January 20, 2004
My Analysis of the State of the Union Speech and Democrat Response
Great speech by the President! While many will disagree with me on my thoughts I will present them for discussion. Here are some highlights, and a few critiques of the Democrats response:
First, the President does two things. He shows the difference in his way of dealing with terrorists, and the way the Clinton administration dealt with terrorists:
After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted, tried, convicted and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of Sept. 11, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States — and war is what they got.
Next, he backs up the war in Iraq, something Democrats have been hitting him on continously:
But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We are seeking all the facts — already the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world.
Next he moves to show that yes, we did have an international coalition:
Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners or dismiss their sacrifices. From the beginning, America has sought international support for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.
The Democrats ignored this, however, in their response to the President Does the UN HAVE to be involved to be a TRUE international coalition? Pelosi said:
The president led us into the Iraq war on the basis of unproven assertions without evidence; he embraced a radical doctrine of pre-emptive war unprecedented in our history; and he failed to build a true international coalition.
Ms. Pelosi, tell this to the current President of the Iraqi Governing Council, Adnan Pachachi. I'm sure he will agree Saddam was better as a leader.
As for a true international coalition, this list looks strong to me:
Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador and the 17 other countries
Economic issues also were pointed out by the President:
In these last three years, adversity has also revealed the fundamental strengths of the American economy. We have come through recession, and terrorist attack, and corporate scandals, and the uncertainties of war. And because you acted to stimulate our economy with tax relief, this economy is strong, and growing stronger.You have doubled the child tax credit from $500 to a thousand dollars, reduced the marriage penalty, begun to phase out the death tax, reduced taxes on capital gains and stock dividends, cut taxes on small businesses, and you have lowered taxes for every American who pays income taxes.
Americans took those dollars and put them to work, driving this economy forward. The pace of economic growth in the third quarter of 2003 was the fastest in nearly 20 years. New home construction: the highest in almost 20 years. Home ownership rates: the highest ever. Manufacturing activity is increasing. Inflation is low. Interest rates are low. Exports are growing. Productivity is high. And jobs are on the rise.
This is another issue the Democrats are loosing a stronghold on. It's the economy, stupid, won't work this time. I think many Americans forget why the economy went downhill, the attack on our nation was a horrific wound that took time to heal. Now it is healed, and strong.
Bush also spent time talking about marriage:
A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
Dashcle has tried to say Bush wants to use social security on "tax shelters for the wealthy":
In his speech, the president asked us to make permanent the tax cuts already passed. He asked us to create more tax shelters for the wealthy, and he asked us to use Social Security money to pay for it. For the last couple of weeks, I've been traveling through my home state of South Dakota, visiting the people and small towns that are America's backbone. And the folks I met were asking something, too: "What about us? When do our priorities become America's priorities?"
Here is what Bush really said:
Congress has some unfinished business on the issue of taxes. The tax reductions you passed are set to expire. Unless you act, the unfair tax on marriage will go back up. Unless you act, millions of families will be charged $300 more in federal taxes for every child. Unless you act, small businesses will pay higher taxes. Unless you act, the death tax will eventually come back to life. Unless you act, Americans face a tax increase. What the Congress has given, the Congress should not take away: For the sake of job growth, the tax cuts you passed should be permanent.Our agenda for jobs and growth must help small business owners and employees with relief from needless federal regulation, and protect them from junk and frivolous lawsuits. Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run — so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy. My administration is promoting free and fair trade, to open up new markets for America's entrepreneurs, and manufacturers, and farmers, and to create jobs for America's workers. Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people.
And we should limit the burden of government on this economy by acting as good stewards of taxpayer dollars. In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than four percent. This will require that Congress focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending and be wise with the people's money. By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.
Then Daschle says:
When I was driving around South Dakota this summer, I met a nurse in Sioux Falls who has cancer. She told me that she couldn't afford the $1,500 a month her drugs cost. She told me that she was going to die, that she was a lost cause. But, she said, we must solve this problem; don't turn more people into lost causes.
Bush, however, even mentioned prescription drugs in his speech, and the steps he has taken for this issue:
Meeting these goals requires bipartisan effort — and two months ago, you showed the way. By strengthening Medicare and adding a prescription drug benefit, you kept a basic commitment to our seniors: You are giving them the modern medicine they deserve.Starting this year, under the law you passed, seniors can choose to receive a drug discount card, saving them 10 to 25 percent off the retail price of most prescription drugs — and millions of low-income seniors can get an additional $600 to buy medicine. Beginning next year, seniors will have new coverage for preventive screenings against diabetes and heart disease, and seniors just entering Medicare can receive wellness exams.
