Month: February 2006

A French paper does the right thing- and reprints the offensive Danish cartoons. How many American papers would have the balls to do the same thing?

Of all the president’s rhetorical sleights of hand last night, I guess the one that most bothered me was his boast that he had reduced the growth of domestic discretionary spending every year. It gives the impression of fiscal discipline, and although technically true, it’s an absurd irrelevancy. It starts from a freak number and suggests that cutting discretionary spending’s growth from a starting point of an annual increase of 15 percent is a big deal. Here’s a reality check:

The president said he has reduced "the growth" of non-security discretionary spending. This only means it did not increase as much from year to year. Moreover, overall discretionary spending has exploded during his tenure, especially when military spending is included. White House budget documents show that overall discretionary spending has climbed from $644 billion in 2001 to $840 billion this year, an increase of more than 30 percent.
Looked at another way, discretionary spending as a share of the overall economy is at its highest level in 13 years, according to the CBO.

At a very basic level, this president is being dishonest. The good news, I suppose, is that he recognizes that the truth of his own record is indefensible. And I couldn’t help noticing that many of the Democrats’ replies, including those from Tim Kaine and Rahm Emanuel, focused on how the president wasn’t spending enough on their pet programs. No responsibility anywhere in sight. I’m not a fan of amending the Constitution, but a balanced budget amendment looks increasingly like our only option.

Another reader writes:

"I can’t believe you’re getting excited by mere words from the mouth of Bush. Don’t you know better by now? In his 2003 SOTU, Bush talked up hydrogen-powered cars, proposing a total of $1.7 billion over the following five years to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells, hydrogen infrastructure and advanced automotive technologies. If he wants to lend some substance to the platitude you quoted about breaking our addiction to oil through technology, he should bring us up-to-date on just what that initiative has accomplished in the past three years.

I haven’t heard anything about it of late. I have, however, heard that Exxon is reaping the largest profits ever earned by an American company. I wonder how much of that money they’re plowing into R&D on hydrogen power."

Yeah, what did happen to the hydrogen car initiative?

A reader writes:

"I enjoy your posts. I read most of them, and I most always learn something, or a least have some of my own ideas and beliefs intelligently challenged. But, you must not get carried away with the President’s statement that our nation is addicted to oil..

One must remember, I repeat, must always remember, that President Bush does not always tell it like it is."

You don’t say.

Kaine looks good. Great idea to have a governor, an executive, standing with that big red tie. And the first thing you hear from him is that he was once a missionary. God, God, God for the first few minutes. Then competence and "good management." Nice touch on Katrina response; even more effective on the Medicare mess. And finally, we have a real challenge on fiscal recklessness. Pity it took a Democrat. Nice line on "inaccurate information" about war intelligence. Much better than the "misled" line (which Begala is now repeating).The same blather on energy independence as the president. And then … God and service. All in all, I’d say it’s easily the best Democratic response I’ve seen since Bush took office. Of course, the standard was, well, two words: Nancy Pelosi. Bush: C+. Kaine B+. That’s my immediate gut response. I reserve the right to change my mind tomorrow.

Yours … from the CNN studio in D.C. I should be on air after 11 pm.

… but I thought this speech lacked a real focus, and rehashed thoroughly exhausted tropes and phrases. The speech’s key attention-grabber was the "addicted to oil" line. But after five years of being the oil-president, he needs to add a lot more substance to back up the counter-intuitive headline. On the critical question, Iraq, he said all the right things; and I believe he deserves support in navigating the path ahead, however twisted the path to this point. But I’d like to see more meat on those bones, and clear evidence of political progress and improved security. I guess, on this subject, I’ve just learned to follow what he does, rather than what he says. The calls for bi-partisanship, on the other hand, and for an entitlements commission, for Pete’s sake, sounded … well, desperate. Bottom line: this speech will rise without trace. And be remembered by almost no one.

It’s great he mentions it, and great he cares. I don’t doubt it. His record so far is immeasurably better than his predecessor’s. But one question: How can he speak of Africans with HIV having dignity in the eyes of America when none of them is legally even able to enter this country? Does he know this?

It’s great to see the president acknowledge the healthy direction of so many social indicators. Good to see his optimism on the social front. Sad he seems to believe that it’s only activist courts who want to include all citizens in the right to marry. The movement is far deeper and broader than that. But then he won’t meet with any openly gay people, and so he wouldn’t know. If he met us, if he listened, he might hear our stories, and how we want to be a full part of our families and take up the personal responsiblity he speaks of. But we are the only people in this country he won’t publicly meet or speak with, and, as president, has never publicly met or spoken with. We’re always the objects of his policies, never people whom he represents.

Why am I not convinced? I guess whenever someone mentions "ethanol" as a solution to our energy problems, my eyes roll involuntarily. Coal, nukes, wind and solar. Sure. But the only way to get the private sector to really innovate is to make gasoline more expensive. But maybe he has some real proposals that could make a real difference. Cheer … but verify.

The man has added over $20 trillion in fiscal liabilities to the next generation. And he brags about alleged future savings of … $40 billion. He makes the line-item veto the criterion for fiscal responsibility, knowing it will never pass. He says his proposal last year was designed to "save social security." But it had no long-term impact on the costs. To deal with the entitlement crunch, after five years in office, he proposes … a commission! And urges Washington to avoid "partisan politics." I’m sorry but this is duplicitous when it isn’t pathetic.