Did anyone watch the State of the Union address last night? What are your thoughts on it?
I was happy to hear the President’s comments about congressional earmarks — that they not only should be transparent and actually in the bills on which the House and Senate vote (not inserted later into conference reports anonymously), but that they should be reduced by at least half as a matter of fiscal responsibility. I wonder if Mr. LaHood got the message:
Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour – when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate – they are dropped into Committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You did not vote them into law. I did not sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process … expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress … and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.
As far as the mechanics of the speech, I thought it sounded a lot less stilted this year than in past years, and I like how they moved the traditional “the-state-of-our-union-is-strong” line to the end of the speech this year. Bush sounded the most relaxed this year of any of the speeches of his I’ve watched. Outside of what I just mentioned, however, the speech was pretty formulaic. It had the usual laundry list of policy initiatives and a few too many special guests in the gallery. I’m looking forward to the day that a president either (a) submits his state of the union message in writing and skips the speech, or (b) delivers a speech that is a stark departure from the usual mold.
The big topic, of course, was the war in Iraq. I’m of the mindset that we should fight wars to win. This is shaping up to be just like the way we left Vietnam — and I’m afraid the fragile government in Iraq is going to fall just like Saigon did if we start pulling our troops out now. I think that would be immoral; it’s imperative for our country to finish what we started and not leave Iraq until the government is stable enough to stand on its own without U.S. military help. Thus, I think a troop surge is appropriate, and should be funded.
This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.
What about you? What was most interesting to you about the speech? With what did you agree or disagree? Ethanol? No Child Left Behind reauthorization? Immigration policy? There were a lot of issues covered last night; take your pick.
Reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy is imperative. This can no longer be dismissed as a loony idea from radical environmentalists. Opinions on ethanol’s merits vary, but we should devote more resources to developing alternative energy. Wind, solar, biodiesel, hybrid or fully electric-powered vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells, even nuclear should all be on the table. I believe there is growing consensus on both sides of the aisle to make significant progress on alternative energy and reduce vulnerability to the whims of OPEC and Arab dictators.
While these sources are being developed ramp up domestic oil exploration while minimizing the environmental impact. On the conservation side more HOV lanes in large urban areas would encourage carpooling and reduce gasoline consumption. Development of high-speed trains for shorter, intra-regional trips would reduce consumption of jet fuel.
“HOV” = “High Occupancy Vehicle”?
Yes, HOV is high occupancy vehicle. They’ve had those lanes in the NY/NJ area since I was little.
I’ve always hated SOTU speeches, no matter the speaker. The ovations completely piss me off. In no other speeches do people so regularly applaud and interrupt the speech.
I suppose that now they write them with those pauses in mind. But my favorite kinds of speeches are those that have a flow and structure, a few breaks for applause are okay. But speeches with rhythm and flow and something of a narrative are terribly exciting for me. SOTU is so NOT that.
I only caught part if it, on the way home from a board meeting, and it was the all Iraq-all the time part, and I heard that bit that you quote above, CJ.
I was against the war from the day it was suggested, and think it’s the biggest blunder our gov’t has made, short of Vietnam. But I would agree that we don’t want to leave Iraq high and dry after fucking their country up so badly because of the whims and stupidity of our commander in chief and his cronies. Talk about fueling the fires for terrorist recruitment.
But they’ve tried troop surges already, and they haven’t worked! The generals Bush just replaced said the same damn thing. Why would it work now – because Bush has a general who tells him it will. And because he has little to no understanding of how to use foreign policy and diplomacy in such a situation. Military might is a simple concept, and he gets it. Foreign policy and diplomacy take a far higher level of intellectual ability than he’s capable of apparently.
I don’t advocate immediate withdrawl, either. But how about sending over more military trainers for Iraqi troops, instead of just our own men and women to act in their stead? How about sending over policy wonks and political strategists to advise the folks that got elected by the people? Has anyone been sent over to advise the current president and his staff in this manner? I haven’t heard about it? How about sending Karl Rove over to spin things and get the support of a majority of the people in Iraq for their new government in the same way that he spun this war to the American people in the first place? He’s a bloody master of manipulation for political gain – and that’s what Iraq needs! Not one more damned gun, though, will help.
You want to make their democracy as powerful as ours is? Build up their spin mastery! Build them a corporate controlled media! Build up their lobbyist groups and foundations and think tanks and fundraising organizations! Does military might get anything done in America? Hells no! Power and money does. Power and money in the Iraqi government like we have here in the US would squash Al Qaeda and all insurgencies like a freakin’ bug!
Why is this obvious to no one but me???!!!
I agree with RTP – reducing our dependence on foreign (esp. middle eastern) oil is critical to our nation’s future. IMO, the best way to influence the war on terror and our problems with the radical Muslim world is to stop buying their oil. As Giselle said, money talks and money is power. So to quit purchasing their resources erodes their power.
Some South American nations have been operating cars on alcohol for years. So there are viable alternatives available to us – we just have to convince Detroit and the oil industry that we are serious about alternative fuel sources.
Although reducing the dependency on foreign oil would be great, ethanol isn’t the answer for the US. It works in Brazil because they don’t have the cold temps. e85 has issues in cold temps. The demand on corn is also pricing corn much higher. Ethanol needed subsidies to compete with gasoline when corn was $2 bushel, now corn is $4 bushel. Ethanol also requires large amounts of electricity in order to produce it.
The main reason that gasohol works so well in Brasil is that they make theirs from sugarcane, which is a much more efficient feedstock than corn.
It seems like I read recently that switchgrass can also be processed to make fuel. Now there is a renewable natural resource!
The best way to reduce dependence on oil is to find fewer reasons to drive. Curbing sprawl and returning to livable cities would go a long way towards that goal. Don’t look for any candidate to have the courage to tell the public that their suburban lifestyle is central to their dependence on middle east oil.
I have been following this in California for quite some time. Curbing sprawl results in much higher land and property costs which turns into higher rents for the poorer folk, which would have the end result of pricing out the very people who you hope to help. Since the population is going to continue to grow, you can’t simply pack them in tighter and tighter.
MDD, curbing sprawl only ends up with higher property costs if the development laws aren’t changed with the restrictions on sprawl. Of course property values go up with the supply is limited. So, build more densely to solve the problem. All aspects of regional planning need to be in alignment to make the densifacation/urbaniation of a region successful. Transit, transportation networks, development laws, political will, and others need to work together. Otherwise, you end up with overpriced single-family detached homes that no family can afford.
I was and am of the opinion that we should not have gone to war in Iraq. However, leaving them after we have messed them over is not good foreign policy. We should do what it takes to right the wrong and then move out. I am not sure what “righting the wrong” should look like, much like most people, I am sure. I agree with Bush that we need to “stay the course”, but I don’t have enough faith in his plan or in any that Congress have put forth to think that we will come out of the Middle East smelling like roses.
In regard to alternate fuel sources, I don’t think that ethanol is a final solution. It is a temporary solution to our dependence on foreign oil. The government needs to stop keeping car companies like Ford afloat and put that money towards research and development of new energy sources. That money would also be better spent on things like mass transit systems, which as a rule, tend to be more energy efficient than each person driving their own SUV. Rebuilding rail systems and other public transit options would create jobs suitable for blue-collar workers, thus helping to alleviate the jobs vacuum caused by collapsing car companies. Although it is an unpopular idea, reducing energy consumption and dependence on imported energy sources is eventually going to mean changing the way we live. It is better to choose which way to change now, while the opportunity is there, than to choose between bad and worse when the price of oil or global warming or both compel us to.