QuickPoll
Reader Feedback
Nick responds to "The Progressive D…"
Nate responds to "The Progressive D…"
chandani responds to "The Progressive D…"
Nick responds to "The Progressive D…"
Nate responds to "The Progressive D…"
chandani responds to "The Progressive D…"
I'll be forthcoming here: While the pundits are analyzing whether the president's speech will be politically successful, I really don't care. What I do care about is what direction this country takes over the next four years. In that spirit, here is a political analysis of my own political beliefs, as inspired by the State of the Union Address.
Before you start reading this, I recommend you go read the transcript over at MSNBC if you haven't yet[1]. Pay attention to what he suggests, and what issues he brings up.
And now, here we go. What follows is a list of the major issues, President Bush's position, as articulated in the State of the Union address, and my position. To some extent, I'm playing "devil's advocate." There is, in most cases, reasonable room for compromise between the two positions.
On Fiscal Responsibility:
President Bush:" I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline. I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009."
Connor: I agree with President Bush that reigning in spending is necessary and a good thing. However, "cut the deficit in half by 2009" is not really reigning in spending. See, next year's deficit is not something we have that we are trying to reduce. It's money that we are planning to spend next year that we don't have. I would recommend that the president sends congress a budget that keeps total expenses less than total income.
On Education:
President Bush:"Now we must demand better results from our high schools, so every high school diploma is a ticket to success. We will help an additional 200,000 workers to get training for a better career, by reforming our job training system and strengthening America's community colleges. And we will make it easier for Americans to afford a college education, by increasing the size of Pell Grants."
Connor: High school diplomas are so nearly ubiquitous now that the only way to make them a "ticket to success" is to either make unemployment nearly zero, or encourage a lot more students to drop out of school. I believe the former is a much more worthy goal. With respect to college tuition, increasing the size of Pell Grants is one of the less useful propositions that could be proposed. Instead of Pell Grants, it would be much more helpful to invest that money programs that would reduce college tuition across the board, making it affordable for everyone without the need for extensive financial aid programs.
On Civil Lawsuits:
President Bush: "Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back, by irresponsible class actions and frivolous asbestos claims — and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year."
Connor: I agree with the president that awards should not be paid out for meritless lawsuits. Fortunately, the Constitution already provides a means to determine which lawsuits are frivolous and which deserve awards -- a Jury. I support using this time-tested method, rather than handicapping the ability of the civil justice system to provide meaningful and effective verdicts.
On the Environment:
President Bush: "To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy. Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid, and more production here at home, including safe, clean nuclear energy. My Clear Skies legislation will cut power plant pollution and improve the health of our citizens. And my budget provides strong funding for leading-edge technology — from hydrogen-fueled cars, to clean coal, to renewable sources such as ethanol. Four years of debate is enough — I urge Congress to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign energy."
Connor: The goals the president lays out -- new alternative-fuel technology, cleaner power, renewable energy sources, and energy independence -- are all worthy goals which I support. Unfortunately, none of these things are the sticking points for the Clear Skies bill. President Bush could have gotten these goals into law four years ago, and could tomorrow, by divorcing the nearly universal principles he laid out in his speech and the more controversial parts that have held up the bill's passage into separate propositions. If he does this, I can almost guarantee that the things he has advocated in his speech would gain the support of nearly all of the bill's opponents.
On the Tax Code:
President Bush: "I have appointed a bipartisan panel to examine the tax code from top to bottom. And when their recommendations are delivered, you and I will work together to give this Nation a tax code that is pro-growth, easy to understand, and fair to all."
Connor: Everybody, except possibly tax attorneys, wants a simpler tax code. There is something to consider, though -- many of the elements that make the tax code complex are there specifically to encourage growth in the private sector. The numerous exemptions and deductions are the chief means by which the government can create targeted growth.
As for a "pro-growth," what does that mean, exactly? Growing the tax system? Deductions for buying steroids? Give us some details!
On Immigration:
President Bush: "It is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country, and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists."
Connor: Which jobs are we talking about here? Unemployment is high enough that labor for legal, minimum wage work is not difficult to find, and if you allow employers to pay them less than minimum wage, you are again cannibalizing jobs that Americans are willing to do. With respect to securing the border: Good idea; very difficult; very expensive.
On Social Security:
President Bush: "...a half century ago, about 16 workers paid into the system for each person drawing benefits....And instead of 16 workers paying in for every beneficiary, right now it's only about three workers — and over the next few decades, that number will fall to just two workers per beneficiary.
...
We must not jeopardize our economic strength by increasing payroll taxes. We must ensure that lower income Americans get the help they need to have dignity and peace of mind in their retirement. We must guarantee there is no change for those now retired or nearing retirement. And we must take care that any changes in the system are gradual, so younger workers have years to prepare and plan for their future.
...
If you are a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future."
