My Take I wanted to think about the State of the Union speech a few days before I commented on it. My initial reaction wasn't the same as many others, so I wanted to consider my opinion for a day. I haven't changed it a bit, but frankly, I wonder what speech others were watching, 'cause I just don't see how this could be as praised and as panned as has been done.
The speech was mediocre. But here is a big caveat: it needed to be great. In the last 10 years, only the State of the Union speech given in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks was more important. Obviously, the country is uncertain about the need for war, but the economic uncertainty is weighing even more heavily. At least here in Ohio, the economy feels worse than the official numbers indicate. A President taking bold steps to deal with the problems people face daily would have done wonders for confidence. The President could have gotten a tiny economic boost with out spending even a dollar, simply by addressing the weaknesses in the economy head on. He could have done this and still delivered the message that he wanted on Iraq. He backed away from the economy, and it was evident. If Bush loses in 2004, it will have started here.
My biggest criticisms of the State of the Union are:
AIDS Funding/Hydrogen Car Research These were "bolt-ons", meant to appear bold and to win points with moderates of both parties. White House may like both ideas, and want them to survive the legislative process, but looking good in a closely-watched speech was their primary purpose.
Both initiatives truly ought to be center pieces of larger, more comprehensive programs. If President Bush were serious about reducing our reliance on foreign
oil, then where are the plans to begin reductions in the years between now and the time that hydrogen cars are viable? If weaning ourselves is a good idea, why not begin to do so now? This doesn't need to be a liberal issue; it would be easy to craft a plan that would please conservatives. Sell the program as spurring self-reliance, use targeted tax credits to foster research into many areas of possible efficiency gains. Point out that increases in energy efficiency help business, help the economy grow, and breakthroughs would eventually lead to products that could be sold to the rest of the world. It would be a process that could have small reductions in energy use in a year or two, and great reductions even before the first hydrogen cars hit the showroom floors. The hydrogen car could be the capstone of the vision, not the only goal.
The same point can be made about the AIDS effort. A very good case could be made for a program to foster both democracy and free-markets in Africa. If successful, such a program could help the war on terror and build better relations and open markets. An effort to help in the fight against AIDS would be the centerpiece of a broader, more ambitious plan. Again, Bush passes on a more ambitious--but more complex and harder to sell--initiative in favor of a sound bite.
Tax Cuts Guess what? They didn't work the first time and now people are getting skeptical. As more and more people find themselves on shaky economic ground, they are looking for an idea that they haven't heard before. This isn't it. Tax cuts don't help if you don't have a job. The proposed Treasury Secretary said earlier this week in his confirmation hearings that the current economic situation is caused by too much capacity and weak demand. These are problems that need to be addressed by a vigorous stimulus plan, not tax cuts that won't take effect for a year.
Capping the Growth of the Federal Government at 4% As I said below: this is stupid. Unbelievably so. Also, anyone who follows the news knows that the Bush administration has neither followed this guideline in the past, nor intends to do so in the future.
Iraq The President could have nailed this one down. He had a huge audience and it's hard to look more Presidential than when you stand before both houses of Congress. Essentially, all he gave us was an expanded version of his "trust me" routine. Until we hear the administration's evidence, it is hard to judge this portion of his address, but I really think that he missed a great opportunity to lock in substantial support.
The State of the Union Address is, of course, largely political. This one may work on people who already support Bush, but for those watching, wondering if the President has the ability to respond to the issues that face the country, the question wasn't answered Tuesday night.
10:00:06 PM 
|
|
