2 SOTUs

Last night there were two State of the Union addresses, and they offered radically different visions for America's future. One vision endorsed smaller government, permanent tax cuts, and individual liberty. The other approach offered a much more statist and paternalistic future for America, one where every possible problem, no matter how small, requires federal government action.

These two descriptions refer not to two addresses — one being George W. Bush's State of Union 2006 address and the other the Democratic response. Rather, these completely inconsistent messages were both part of the president's address.

Speaking from a free-market script, the president said we need to reform our tax code to move us closer to a simple and fair flat tax and to increase America's competitiveness. He also urged Congress to make his first-term tax cuts permanent. He proposed to reform Social Security. And in an effort to restore his administration's fiscal credibility, the president once again called on Congress to support a tough budget that reins in domestic spending by cutting 140 wasteful programs. He proposed to pass a line-item-veto measure and eliminate earmarks. These are welcome words, especially since the White House has a bleak track record on the issue of government spending.

Unfortunately, the president also used a New Deal script for part of his speech. Much of his time was used to propose over two-dozen new or expanded spending initiatives.

For instance, the president endorsed yet another massive intrusion into energy markets through a 22-percent increase in clean energy research and development; he also promoted the construction of new nuclear-power plants and the development of ethanol and of fuel made from the waste of plant crops. But if these technologies had real promise, the private sector would make the investments. There is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize biofuels that are not cost effective. Many studies have shown that they cost more than the current alternative.

Along the same line, the president wants to promote the development of alternative fuel for automobiles. This program will complete a 12-year federal effort to develop a hydrogen-based source of energy for automobile use. Do we need to remind the president that the program that preceded it — namely the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, lavishly funded for eight years under President Clinton — never produced the hybrid car we were promised? However, nonsubsidized hybrid cars produced by foreign automakers Honda and Toyota have been available to U.S. consumers since 2004.

The president also wants to boost federal "investment" in math and education in mathematics, science, and engineering. Why? First there is little correlation between spending and results. Also, surely the president doesn't believe that America became one of the world's leaders in technological innovation and scientific advancements because of big-government subsidies. In fact, it is because the U.S. government managed to reasonably refrain itself from interfering too much in these fields that our country is way ahead of countries like Japan and France, which rely on government funding.

So which speech should we believe: The small-government or big-government speech? Do we believe the message of budget restraint from the White House or the calls for spending increases on the president's favored programs? The track record does not leave much room for optimism. In the last five years, total spending has risen 40 percent — a figure larger than Clinton's two terms combined. Moreover, real discretionary spending increases in FY2002, FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005 are 4 of the 10 biggest annual increases in the last 40 years.

To his credit, last year the president proposed to cut funding for Amtrak, to rein in Medicaid, and eliminate or reduce 150 programs. However, when Congress came back to him in December with a spending bill accepting only $6 billion out of $16 billion proposed cuts, Bush happily signed the legislation while showering Congress with praises for being fiscally responsible.

So when the president says the administration is really committed to fiscal responsibility, one should not let hope triumph over experience.

Unfortunately, an ambiguous message can only be counterproductive at a time when Republicans are supposedly looking for a solution to the explosion of earmarks in the federal budget and lobbying extravagances. Why should members of Congress — whether Republicans or Democrats — accept any cuts to their programs if the president is not willing to sacrifice his pet interests like science?

The president also called for more government subsidies and tax preferences for health care. The truth is that the sad state of our health-care system is largely because government intervention and subsidies have created a system where consumers pay for only a tiny fraction of their health care — the "third-party payer" problem. And since market forces are not allowed to operate, it should not be surprising that costs are climbing. One need only compare the falling prices and increasing quality of cosmetic surgery and laser eye surgery (procedures where consumers actually pay the real cost) with the gross inefficiencies in the rest of the health-care system to see the damage of government intervention.

Some of the president's policies, such as health-savings accounts, have some potential to alleviate the "third-party payer" problem, but trying to fix a problem caused by government with a new government program is at most a second-best approach. Why not just try to reduce the existing level of subsidies?

Today it is impossible to square the president's rhetorical support for free markets and limited government with the long list of programs and new initiatives that he claims to support. If all this sounds familiar, it's because it is. Bill Clinton was a master of this strategy, declaring one minute that the era of big government was over and then the next minute proposing new government programs for every conceivable problem in society.

Muth's Truths
February 1, 2006

SOTU 2006: THE REMINDER SPEECH

If nothing else, this year's State of the Union speech, known inside the beltway as SOTU, served as a reminder to many conservatives why they are so darned displeased with much of President Bush's domestic agenda, but also why they had absolutely no choice but assure his re-election over Sen. John F. Kerry in 2004.

Fear is a powerful motivator. And unhappy conservatives in 2004 harbored a double-dose it as they trudged to the ballot box. Fear that John Kerry would be in charge of the war on terrorists. And fear that John Kerry would get to appoint Supreme Court justices. Their fears were well-founded and their decision was affirmed in President Bush's speech Tuesday night.

First, the easy part: SCOTUS. Which is Washington-speak for Supreme Court of the United States. The nation's two newest justices were featured and highlighted during the speech. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are clearly superior, well-qualified selections who will not be inclined to "legislate from the bench."

