax will eventually come back to life. Unless you act, Americans face a tax increase. What Congress has given, the Congress should not take away. For the sake of job growth, the tax cuts you passed should be permanent.
Our agenda for jobs and growth must help small business owners and employees with relief from needless federal regulation, and protect them from junk and frivolous lawsuits.
Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run — so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
My administration is promoting free and fair trade to open up new markets for America's entrepreneurs and manufacturers and farmers — to create jobs for American workers. Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people.
[SNIP]
In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland, and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent. This will require that Congress focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending, and be wise with the people's money. By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.
Tonight, I also ask you to reform our immigration laws so they reflect our values and benefit our economy.
[SNIP]
I oppose amnesty, because it would encourage further illegal immigration, and unfairly reward those who break our laws. My temporary worker program will preserve the citizenship path for those who respect the law, while bringing millions of hardworking men and women out from the shadows of American life.
[ED. NOTE: The precedent for guest worker programs goes back at least to the Eisenhower administration.]
[SNIP]
In January of 2006, seniors can get prescription drug coverage under Medicare. For a monthly premium of about $35, most seniors who do not have that coverage today can expect to see their drug bills cut roughly in half. Under this reform, senior citizens will be able to keep their Medicare just as it is, or they can choose a Medicare plan that fits them best — just as you, as members of Congress, can choose an insurance plan that meets your needs. And starting this year, millions of Americans will be able to save money tax-free for their medical expenses in a health savings account.
[SNIP]
On the critical issue of health care, our goal is to ensure that Americans can choose and afford private health care coverage that best fits their individual needs.
[SNIP]
Small businesses should be able to band together and negotiate for lower insurance rates, so they can cover more workers with health insurance. I urge you to pass association health plans. I ask you to give lower-income Americans a refundable tax credit that would allow millions to buy their own basic health insurance.
[SNIP]
To protect the doctor-patient relationship, and keep good doctors doing good work, we must eliminate wasteful and frivolous medical lawsuits. And tonight I propose that individuals who buy catastrophic health care coverage, as part of our new health savings accounts, be allowed to deduct 100 percent of the premiums from their taxes.
A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more Americans afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that makes America's health care the best in the world.
[SNIP]
One of the worst decisions our children can make is to gamble their lives and futures on drugs. Our government is helping parents confront this problem with aggressive education, treatment, and law enforcement. Drug use in high school has declined by 11 percent over the last two years. Four hundred thousand fewer young people are using illegal drugs than in the year 2001.
[SNIP]
A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
[SNIP]
It's also important to strengthen our communities by unleashing the compassion of America's religious institutions. Religious charities of every creed are doing some of the most vital work in our country — mentoring children, feeding the hungry, taking the hand of the lonely. Yet government has often denied social service grants and contracts to these groups, just because they have a cross or a Star of David or a crescent on the wall. By executive order, I have opened billions of dollars in grant money to competition that includes faith-based charities. Tonight I ask you to codify this into law, so people of faith can know that the law will never discriminate against them again.
[SNIP]
The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable — and it is not carried forward by our power alone. We can trust in that greater power who guides the unfolding of the years. And in all that is to come, we can know that His purposes are just and true.
[END EXCERPTS]
Einstein supported socialism. I'm not sure that's something I'd want to aspire to.
The only rationale you laid out for me for voting for Bush, as implied in your initial derisive rant, is that otherwise, I would be helping the Democrat. There are good things about Bush: he's fighting terrorism abroad, he freed Iraq, and he cut taxes. However, he also signed campaign finance reform, the so-called PATRIOT act, and an expensive additional medicare entitlement. The deficit for this fiscal year alone is projected to be 500 billion dollars.
You call me unappaeasable. At this point in time, you might say I'm guilty as charged. However, I'm not completely so. If Bush would renounce his repressive, big-spending ways and take some concrete steps to correct them, I could see voting for him again this November. However, until then, I refuse to carry water for him, and I certainly refuse to roll over for narrow-minded Republi-bigots like you.
Well ,Churchill did once, too. Ah well. Well, seriously, what do you aspire to? You make a strong stand and work hard to do it, so I'd say whatever you want to do.
Hardly sounds like a socialist viewpoint to me.
But, I guess if people can quibble about the meaning of Is, they can sure parse the meaning of freedom too.
But, the reality is a third party candidate WILL NOT win.
So, the practical outcome boils down to Bush or a Democrat (Kerry/Dean/Edwards/Clark). Even with his major faux pas, choosing between Bush and any of the others is an easy decision for me.
Supporting any other candidate's victory over Bush might lead to the classic Pyrrhic Victory, a battle so costly, that it wasn't worth winning.
He's not my ideal candidate - but, unless something drastic changes between now and November - I'll vote for Bush.
But we have seen Jose Padilla. Even though he probably is a dangerous terrorist, he is a U.S. citizen and it was wrong to hold him for two years until letting him finally see an attorney recently, and still no charges.
And, the scary part, in this day and age, we just DON'T KNOW what the government is doing to analyze us and our behaviors, the volumes of data they are collecting on us using those massive computers they have.
And the scariest part of all, is to make this law permanent -- can you imagine how it would be in the hands of somebody like Hillary (800 FBI files, WH travel office and Craig Livingstone) and Janet Reno (Waco, Elian, etc.).
In fact, we don't know what Dubya will do with it after he doesn't have to run for reelection ??
Who would've ever thought he would sign CFR ??
We don't need no stinkin' Patriot Act - this country got along fine without it for more than 200 years. In my view, the Constitution gives our government all the tools it needs to fight terrorism, at home and abroad.