In January of 2006, seniors can get prescription drug coverage under Medicare. For a monthly premium of about $35, most seniors who do not have that coverage today can expect to see their drug bills cut roughly in half. Under this reform, senior citizens will be able to keep their Medicare just as it is, or they can choose a Medicare plan that fits them best — just as you, as members of Congress, can choose an insurance plan that meets your needs. And starting this year, millions of Americans will be able to save money tax-free for their medical expenses, in a health savings account.
I signed this measure proudly, and any attempt to limit the choices of our seniors, or to take away their prescription drug coverage under Medicare, will meet my veto.
I think it is clear. The Democrats continue to use scare tactics, and ignore facts. They say we have no international coalition, whereas the list is clear and undeniable. They use the specter of death to scare senior citizens that they will die with no medicine, while the President and Republicans in Congress create initiatives to fix this very issue. All politicians seek votes. Some, however, swoop to low points to get those votes. The choice is clear. What do you choose?
Posted by at January 20, 2004 11:13 PMwhile i havent finished reading your whole comment, i feel the need to respond to your comments about the international coalition. lets first point out that majorities of Britain, Spain, Italy, and El Salvador opposed the war. (I dont have stats on the other countries, but let’s be honest, many of these countries were bought off in legitimate, though ethically questionable, diplomatic exchanges.) Next let’s look at the premise that this is a legitimate international coalition, even if all of the countries are assumed to fully support the bush administration. The US is a country founded on the rule of law, meaning that no one is above the law. this concept ought to be applied to our dealings in the international community if we are to retain any credbility at all. we therefore cant simply gather a gang of countries that agree with us and announce that we are attacking people, we mus either operate through the UN or with the neighbors of our intended target and other interested countries.
Posted by: mdon860 at January 20, 2004 11:31 PMNick, while I don’t share your perspective on many of the points made in the speech, my compliments on an extremely well written perspective from the right. Your details and rebuttals to the Dem’s prebuttal, were well laid out and planned. I enjoyed reading an alternative perspective.
Amazing how the same words can mean such different things to different people, and yet we manage to communicate nonetheless.
Posted by: David R Remer at January 21, 2004 07:20 AMi would like now to respond to the paragraph about taxes. certainly, the child tax credit and the marriage penalty elimination are reasonable things, but the administration used them for cover on a much broader range of give backs to the extremely rich. the “death tax” (a term that appears nowhere in the US tax code) is more properly called an inheritance or estate tax, but for the purposes of this conversation, let’s continue to call it the death tax, since that is the term bush used last night. the death tax is a tax on estates whose net worth is greater than about $600,000. it applies neither to spousal inheritances nor to family farms. it is significantly more fair in my mind and in the mind of many of the richest Americans (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gates) to tax a dead rich man or woman than to tax living middle class families. there is no reason to suppose that the children of the dead rich man have not been given every oopportunity to succeed for themselves in life, whether through an education that their parents could afford for them, a start in business, or connections with other powerful people. the children (who are usually adults by the time they deal with this tax) will still recieve what amounts to an obscene amount of money. to quote theodore roosevelt Most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax. In my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation.” Such taxation, he noted, should “be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits.”
it simply doesnt make sense to argue that it is unfair to tax a dead man; his fortune is almost invariably made with lots of government help (police, fire, defense, government research grants, workers comp insurance, federal savings insurance, etc.) how can people argue that a single man built his fortune without society’s help? it is ridiculous to suggest that those who have obtained great wealth should be able to give all of it to people who haven’t worked for it, and who have already gotten all of the opportunities that they deserve, and maybe more.
next, let’s look at the economy in general. you are right it isnt the economy, it is, however, the jobs. bush will be the first president since hoover to oversee a net decrease in jobs. im not saying we will start another great depression soon, but a jobless recovery is no recovery at all for the unemployed. 9-11 was a great tragedy, but it didn’t destroy the economy. the economy was on its way down long before that. Clinton’s economic policies were not perfect, but they worked. bush’s have not, and will not.
Posted by: mdon860 at January 21, 2004 11:58 AMWhen you’ve gotta include El Salvador in the list of your allies, you’re really stretching.
How many of those countries provided anything more than a token force? Only Britain.
Posted by: ceejayoz at January 21, 2004 06:24 PMGreat article Nick. I would like to point out that treating terrorism as a crimial act may not be as gratifying as invading a country but it is effective. The Bush administration chose from the beginning to ignore the threat from Bin Laden and instead they decided to figure out how to get their hands on Iraq’s oil. This total disregard for the continuing work of the past two administrations contributed heavily in the tragedy that ensued on 9/11. I wish the current adminsitration would leave Haliburton to fend for itself and get on with the business of the people.
Posted by: William Flynn at January 21, 2004 09:56 PMThe point of an International force was to share the human and financial expense. That list provided by Bush excepting Great Britain, accounts for an extremely small amount of the financial sharing of the burden and almost none of the human costs in terms of deaths and injuries.
