I'll limit my comments on last night’s speech to three:
1) His tax cuts aren’t the answer. They certainly aren’t the answer during record deficits, rising health care costs, and several wars (both current and to come. Watch out, Iran!). When included, every poll in the universe shows that taxes are among the lowest of priorities for Americans, yet it remains the central component of Bush’s economic policy. Even worse, he attributes economic success to his tax cuts. This is ridiculous. Employment numbers are mixed; the real wage continues to drop as the spread between the rich and poor is at an all-time high (Clinton’s biggest failure); family debt is rising, skewing the vitality of economic growth. Productivity and job creation are the only two measures Bush considers. That’s like looking at a hood and fender of a car and trying to describe the quality of the whole vehicle. The rosy paintings are getting on my nerves. This isn’t spin; this is lying. Americans know this and that’s exactly why they remain very concerned about the economy.
2) Despite talking about them in the same breath, Health Savings Accounts do NOT address rising health care costs; they only address how to pay for rising costs. Just because most Americans don't know what HSA are doesn't give you the right to give the impression that you're lowering the real cost of health care. This deceiving here is shameful. SHAME!!! I do like, however, that he spoke about electronic health records (my masters thesis!). Don't give up on this, W. Be careful though. Don't try to make us all believe that this also solves the problem of rising costs. It increases safety and quality, but the effect on provider and payer efficiency is unknown.
3) I’m not big on activism, though I respect activists for their courage. I was shocked when I read this morning that Cindy Sheehan was arrested last night. She was at the speech as an invited guest and decided to wear an anti-war t-shirt, which she refused to remove after being asked to by the police. What the hell is this? She didn’t get arrested for breaking the law in terms of dress codes or expressing obscenities. No! She was arrested for not listening to the police! She was charged with unlawful conduct. First of all, HORRIBLE public relations move on the part of the police. Second of all, who the FUCK are they to arrest someone for quietly expressing her opinion in a non-disruptive manner in MY capitol building? In what way does her t-shirt threaten the safety of the people or even the proceedings taking place in that building last night? It is an act like this that painfully reminds me that even the US is capable of fascistic behavior.
6 Comments:
Yeah, i was shocked at the Sheehan thing too. According to the article, demonstrations aren't allowed. Is wearing a t-shirt a demonstration? I'm not sure where I fall there...
Anyway, an arrest is too much.
I thought that the speech overall felt short and empty. He outlined few definitive plans and projects and just showered us with generalizations. Not very informative and supremely boring.
Can we actually be considered the liberators of Europe?
-JB
The wife of a Republican Congressman was also ejected for wearing a shirt that said 'Support our Troops - Defending Freedom' This is some of the most ridiculous crap I've heard in a long time.
Agreed. Ridiculous!
JB is right. Even if wearing a t-shirt is considered a demonstration, arrests take it too far. It follows that someone should have arrested Laura Bush for that hideous pink ensemble for expressing such bad taste.
From factcheck.org on the speech:
*
He proudly spoke of "writing a new chapter in the story of self-government" in Iraq and Afghanistan and said the number of democracies in the world is growing. He failed to mention that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan yet qualify as democracies according to the very group whose statistics he cited.
*
Bush called for Congress to pass a line-item veto, failing to mention that the Supreme Court struck down a line-item veto as unconstitutional in 1998. Bills now in Congress would propose a Constitutional amendment, but none have shown signs of life.
*
The President said the economy gained 4.6 million jobs in the past two-and-a-half years, failing to note that it had lost 2.6 million jobs in his first two-and-a-half years in office. The net gain since Bush took office is just a little more than 2 million.
*
He talked of cutting spending, but only "non-security discretionary spending." Actually, total federal spending has increased 42 percent since Bush took office.
*
He spoke of being "on track" to cut the federal deficit in half by 2009. But the deficit is increasing this year, and according to the Congressional Budget Office it will decline by considerably less than half even if Bush's tax cuts are allowed to lapse.
*
Bush spoke of a "goal" of cutting dependence on Middle Eastern oil, failing to mention that US dependence on imported oil and petroleum products increased substantially during his first five years in office, reaching 60 per cent of consumption last year.
The rest available at www.factcheck.org
Liberal groups should finance a suit brought by Sheehan against the chief of Capitol police. In discovery, and under oath, they would be forced to refute or admit WH involvement, and possibly expose a conspiracy to violate her 4th amendment rights.
Let them explain why a woman who's son gave her life fighting for this country should be arrested for appearing at her State of the Union address, in her Capitol building, representing the memory of HER dead son.
We have the same issues with t-shirt demonstrations over here (we actually have a law specifically allowing prosecution over them however) in Britain.
The oil dependency statement I appreciate but it's not about cutting consumption of oil, it's about changing the sources or the method of production. The facts check info is great though - thanks for pointing it out. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home