This past weekend, we took a trip back home and visited with my wife’s and my families [and, briefly, a few friends]. Altogether a pleasant trip [once we got there, and then again once we got home; the actual travelling... not so much], and welcome after the audit I had last week at work. On the usually six-hour return trip [now, with Thing 3, more like eight or ten hours], we discovered a radio station carrying the Presidential State of the Union Address, which readers will know is required periodically by the Constitution and annually by convention.
My lovely bride was actually [unusually, for her] interested in what King George II had to say, which made listening to the speech more enjoyable [despite the fact that Bush kept giving it]; she even asked questions and made comments on his more ridiculous claims [she normally just sighs and stares out the window when I subject her to political radio, especially on long trips. Or takes a nap].
As George the Younger is a “lame duck” President, now officially in his last year in office, I think of this final SoU as Dubya’s Last Stand. And good riddance.
A few thoughts, in no particular order:
-
Channeling the spirits of [Robert] Taft, Goldwater, and Reagan, he pushed his new tax rebate. At $600 per individual ($1200 per married couple, plus another $300 for each dependant child), it’s no small thing. [No, really. This rebate will cost us – I mean, cost the government – up to $135,000,000,000 (that's billion, with a "B"), and I'm sure the low-income earners who don't actually pay taxes will get a rebate, too, as well as those who don't earn anything, choosing instead to suckle at the "gummint" teat] Now, I’m all for getting my money back from the federal highwayman, but how, exactly, are we paying for this rebate, while spending is still outta control? A coworker last week was absolutely floored when he learned that the national debt was over $9 trillion. Said he couldn’t believe Congress could allow it to get that high. Didn’t uber-statist Bill Clinton leave a surplus when he left office? [Two words, Dubya: CUT SPENDING]
[UPDATE: Illegals may end up getting some of that cumshaw. Apparently, an ITINand a valid address are required to recieve your check from good ol' Uncle Sam, but actual legal status is not. Ain't the welfare state grand?]
[UPDATE II: Okay, it turns out that only people who earned more than $3k or less than $75k ($150k for couples) get the rebate, in the House version. And it's supposedly a grand total of $117 billion direct to the consumer, with another $45 billion in rebates to businesses. Of course, the Senate wants to lift income restrictions, and add a whole lot more graft (err...) handouts (umm...) aid to the bill. And, predictably in this election year, the pork has bi-partisan support.]
-
Bush also scolded the Congress for using earmarks. This is a very Statist position for the “conservative” president. A lot of Congressmen use earmarks to allocate spending to their districts. Earmarks direct the President and his Executive Branch on how to spend the money they have budgeted. Earmarks do not create new spending, they don’t increase the size of the budget, or the level of spending. The reason Bush opposes earmarks, and the reason this is a statist [i.e., big government] position is that Bush does not want to have any kind of controls on his
actionsspending activities. He doesn’t want to be answerable to anyone. On his spending, I mean. [Yeah, yeah... that's the ticket. Just on his spending] He feels so strongly about this that he threatens vetoes of any budget or other appropriations bills that contain earmarks. [That's certainly his right, according to the Constitution. But should we fear worry about it? I mean, he went from January of 2001 to July of 2006 – five-and-a-half years to the day – without ever issuing a veto. Congress could spend with impunity then, could earmark its black little heart out, could even abridge the Constitution without popular support or consent, without risking a veto. Now he wants to threaten to take his ball and go home?] -
To quote: “Six years ago, we came together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, and today no one can deny its results.“ Mr. President, you said a mouthful. NCLB is an unqualified disaster. This schizoid law encourages educators to cheat the system, then penalizes them for doing so. Like any federal program that seeks to micromanage what states, localities, and private citizens can do better, it – and its larger cousin, the DoE – should be deep-sixed post haste. Only in Lake Wobegon could all schoolchildren ever hope to perform up to the NCLB standards. [But I guess that's what you get when you let a drunk Irishman write your policies for you — and I know whereof I speak, having occasionally myself been a drunk Irishman. But does Chappaquiddick Ted catch any flack for this atrocious law? Not hardly. If he were smart (I said if), Dubya would distance himself as far as possible from NCLB]
While I’m at it, let me point out that I take offense at the government – city, state, or federal – making me pay for the education of other peoples’ kids. I don’t see where there’s a right in the Constitution to a free education. It’s obvious to me that there are a great many parents and children in this country who don’t give a whit about graduating high school — or grade school, for that matter. And I think it’s unfair of parents to foist upon unsuspecting teachers their miscreant children, either. I mean, if you want your kids to be idiot losers their whole lives, fine… repeal the child labor laws and put ‘em to work. If you want your kids to be educated, either do it yourself or pay for the privilege. What is so hard to understand about that? Education – like military service – should not be compulsory.
-
He blathered on about his Great and Wonderful Advances in Trade. Selling out to Columbia is first on the docket, followed by Panama and South Korea. And then, because Big Brother is compassionate, he wants us all to pitch in and help re-educate American citizens who lose their jobs to the “beneficial” trade agreements. [So, if I understand this correctly, we are to approve his hamfisting trade, allow our jobs and our products to be supplanted by foreign workers and suppliers, and then submit to reprogramming in order to be a happy, productive prole. Hmmm... No.]