Once again, the President misses the point, he thinks its about the numbers of countries on a list, rather that the amount of money and military casualties suffered by the American people. Oh, well.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 21, 2004 09:58 PMThe terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States — and war is what they got.
Well, al Quaida attacked us, and we responded with a war against the Taliban (arguably supporters of Bin Laden) and against Iraq/Saddam (who has never supported Islamicists or terrorism against anybody but his own people). So, I guess that the above statement is true in the same way that it’s just for a guy who gets dressed down at the office to go home and beat his family. As long as it’s violence in response to violence, it doesn’t need to address the actual offender, right?
Amazing that so many are willing to just accept this kind of “reasoning” …
Posted by: acm at January 22, 2004 10:09 AMI guess I should also point to this compilation of facts and fictions from the speech: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=22985 since it seems that the “debunking of Democratic arguments” here is either by means of nonsequitur or nonfact …
Posted by: acm at January 22, 2004 10:13 AMIs Sen. Kennedy (you know, the murderer) on his last leg or what? He looks terrible. Rolling his beedy little eyes and snickering to himself does not suit him well. He is by far the least classy Kennedy of all.
Posted by: Lukin at January 22, 2004 12:57 PMI find it sad that Americans can stand behind Mr. Bush when he so obviously lies about almost everything. Who attacked us? Terrorists from Afghanistan linked to Osama Bin Laden. Who did we attack in response? Iraq. Why did we attack them? We were told there were weapons of mass destruction and that America was in danger. Were there any WMD? No. Is there any evidence of WMD? No. Was America ever in immediate danger? No. Is there a link between 9/11 and Iraq? no - Collin Powell recently went on record and admitted there was no proof of a link between Huseein and al-Quaida. Bush can continue to spin things however he wants. All we need to do is play a tape of his speech right before the war and ask him what parts were true - the answer? Nothing. And the death toll just keeps rising.
Posted by: Jen Keto at January 22, 2004 04:44 PMThe Death tax is not Dead!
This article refutes a claim that Dean would bring back the Death Tax by pointing out a fact I’m not sure many Democrats or Republicans knew.
This refutation, of course, should be seen as extending to the following line in the SOTU address:Unless you act, the death tax will eventually come back to life. How’s six years sound for eventually?
Quoting from the relevant text: In fact, the estate tax is still on the books and won’t be phased out until the year 2010 even under the Bush tax cuts. You can’t “bring back” something that’s not gone.
Nor does one really have to bring back to life, something that’s not dead yet.
And really, do we really have to call it the death tax? I would think the dead are beyond caring, one way or another, what happens to their money.
People made a big ruckus about family farms being involved, but only two percent of any farms were effected, and few people could ever remember people selling the farm on basis of the estate tax.
The truth is, the estate tax, by definition only affects those who leave more than 600,000 dollars worth of a legacy to their children. Exemptions already exist for farmland, as I understand it, and about half of the people who are taxed under this belong to the riches tenth of a percentage point of America’s wealthy.
The estate tax taxes only those who inherited their money and property, who never had to work for the fortune that now lies at their feet. It is only fair that they do not recieve that great wealth without having to contribute to society as whole from that wealth.
We tax those who win the lotteries of our states. Why fail to tax those who only gain their fortunes through the lottery of their birth?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 22, 2004 05:07 PMStephen said: “We tax those who win the lotteries of our states. Why fail to tax those who only gain their fortunes through the lottery of their birth?” -
What a terrible thing to say! Birthright is not a lottery, it’s a legacy, and that legacy was earned under the watchful eye of the government during the deceaced weathy person’s lifetime. The money saved has already been taxed all the way to it’s final number, and the government holds no claim to money passed from generation to generation as the result of a successful person’s hard work. You see, it’s the dead rich person who is getting taxed, and that is called double taxation. I’m sure that if you wanted to leave $600,000 to you children in the event of your death, you would specify exactly that in your will, and not think twice about what the government might deserve out of that amount because they have been taking thier share all along.
I agree with the lottery tax, however, because this is money allocated to a state sponsored entertainment event from voters with the money to gamble, rather than save.
Posted by: Will at January 22, 2004 05:35 PMWill:
I agree with you completely, and I’d like to emphasize one point: the lottery winner is taxed ONCE on the money they win. An inheritance (or death tax) is the SECOND taxation of a sum of money. I agree that all money should be taxed once, but I will never agree that some money—and only some—-should be taxed twice.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 22, 2004 06:10 PMjoe and will, nice arguments, but they dont make sense when examined logically. there is no reason that double taxation is inherently wrong. it is the same as a higher tax rate. and yes joe, certain incomes should be taxed at a higher rate (or more often, either one, or both). why shouldn’t they? clearly those who are inheriting $600,000 (and who, in almost all cases, have been set up by their parents to succeed with a great education, great contacts, etc) arent hurt as much by a fifty percent tax on money that their parents earned or inherited as a person that inherits a more modest sum, say $10,000. the latter could have his or her quality of life significantly improved by getting to keep most of the inheritance compared to 5000, while the same cannot be said as easily of the person who inherits 600,000.
