State of the Union
Better late than never... I didn't get a chance to watch the entire speech until today. But even though it has been a couple days since the address was broadcasted, analysis of the speech by the MSM and bloggers alike has been ongoing. Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo in particular has been following up on Bush's Social Security rant quite well.
Amidst all of the usual Republican ideals we've all come to expect Bush to put forth in his speech (less taxes for government programs and less regulations on small businesses, progress on No Child Left Behind, more affordable yet more individualized healthcare, etc.), the State of the Union still had a couple of sticking points.
The first thing I caught onto was the President's bit about supporting renewable energy sources.
"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."
Less dependent on foreign energy, eh? Of course, the first thing that came to mind here was the fact that the entire Bush family is in bed with the Saudis (sorry, I know that's a liberal stereotype). Of course, neoconservatives within the Bush administration might argue that through a partnership with a pro-U.S. democracy in Iraq, we may be able to wean ourselves off of Saudi oil, which in turn may lead to a confrontation with them over the funding of Islamic terrorists. Of course, at this point the Bush administration probably still considers Saudi Arabia an "ally" in the war on terror, which doesn't get us anywhere. Yet still, is not Iraqi oil considered foreign oil? When one considers Bush's statement, the implication is that essentially America will have to slowly detach itself from its obsession with big cars. Fubar! Everyone knows that Republicans (at least in my town) are the kings of SUV's. So what is Bush really saying?
The hottest topic on the domestic agenda was, of course, Social Security.
"The goal here [regarding privatization] is greater security in retirement, so we will set careful guidelines for personal accounts. We will make sure the money can only go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds. We will make sure that your earnings are not eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees."
Wait, what? Mixing Social Security with the Stock Market? Something doesn't sound right here. Let's face it, people are dumb. What is bound to happen is that people are going to make the wrong choices when it comes to investments and then in the blink of an eye, their entire savings will be drained. Then who's gonna pick up the tab? The federal government? I think not. Clearly, there should be reform if the system will go bankrupt. However, I don't believe that privatization is the answer. The equation seems simple to me (then again, I'm not a politician so everything seems more simple). If more people are living longer, then the retirement age and/or qualifications for benefits must be adjusted to fit.
Now, on to the good stuff...
"America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
My honest opinion is that I think it would be best to take this guy seriously after the success of the Iraqi elections.
"...the victory of freedom in Iraq will strengthen a new ally in the war on terror, inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, bring more hope and progress to a troubled region, and thereby lift a terrible threat from the lives of our children and grandchildren."
It is clear from this speech that Bush's spectrum of freedom is widening. Only now are we beginning to truly understand the grand scheme of things. The democratic victory in Iraq was good for its people, but it was also meant to send a message to the rest of the region. Sure, that was always in the back of my mind in the two years the U.S. has been in Iraq (through all the toil in Fallujah as well), but suddenly now it seems like the entire concept has been given a violent shove to the forefront. Are we really talking about a grand awakening of the masses in the Middle East? Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan...Bush is seemingly hinging a huge part of his presidential legacy on the desire of the Islamic world to be rid of tyranny and despotism, with or without the involvement of the U.S. military. Interesting times indeed.
Finally, I wanted to make a note of the embrace between Iraqi human rights activist Safia Taleb al-Suhail and Janet Norwood, the mother of a Marine killed in Iraq. This was a highlight of the event to be sure. The symbolic nature of the encounter was definitely moving. Two women from totally different backgrounds, both grateful to each other for making their sacrifice worthwhile. I was inclined to applaud as well.
Amidst all of the usual Republican ideals we've all come to expect Bush to put forth in his speech (less taxes for government programs and less regulations on small businesses, progress on No Child Left Behind, more affordable yet more individualized healthcare, etc.), the State of the Union still had a couple of sticking points.
The first thing I caught onto was the President's bit about supporting renewable energy sources.
"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."
Less dependent on foreign energy, eh? Of course, the first thing that came to mind here was the fact that the entire Bush family is in bed with the Saudis (sorry, I know that's a liberal stereotype). Of course, neoconservatives within the Bush administration might argue that through a partnership with a pro-U.S. democracy in Iraq, we may be able to wean ourselves off of Saudi oil, which in turn may lead to a confrontation with them over the funding of Islamic terrorists. Of course, at this point the Bush administration probably still considers Saudi Arabia an "ally" in the war on terror, which doesn't get us anywhere. Yet still, is not Iraqi oil considered foreign oil? When one considers Bush's statement, the implication is that essentially America will have to slowly detach itself from its obsession with big cars. Fubar! Everyone knows that Republicans (at least in my town) are the kings of SUV's. So what is Bush really saying?
The hottest topic on the domestic agenda was, of course, Social Security.
"The goal here [regarding privatization] is greater security in retirement, so we will set careful guidelines for personal accounts. We will make sure the money can only go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds. We will make sure that your earnings are not eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees."
Wait, what? Mixing Social Security with the Stock Market? Something doesn't sound right here. Let's face it, people are dumb. What is bound to happen is that people are going to make the wrong choices when it comes to investments and then in the blink of an eye, their entire savings will be drained. Then who's gonna pick up the tab? The federal government? I think not. Clearly, there should be reform if the system will go bankrupt. However, I don't believe that privatization is the answer. The equation seems simple to me (then again, I'm not a politician so everything seems more simple). If more people are living longer, then the retirement age and/or qualifications for benefits must be adjusted to fit.
Now, on to the good stuff...
"America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
My honest opinion is that I think it would be best to take this guy seriously after the success of the Iraqi elections.
"...the victory of freedom in Iraq will strengthen a new ally in the war on terror, inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, bring more hope and progress to a troubled region, and thereby lift a terrible threat from the lives of our children and grandchildren."
It is clear from this speech that Bush's spectrum of freedom is widening. Only now are we beginning to truly understand the grand scheme of things. The democratic victory in Iraq was good for its people, but it was also meant to send a message to the rest of the region. Sure, that was always in the back of my mind in the two years the U.S. has been in Iraq (through all the toil in Fallujah as well), but suddenly now it seems like the entire concept has been given a violent shove to the forefront. Are we really talking about a grand awakening of the masses in the Middle East? Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan...Bush is seemingly hinging a huge part of his presidential legacy on the desire of the Islamic world to be rid of tyranny and despotism, with or without the involvement of the U.S. military. Interesting times indeed.
Finally, I wanted to make a note of the embrace between Iraqi human rights activist Safia Taleb al-Suhail and Janet Norwood, the mother of a Marine killed in Iraq. This was a highlight of the event to be sure. The symbolic nature of the encounter was definitely moving. Two women from totally different backgrounds, both grateful to each other for making their sacrifice worthwhile. I was inclined to applaud as well.
posted by Remz Pokorny @ 10:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home