-
This was followed by various handouts to corporations conducting energy research [if there's a need, there's a demand; if there's a demand, the market will meet it without government meddling], as well as unilaterally subsidizing brazenly pollutive [is that even a real word?] countries to get them to stop with the pollution [who can afford their own "green" technology].
-
Of course, to keep the attention of the Conservative Chrisitan Base, he had to throw out a bone or two about the sanctity of life. Blah, blah, stem cells. Blah, blah, cloning. [Gotta keep them evangelicals with their ankles in the air... as long as this guy – and the GOP at large – keep playing the lifecard, all the narcoleptics in the pews will keep pulling that lever the way we want. Never mind the travesties of justice and human suffering perpetrated by this politician and most of his party (and the other party); never mind that war is monolithically an anti-life affair. If you can work a reference to Jesus into a speech now and again, or even just make vague mention of faith, you're okay by most Christians. Lazy idiots. As Christians, we should be vigilant against false prophets and heretics. Any politician can claim to be a Christian; true devotion is known by its fruits. And just in case you're keeping score, preemptive wars of aggression ain't it.] Bush later said that America opposes genocide [except when executed by the US of A].
-
Katrina. Katrina, Katrina, Katrina. [The storm that has become a euphemism for "direct, massive redistribution of wealth to corporate and special interests while claiming to help rebuild a city that, let's face it, we're probably better off without."] I’m sorry; my house was fairly demolished by [oh, yeah, and, because that's what responsible grown-ups do, I left the area well in advance of] Hurricane Rita, so you’ll forgive me if I have trouble working up any compassion for a bunch of people who are so institutionalized that they can’t but stand around as the world comes crashing down around their ears, waiting for – it makes me sick to even type this – the government to come and save them. [Can you say, "Darwinism in action?" I'm just sayin'...] Hearing mention of Katrina, the “devastation of the Gulf Coast” by Katrina, and the “rebuilding of New Orleans” in the wake of Katrina, makes me throw up a little bit in my mouth.
-
Adding insult to injury, Bush then announces, as if we should be excited about it, that the next meeting of the NAU – I mean, the North American Summit of Canada, Mexico, and the United States [NASCMUS?] – will be held in New Orleans. Because we all need to have direction from the Nanny State to know that Nawlins is again open for business.
-
I almost drove off the road when he talked about securing the borders. Seriously. Then he said something about
“amnesty”“path to citizenship” [not in so many words], and my eyes glazed over again. -
Iraqi Surge. Not the one you’re thinking of, but a surge of Iraqis. I know! I was blown away! I had previously been under the impression that Iraqis, and maybe Persians in general, were completely incapable of defending themselves without massive involvement of a third party. [Curious to note, though, that the home-grown surge started before the American one, and I have to wonder how much of this late "success" is attributable to Iraqi defenders, and how much is due to the American presence. I had honestly not heard of this 80,000-strong "Anbar Awakening" before this speech. Am I Captain Oblivious, or was same pooh-poohed as irrelevant to the American prosecution of
warpeace?] And why is it that what Osama says is important when it supports the Administration’s propaganda, but not when it doesn’t? I mean, he mentioned bin Laden’s tape, for Pete’s sake. That bears on the state of the Union how, exactly? -
Bush did expose part of his true agenda, though. In his prattling about the so-called PATRIOT Act, due to expire the day after tomorrow [That should have brought applause — it was one of the few good things he said all night, and he was against it. I feel like I need a shower. I can't believe I voted forthis guy.], the Protect America Act, and numerous other infringements on civil liberties, he said, “we will continue to take every lawful and effective measure to protect our country.“ My read on this is, they’ll take lawful measures, but when those don’t suffice for their agenda, they’ll incorporate more effective measures. I’m not putting words in his mouth; that’s what he said. The Bush Administration claims that they’ve stopped many more attacks –or plots – since 9-11, but how do we know, really? If he hadn’t suspended habeas corpus, we’d know who, what, and where. [And stop with the national security "for your own good" crap. Camussaid, "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." (And you would think that the neocons would hold fast to one of their fellow Trotskyists) So hold up the charges and trials to public scrutiny, or admit that we live in a fascist state. C'mon, which is it?] Speaking of national security, Dubya called for expanded powers for eavesdropping, and “liability protection for companies believed to have assissted in the efforts to defend America.“ This, of course, means that when AT&T records all of your telephone and electronic communications, you can’t sue them. Not and win, anyway. This means your putatively private conversations can now fall into the Cone of Silence with impunity. [Sounds like a chapter out of Running a Police State for Fun and Profit!]
-
Was it just me, or [I was listening in on the radio, mind you]did it seem like the audience were marionettes? I mean, the applause sounded really canned, like Bush could’ve said something like “water is wet” and gotten a 30-second ovation.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m the one who’s out of touch with the Will of the People, maybe I’m doing some quixotic tilting of my own. But do Americans really buy this drivel, this “give up your freedom, and I’ll try to keep you safe” nonsense? I submit that the surest way to guarantee the safety of all Americans is to vouchsafe their liberty. History is replete with tyrants rising to power on a wave of adoration, only to turn and crush their people under their bootheels of oppressive governance.
When are Americans – Christian Americans – going to wake up and stop believing the BS that is being fed to them just because it comes with a sugary Christian topping? Paul told the followers of Christ to compare what even he said to what Scripture says. Should we apply any less discernment to our government, should we not compare what a politician says to what the Bible, the Constitution, and that politician’s own record say?