Will, i appreciate your desire to allow the old rich to pass on their wealth and privelege, but inheritance taxes are the fairest way of all to protect the country from developing into a country of the lower middle class/poor, and the ultra rich (a situation reminiscent of such societies as the late roman empire, medieval europe, and even Great Britain of 1776.)
David, while i agree that the list is quite unimpressive, (a bit like the list of four or five countries that allow the execution of persons under the age of eighteen when they committed their crime, which is of course headed by the US and includes such bastions of enlightenment as Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. that, however is an argument for another day) i cant say i agree with your reasoning. it isnt just about the money and troops. it is about moral authority. th problem is, the countries involved lack any special concern with Iraq other than oil interests. most of these countries seem to either be interested in oil or in pleasing the US. if we had gotten the support of either the UN or of a vast number of countries with different ties to Iraq, such as its neighbors, plus the support of such avowedly neutral groups like the red cross, amnesty international, perhaps even the swiss government, then the argument could move from the question of whether we have the right to the question of whether we should.
Posted by: mdon860 at January 22, 2004 06:56 PMMyth: The estate tax is “double taxation.”
Fact: The phrase “double taxation” is a rhetorical device meant to confuse the issue. Money is taxed any number of times as it cycles through the economy, generally during transactions. Workers, for example, pay income, payroll, and sales taxes on their wages. What’s more, the bulk of the largest estates, which consist of unrealized capital gains, would never have been taxed were it not for the estate tax.
http://www.ufenet.org/estatetax/ETMythsFacts.html
Posted by: LawnBoy at January 22, 2004 09:20 PMThe Number 600,000 is not a number I pulled out of the air. It is the legal minimum that an estate must be worth to be taxed. Below that, the inheritance is not taxable.
The double taxation argument is bunk. Like that other person said, taxes are taken out at just about every point.
In this case, this is a tax on money and property recieved by those who aren’t otherwise going to have to pay an income tax on it. Same thing for capital gains and dividends. If you make money off of stock sales, or off of dividends from your share, and the tax is not applied in those places, you’re getting income, often substantial, tax free.
Oh, but what about the corporation having to pay income tax? Isn’t it unfair for investors to have to pay twice? But we forget something there: Corporations, by definition, are individuals in the eyes of the law. That’s how they can sue and be sued, that’s how they can take out loans and all that other kind of stuff.
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but shouldn’t all individuals in this society capable of sharing the burden be made to do so? I believe so.
The Bush people essentially want to produce areas, and parts of society free from the necessity of supporting the public good. Bush, himself a fortunate beneficiary of an old-money inheritance, wants to let all those super-rich children out there get out of their duty to the public and the nation that created the wealth they so enjoy.
Should we, as Democrats and Republicans, reward accumulation of wealth for it’s own sake? Or should we require much of those to whom much has been given? Should this be an economy built to raise the fortunes of those who live by inheritance, or should it be one to improve the conditions of those who live by the wages of their work.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 23, 2004 12:56 AMWill wrote:
> Birthright is not a lottery, it’s a legacy,
> and that legacy was earned under the watchful
> eye of the government during the deceaced
> weathy person’s lifetime.
A better argument for the government getting paid back for all its hard work supporting and protecting our great national economy was never written.
The rich reap so many more benefits from the government’s hard work, proportionally, than the poor do. It’s only fair that they pay more.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at January 24, 2004 09:07 PManything but a flat tax is hopelessly backwards in its approach.
anyone who claims the rich don’t pay their “share” of the taxes in this country are so full of it they are beyond help…
Posted by: chris at February 2, 2004 11:02 PMChris-first of all, read the 6 words at the top of this page beneath where it says Republicans and Conservatives. Calling the great many people who support progressive taxation full of it may make you feel good, but it is quite inappropriate for this forum.
While the majority is not always right, progressive taxation has been the accepted form of revenue gathering among almost all mainstream politicians, Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals. The disagreement is one of degree, not one of form. I assume that your argument is that the idea of a percentage-based income tax is that it inherently asks more from the rich, but this seems to assume that the value of a certain percentage of one’s income is constant. The lifestyle of someone who makes $30,000 a year is severely hurt by a 20% income tax, while it is hard to argue that someone who makes $200,000 a year is similarly affected.
Posted by: mdon860 at February 5, 2004 05:44 PM