Had John Kerry been elected president in 2004, nothing close to these intellectual and philosophical judges would have been allowed within 200 miles of Democrat's short-list. We need no other evidence of this than the fact that John Kerry declared a filibuster on Sam Alito - from, as a White House spokesman noted with tongue planted firmly in cheek, a five-star ski resort in Switzerland. Because of George W's re-election, the Supreme Court has now decidedly moved a large step in the "right" direction. That alone was probably worth the vote in 2004.

But more importantly, there's the war on terrorists. After 9-11, there was a very real danger that the American public, absent any immediate or further attacks, would be lulled back into a sense of complacency about terrorism. And it has. Fortunately, the president and his administration have NOT. It would be very easy for George Bush, faced with both public apathy and public opposition, to "go wobbly" on the war on terrorists. To his great credit, he hasn't. And he doesn't apologize for it either. That's the primary reason conservatives sucked it up and cast their ballot for him in 2004. And it was the right decision.

Can you just imagine John Kerry saying the following things in his State of the Union address had he been elected POTUS, which is Washington-speak for President of the United States?

"If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone."

"There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat."

"Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning."

"The road to victory is the road that will take our troops home."

"(Decision to) decrease our troop levels (in Iraq)...will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, DC."

"Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy."

".(O)ur nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies, and stand behind the American military in its vital mission."

"If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaeda, we want to know about it - because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."

Contrast those statements with John Kerry's professed belief that the United States should only use military force to protect its interests and citizens if it gets permission from the United Nations. Kerry is the king of "retreat and defeat" crowd. He's the head moonbat. Cut-and-run would have become official U.S. policy. The Kerry doctrine would be, to paraphrase a line by actor Jim Carey in the "Liar, Liar" movie, "Hit me again, bin Laden...and this time put some stank on it!"

So yes, this year's SOTU was a clear reminder of the wisdom of keeping Teresa Heinz's "squeeze" out of the Oval office. But it also reminded conservatives of what is driving them nuts with this White House.

Let's start with immigration.

Or I should say, ILLEGAL immigration. The "illegal" part is the key part. And while President Bush talked tough about tightening our borders, he continued to insist that any such legislation include an amnesty component, though he also continues to insist his "guest worker" program is NOT an amnesty program.

The White House doesn't have a tin ear on this issue; it's DEAF. And it isn't just conservatives who want stricter border control without the amnesty...er, guest worker program. Citizens from sea to shining sea of all political stripes simply won't support any kind of "guest worker" program until they FIRST see serious and dramatic changes in how the nation's immigration laws are enforced. Period. End of story.

But there was an even more outrageous statement made by the president on this issue in the speech - and it shows that this White House still doesn't "get it," or doesn't want to get it. "We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy," the president said.

Bull! This is a dishonest cheap shot at opponents of his amnesty proposal. No one has said that immigrants are bad for the economy. However, quite a few folks have said that ILLEGAL immigrants are a drain on local, state and the national economies. And they are. That one word makes a BIG difference. The president clearly was trying to infer that anyone who opposed ILLEGAL immigration is ipso facto anti-immigrant. That kind of false statement and tactic should be below the President of the United States. But it wasn't. How disappointing.

Then there's the spending issue.

The president said, "I am pleased that members of Congress are working on earmark reform," a comment which caused Sen. John McCain to clap and bounce his head like Goofy on crack. "And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto."

No, Mr. President. We can tackle this problem if you would just use the veto power you ALREADY possess. You have yet to veto a single spending bill, including that earmark-loaded Porkapalooza highway bill last summer. You didn't need a line-item veto to erase the Bridge to Nowhere. All you needed was a Bic pen. You could have borrowed mine.

Then there was Social Security reform.

"Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security," the president said, receiving a hootin'-and-hollerin' standing "O" from the Democrats; his best line of the evening from their perspective. So what does the president propose to do about it THIS year? What any red-blooded politician would do in a similar situation, of course: Kick the can down the street by "creating a commission" to do the job our congress-critters were elected to do. That's leadership?

Back to spending.

Let's see, the president called for "a 22-percent increase in clean energy research," "to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences," a new training program for "70,000 high school teachers, to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science," "add resources to encourage young people to stay in school" and "provide new funding to states" for AIDS medicines.

All fine-sounding programs. But here's the gazillion dollar question: Exactly how much are these new programs going to cost us, and what are the "offsets" going to be to pay for them? Or are we just going to keep adding new spending programs on top of new spending programs without cutting out some old spending programs? Which will mean one of two things: (1) Higher taxes down the road to pay for the new programs, or (2) Bigger and bigger deficits. Neither or which are acceptable to conservatives. So again, where are the offsets?

And finally, education.

The president called for math and science course which are "rigorous enough to compete with other nations." Laudable goal. But does he really believe our government-run public schools can accomplish that? As John Stossel ("Stupid In America") would say, "Gimme a break."

If the president wants "schools that teach every child;" if he wants American students to excel and be able to compete with their peers in other countries; if he wants to assure that American kids get the kind of education which will help them "succeed in life" and thereby "ensure that America succeeds in the world," then he has no choice but to abandon his top-down No Child Left Behind program and push for true, meaningful school choice which empowers parents and breaks up the monopoly and stranglehold the educrats and teachers unions have on our school systems.

And that includes vouchers for EVERYBODY'S kids, not just the kids in the worst of the worse public schools. No matter what Teddy Kennedy says.

So yes, this year's State of the Union speech was a big reminder. A reminder of why we didn't elect John Kerry in 2004. And a reminder of what conservatives need to look for in a new presidential candidate in 2008.

______________________________________________________
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He may be reached at chuck@citizenoutreach.com.

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.