I'll accept that.The Patriot Act came into being because the Peepul, with whipping from the Dems and the Media, demanded to be "safe" and so it goes...
Your fears about Hillary! are well founded and something I considered when the Act was proposed. .CFR was a political calculation gone wrong,nothing more, nothing less.
Are you saying that the Federal Government is not responsible for national standards or that a majority of conservatives are experts on the bill. The supreme court has already established through many rulings that the federal government, under the commerce clause, is responsible for setting national standards, thus the national standards on weights, measures, time, etc. The only question then becomes whether there should be a national standard that a high school diploma should meet. The conservatives I have contact with don't argue against it. I would entertain arguments though.
An interesting side note, the Va. House of Delegates, which is quite conservative and completely dominated by Republicans, just voted 99-1 to ask Congress to exempt the state from No Child Left Behind. The conservatives in the HOD said the act "represents the most sweeping intrusions into state and local control of education in the history of the United States" and will cost "millions of dollars that Virginia does not have." They say the federal plan is also undermining Virginia's own Standards of Learning, which educators and politicians alike say are among the toughest in the U.S.
Very sweeping statements, very light on details. Details please? What does the bill contain that is counter to what Virginia is trying to do in the first place?
The article says one of the "hoops" is "adequate yearly progress." Even some of the state's top schools can be judged to not be making adequate yearly progress simply because their standards were so high to begin with. If you don't make adequate yearly progress then you might have to pay to send a child to a school that has. The problem with this is that in some rural areas the next closest school is more than an hour away (in really rural states it can be hours and hours away) and THAT school might not have made adequate progress either.
So, are you saying you think the bill says that a school that is meeting the standards could be held at fault for not making adequate yearly progress toward the standards? Doesn't make sense.
You follow that by saying that parents would force school systems to send their children to a school hours away when that school is no better or worse than their current school. Exactly why would the parents want to subject their children to the hours of travel for no apparent gain?
And in some urban areas the closest schools that have made the progress are already horribly overcrowded. So do you send in a pile of new students, which would almost certainly damage the education of the kids already there?
I will admit to not being a lawyer, only having had business law classes, I won't swear to knowing the complete legal ramification bills, but no one has shown me anything in the bill which under closer examination required schools to accept students which they were not capable of handling.
Another problem is that No Child Left Behind expects ALL children, even ones who are severely learning disabled, to meet the same standards. As a teacher, I'm sure your wife can tell you that is not logical, nor is it possible.
Actually my wife teaches reading enrichment and Dyslexia students. She believes that the most striking progress didn't take place until after the exemptions for learning disabilities were removed. Until then, schools used the exemptions to hide behind. Now the delivery of the test is modified to address the disability, but all students are tested and all students are part of the final result. She literally cursed about the stupidity of it before hand and loves it after seeing it implemented. School administrators hate it, but schools aren't supposed to be about making the administrators happy, are they?
I don't pretend to be happy with the total dollar figures associated with the bill. Unfortunately, I think those dollar figures or more would be present under any administration given the current political climate. So, I look past the dollars to the other elements of the bill. Those I believe set the framework for accountability so that in the years to come we will at least have accountability for the dollars being spent. When there is accountability, improvement is possible. Without accountability, no improvement will take place.
As you know, to graduate HS, students must pass a comprehensive Standards of Learning (SOL) test.
And under the No Child Left Behind Act -- schools also are "graded."
The bill proposed suggests that a student attending a "failed" school, who also fails his/her SOL test, be given a diploma anyway.
Now, isn't that the limit of irony (stupidity) -- the state (commonwealth) sends a kid to a failing school, doesn't teach him adequately to pass the SOL, and then they send out the door into a cruel world with a diploma that is meaningless.
Maybe, instead they ought to use these metrics to identify a kid who has been shortchanged and needs remedial education, until he can pass the SOL, and then send him into the world with a credential that truly means he really can read, write and cipher at some minimal level.
That's wrong. There is a separate clause in the Constitution specifically empowering Congress to establish a system of weights and measures. It was therefore not intended to be comprehended under the commerce clause. And, there is absolutely no comparison between setting a legal standard for weight, and requiring schools to perform in a certain manner. Likewise, no one can legitimately claim that education is "commerce". See United States vs. Lopez.
If the federal government was empowered ONLY to establish reasonable standards for national accreditation, it might not be so bad.
Unfortunately, creeping socialism and slippery slopes lead to more than "standards."
Pretty soon the Feds want to establish curricula, and then tell the states how to teach it.
We don't need the feds telling states how to suck eggs on education.
If a state can't (or won't) teach its kids (Arkansas, Mississippi, West Virginia, et al) -- don't live there, let 'em suffer economically, eventually the people will demand they amend their ways.
There's no reason for some taxpayer in Red Lodge, Montana to be paying for public schools in Charleston, West Virginia (To the chagrin of Sen Wrong !! Robert Byrd.
Sort of a tough love program for states and their citizens.
The 10th Amendment establishes more than States Rights, it implies duties and responsibilities for the states as well.
Better yet, they might just fire the state from the job and start educating their kids themselves. That's the outcome I've got my fingers crossed for.
”So you think George W. Bush is not a conservative?”
Yes, I think George W. Bush is not a conservative.
But, I’m going for him anyway, because he is not as liberal as any of potential Democrat nominees. And, a third party candidate has no chance of winning the election.
I reserve the right to change my mind.
2,000 is enough - let's let this thread die.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.