Connor: Personally, when you talk about giving people personal ownership of the money they pay in payroll taxes, I don't consider that a "program", I consider it to be a "payroll tax reduction." Now, replacing Social Security with a payroll tax reduction isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it seems to me that President Bush's proposal has one fatal flaw: It begins by discussing how the number of workers per retiree is dropping, and then suggests a system that would effectively drop the number of workers per retiree to zero.
My proposition is a bit simpler than that, and without the contradictions: fix the social security tax at its current marginal rate, then pay out benefits proportional to the amount of money currently available in the system. This adds the advantage of a built-in wage adjustment -- as incomes go up, there's more money in the system, so benefits go up. If (heaven forbid) incomes go down, there's less money in the system, so benefits go down.
On Gays:
President Bush: "Government is not the source of [Americans' moral] values, but government should never undermine them.
Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."
Connor: I submit that it is not possible for governmental permissiveness to undermine any widely-held moral value, and the sanctity of marriage is no exception. Insofar as people adhere to a moral value, it will be reflected in society without governmental influence, and insofar as people do not believe in a moral value, it is a violation of principle for the federal government to legislate it. Just by logic, the absence of a civic law will not undermine any moral principle that actually exists in society.[2]
On Scientific Research:
President Bush: ...we must also ensure that scientific advances always serve human dignity, not take advantage of some lives for the benefit of others. We should all be able to agree on some clear standards. I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts...
Connor: Ethics are obviously important in research, however, from an ethical perspective, I have the same position on the use of embryos for scientific experimentation as I have on the use of animals to test products. The alternative is to experiment on conscious, sentient people. Embryos, which do not have brains, are neither conscious or sentient.
On Anti-Gang Programs
President Bush: "I propose a three-year initiative to help organizations keep young people out of gangs, and show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence. Taking on gang life will be one part of a broader outreach to at-risk youth, which involves parents and pastors, coaches and community leaders, in programs ranging from literacy to sports. And I am proud that the leader of this nationwide effort will be our First Lady, Laura Bush."
Connor: An anti-gang program is a noble endeavor, and although many such programs already exist, there is no reason that the president shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel. And, of course, who better to lead up a program for at-risk youth to "show young men an ideal of manhood," than the quintessential wealthy housewife.
On DNA Evidence:
President Bush: ...we are dramatically expanding the use of DNA evidence to prevent wrongful conviction. Soon I will send to Congress a proposal to fund special training for defense counsel in capital cases, because people on trial for their lives must have competent lawyers by their side.
Connor: If they can find the money for it (see "On Fiscal Responsibility" above), they they should, by all means, go ahead. It's worth mentioning, though, that the inexpensive methods for analyzing DNA aren't all that reliable, and that the expensive methods are... well... expensive.
On Foreign Policy:
President Bush: "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life. Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace."
Connor: I agree at the outset. We have no right to impose anything, form of government or otherwise, on anyone else. Unfortunately, that seems to directly contradict "our aim" as laid out in the last two sentences of the quote from the president. I believe it would be far more prudent (in terms of money and human lives), more expedient (assuming the ultimate goal is to reduce terrorism), and more credible (because we are allied with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Pakistan) to work with existing governments, democratic or not, to work on stemming terrorism in their own countries than to go about trying to convert countries to democracies by force.
If, however, reducing terrorism is not your foreign policy goal, and you are willing to put American lives at risk and pay inconceivably large amounts of money in perpetuity to play hero to people who, in all likelihood, would never know the difference, than I encourage you to support perpetual warfare to spread democracy.
On Israel and Palestine:
President Bush: "To promote this democracy, I will ask Congress for 350 million dollars to support Palestinian political, economic, and security reforms. The goal of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace is within reach — and America will help them achieve that goal."
Connor: This is a good goal that, it seems, has been a part of US foreign policy for... well, basically forever. Why stop now?
On Iraq
President Bush: "The new political situation in Iraq opens a new phase of our work in that country. At the recommendation of our commanders on the ground, and in consultation with the Iraqi government, we will increasingly focus our efforts on helping prepare more capable Iraqi security forces — forces with skilled officers, and an effective command structure. As those forces become more self-reliant and take on greater security responsibilities, America and its coalition partners will increasingly be in a supporting role."
Connor: I agree entirely. In the current state of Iraq, leaving before they can handle it on their own would spell disaster for the entire middle east, as well as the US. Our best option is to make sure they can handle it on their own as soon as possible.
On Church and State:
President Bush: "Thank you, and may God bless America."
Connor: Amen, brother!
[1] I strongly recommend reading the transcript from a news organization rather than the White House release. The White House releases the script as written, the news organization print it as delivered. The two have been known to differ slightly in the past.
[2] Murder, rape, fraud, etc. laws do not fall into this category because they exist not to maintain the public morality, but to protect direct victims from tangible harm.
two comments: