February 2, 2005

STATE OF THE UNION THOUGHTS--PLEASE ADD YOURS:

State of the Union Address (STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives The United States Capitol Washington, D.C., 9:10 P.M. EST, 2/02/05)

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, fellow citizens:

As a new Congress gathers, all of us in the elected branches of government share a great privilege: We've been placed in office by the votes of the people we serve. And tonight that is a privilege we share with newly-elected leaders of Afghanistan, the Palestinian Territories, Ukraine, and a free and sovereign Iraq. (Applause.)

Two weeks ago, I stood on the steps of this Capitol and renewed the commitment of our nation to the guiding ideal of liberty for all. This evening I will set forth policies to advance that ideal at home and around the world.

Tonight, with a healthy, growing economy, with more Americans going back to work, with our nation an active force for good in the world -- the state of our union is confident and strong. (Applause.)

Our generation has been blessed -- by the expansion of opportunity, by advances in medicine, by the security purchased by our parents' sacrifice. Now, as we see a little gray in the mirror -- or a lot of gray -- (laughter) -- and we watch our children moving into adulthood, we ask the question: What will be the state of their union? Members of Congress, the choices we make together will answer that question. Over the next several months, on issue after issue, let us do what Americans have always done, and build a better world for our children and our grandchildren. (Applause.)

First, we must be good stewards of this economy, and renew the great institutions on which millions of our fellow citizens rely. America's economy is the fastest growing of any major industrialized nation. In the past four years, we provided tax relief to every person who pays income taxes, overcome a recession, opened up new markets abroad, prosecuted corporate criminals, raised homeownership to its highest level in history, and in the last year alone, the United States has added 2.3 million new jobs. (Applause.) When action was needed, the Congress delivered -- and the nation is grateful.

Now we must add to these achievements. By making our economy more flexible, more innovative, and more competitive, we will keep America the economic leader of the world. (Applause.)

America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government. I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline. I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. (Applause.) My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: Taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely, or not at all. (Applause.)

To make our economy stronger and more dynamic, we must prepare a rising generation to fill the jobs of the 21st century. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, standards are higher, test scores are on the rise, and we're closing the achievement gap for minority students. Now we must demand better results from our high schools, so every high school diploma is a ticket to success. We will help an additional 200,000 workers to get training for a better career, by reforming our job training system and strengthening America's community colleges. And we'll make it easier for Americans to afford a college education, by increasing the size of Pell Grants. (Applause.)

To make our economy stronger and more competitive, America must reward, not punish, the efforts and dreams of entrepreneurs. Small business is the path of advancement, especially for women and minorities, so we must free small businesses from needless regulation and protect honest job-creators from junk lawsuits. (Applause.) Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back by irresponsible class-actions and frivolous asbestos claims -- and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year. (Applause.)

To make our economy stronger and more productive, we must make health care more affordable, and give families greater access to good coverage -- (applause) -- and more control over their health decisions. (Applause.) I ask Congress to move forward on a comprehensive health care agenda with tax credits to help low-income workers buy insurance, a community health center in every poor country, improved information technology to prevent medical error and needless costs, association health plans for small businesses and their employees -- (applause) -- expanded health savings accounts -- (applause) -- and medical liability reform that will reduce health care costs and make sure patients have the doctors and care they need. (Applause.)

To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy. (Applause.) Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid, and more production here at home -- including safe, clean nuclear energy. (Applause.) My Clear Skies legislation will cut power plant pollution and improve the health of our citizens. (Applause.) And my budget provides strong funding for leading-edge technology -- from hydrogen-fueled cars, to clean coal, to renewable sources such as ethanol. (Applause.) Four years of debate is enough: I urge Congress to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign energy. (Applause.)

All these proposals are essential to expand this economy and add new jobs -- but they are just the beginning of our duty. To build the prosperity of future generations, we must update institutions that were created to meet the needs of an earlier time. Year after year, Americans are burdened by an archaic, incoherent federal tax code. I've appointed a bipartisan panel to examine the tax code from top to bottom. And when their recommendations are delivered, you and I will work together to give this nation a tax code that is pro-growth, easy to understand, and fair to all. (Applause.)

America's immigration system is also outdated -- unsuited to the needs of our economy and to the values of our country. We should not be content with laws that punish hardworking people who want only to provide for their families, and deny businesses willing workers, and invite chaos at our border. It is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country, and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists. (Applause.)

One of America's most important institutions -- a symbol of the trust between generations -- is also in need of wise and effective reform. Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century, and we must honor its great purposes in this new century. (Applause.) The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy. And so we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security. (Applause.)

Today, more than 45 million Americans receive Social Security benefits, and millions more are nearing retirement -- and for them the system is sound and fiscally strong. I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you; for you, the Social Security system will not change in any way. (Applause.) For younger workers, the Social Security system has serious problems that will grow worse with time. Social Security was created decades ago, for a very different era. In those days, people did not live as long. Benefits were much lower than they are today. And a half-century ago, about sixteen workers paid into the system for each person drawing benefits.

Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and, therefore, drawing benefits longer. And those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades. And instead of sixteen workers paying in for every beneficiary, right now it's only about three workers. And over the next few decades that number will fall to just two workers per beneficiary. With each passing year, fewer workers are paying ever-higher benefits to an ever-larger number of retirees.

So here is the result: Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before. For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra $200 billion to keep the system afloat -- and by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than $300 billion. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.

I recognize that 2018 and 2042 may seem a long way off. But those dates are not so distant, as any parent will tell you. If you have a five-year-old, you're already concerned about how you'll pay for college tuition 13 years down the road. If you've got children in their 20s, as some of us do, the idea of Social Security collapsing before they retire does not seem like a small matter. And it should not be a small matter to the United States Congress. (Applause.) You and I share a responsibility. We must pass reforms that solve the financial problems of Social Security once and for all.

Fixing Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review of the options. Some have suggested limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. Former Congressman Tim Penny has raised the possibility of indexing benefits to prices rather than wages. During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated. All these ideas are on the table.

I know that none of these reforms would be easy. But we have to move ahead with courage and honesty, because our children's retirement security is more important than partisan politics. (Applause.) I will work with members of Congress to find the most effective combination of reforms. I will listen to anyone who has a good idea to offer. (Applause.) We must, however, be guided by some basic principles. We must make Social Security permanently sound, not leave that task for another day. We must not jeopardize our economic strength by increasing payroll taxes. We must ensure that lower-income Americans get the help they need to have dignity and peace of mind in their retirement. We must guarantee there is no change for those now retired or nearing retirement. And we must take care that any changes in the system are gradual, so younger workers have years to prepare and plan for their future.

As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts. (Applause.) Here is how the idea works. Right now, a set portion of the money you earn is taken out of your paycheck to pay for the Social Security benefits of today's retirees. If you're a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future.

Here's why the personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver -- and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security. In addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children and -- or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away. (Applause.)

The goal here is greater security in retirement, so we will set careful guidelines for personal accounts. We'll make sure the money can only go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds. We'll make sure that your earnings are not eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees. We'll make sure there are good options to protect your investments from sudden market swings on the eve of your retirement. We'll make sure a personal account cannot be emptied out all at once, but rather paid out over time, as an addition to traditional Social Security benefits. And we'll make sure this plan is fiscally responsible, by starting personal retirement accounts gradually, and raising the yearly limits on contributions over time, eventually permitting all workers to set aside four percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts.

Personal retirement accounts should be familiar to federal employees, because you already have something similar, called the Thrift Savings Plan, which lets workers deposit a portion of their paychecks into any of five different broadly-based investment funds. It's time to extend the same security, and choice, and ownership to young Americans. (Applause.)

Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them.

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage. (Applause.)

Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable, we must strive to build a culture of life. Medical research can help us reach that goal, by developing treatments and cures that save lives and help people overcome disabilities -- and I thank the Congress for doubling the funding of the National Institutes of Health. (Applause.) To build a culture of life, we must also ensure that scientific advances always serve human dignity, not take advantage of some lives for the benefit of others. We should all be able to agree -- (applause) -- we should all be able to agree on some clear standards. I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and sold as a commodity. (Applause.) America will continue to lead the world in medical research that is ambitious, aggressive, and always ethical.

Because courts must always deliver impartial justice, judges have a duty to faithfully interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. (Applause.) As President, I have a constitutional responsibility to nominate men and women who understand the role of courts in our democracy, and are well-qualified to serve on the bench -- and I have done so. (Applause.) The Constitution also gives the Senate a responsibility: Every judicial nominee deserves an up or down vote. (Applause.)

Because one of the deepest values of our country is compassion, we must never turn away from any citizen who feels isolated from the opportunities of America. Our government will continue to support faith-based and community groups that bring hope to harsh places. Now we need to focus on giving young people, especially young men in our cities, better options than apathy, or gangs, or jail. Tonight I propose a three-year initiative to help organizations keep young people out of gangs, and show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence. (Applause.) Taking on gang life will be one part of a broader outreach to at-risk youth, which involves parents and pastors, coaches and community leaders, in programs ranging from literacy to sports. And I am proud that the leader of this nationwide effort will be our First Lady, Laura Bush. (Applause.)

Because HIV/AIDS brings suffering and fear into so many lives, I ask you to reauthorize the Ryan White Act to encourage prevention, and provide care and treatment to the victims of that disease. (Applause.) And as we update this important law, we must focus our efforts on fellow citizens with the highest rates of new cases, African American men and women. (Applause.)

Because one of the main sources of our national unity is our belief in equal justice, we need to make sure Americans of all races and backgrounds have confidence in the system that provides justice. In America we must make doubly sure no person is held to account for a crime he or she did not commit -- so we are dramatically expanding the use of DNA evidence to prevent wrongful conviction. (Applause.) Soon I will send to Congress a proposal to fund special training for defense counsel in capital cases, because people on trial for their lives must have competent lawyers by their side. (Applause.)

Our third responsibility to future generations is to leave them an America that is safe from danger, and protected by peace. We will pass along to our children all the freedoms we enjoy -- and chief among them is freedom from fear.

In the three and a half years since September the 11th, 2001, we have taken unprecedented actions to protect Americans. We've created a new department of government to defend our homeland, focused the FBI on preventing terrorism, begun to reform our intelligence agencies, broken up terror cells across the country, expanded research on defenses against biological and chemical attack, improved border security, and trained more than a half-million first responders. Police and firefighters, air marshals, researchers, and so many others are working every day to make our homeland safer, and we thank them all. (Applause.)

Our nation, working with allies and friends, has also confronted the enemy abroad, with measures that are determined, successful, and continuing. The al Qaeda terror network that attacked our country still has leaders -- but many of its top commanders have been removed. There are still governments that sponsor and harbor terrorists -- but their number has declined. There are still regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction -- but no longer without attention and without consequence. Our country is still the target of terrorists who want to kill many, and intimidate us all -- and we will stay on the offensive against them, until the fight is won. (Applause.)

Pursuing our enemies is a vital commitment of the war on terror -- and I thank the Congress for providing our servicemen and women with the resources they have needed. During this time of war, we must continue to support our military and give them the tools for victory. (Applause.)

Other nations around the globe have stood with us. In Afghanistan, an international force is helping provide security. In Iraq, 28 countries have troops on the ground, the United Nations and the European Union provided technical assistance for the elections, and NATO is leading a mission to help train Iraqi officers. We're cooperating with 60 governments in the Proliferation Security Initiative, to detect and stop the transit of dangerous materials. We're working closely with the governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and nine other countries have captured or detained al Qaeda terrorists. In the next four years, my administration will continue to build the coalitions that will defeat the dangers of our time. (Applause.)

In the long-term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder. If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades. The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom. (Applause.) Our enemies know this, and that is why the terrorist Zarqawi recently declared war on what he called the "evil principle" of democracy. And we've declared our own intention: America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. (Applause.)

The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life. Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace. (Applause.)

That advance has great momentum in our time -- shown by women voting in Afghanistan, and Palestinians choosing a new direction, and the people of Ukraine asserting their democratic rights and electing a president. We are witnessing landmark events in the history of liberty. And in the coming years, we will add to that story. (Applause.)

The beginnings of reform and democracy in the Palestinian territories are now showing the power of freedom to break old patterns of violence and failure. Tomorrow morning, Secretary of State Rice departs on a trip that will take her to Israel and the West Bank for meetings with Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas. She will discuss with them how we and our friends can help the Palestinian people end terror and build the institutions of a peaceful, independent, democratic state. To promote this democracy, I will ask Congress for $350 million to support Palestinian political, economic, and security reforms. The goal of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, is within reach -- and America will help them achieve that goal. (Applause.)

To promote peace and stability in the broader Middle East, the United States will work with our friends in the region to fight the common threat of terror, while we encourage a higher standard of freedom. Hopeful reform is already taking hold in an arc from Morocco to Jordan to Bahrain. The government of Saudi Arabia can demonstrate its leadership in the region by expanding the role of its people in determining their future. And the great and proud nation of Egypt, which showed the way toward peace in the Middle East, can now show the way toward democracy in the Middle East. (Applause.)

To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder. Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region. You have passed, and we are applying, the Syrian Accountability Act -- and we expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom. (Applause.) Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing, and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you. (Applause.)

Our generational commitment to the advance of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq. That country is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there. Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.) And the victory of freedom in Iraq will strengthen a new ally in the war on terror, inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, bring more hope and progress to a troubled region, and thereby lift a terrible threat from the lives of our children and grandchildren.

We will succeed because the Iraqi people value their own liberty -- as they showed the world last Sunday. (Applause.) Across Iraq, often at great risk, millions of citizens went to the polls and elected 275 men and women to represent them in a new Transitional National Assembly. A young woman in Baghdad told of waking to the sound of mortar fire on election day, and wondering if it might be too dangerous to vote. She said, "Hearing those explosions, it occurred to me -- the insurgents are weak, they are afraid of democracy, they are losing. So I got my husband, and I got my parents, and we all came out and voted together."

Americans recognize that spirit of liberty, because we share it. In any nation, casting your vote is an act of civic responsibility; for millions of Iraqis, it was also an act of personal courage, and they have earned the respect of us all. (Applause.)

One of Iraq's leading democracy and human rights advocates is Safia Taleb al-Suhail. She says of her country, "We were occupied for 35 years by Saddam Hussein. That was the real occupation. Thank you to the American people who paid the cost, but most of all, to the soldiers." Eleven years ago, Safia's father was assassinated by Saddam's intelligence service. Three days ago in Baghdad, Safia was finally able to vote for the leaders of her country -- and we are honored that she is with us tonight. (Applause.)

The terrorists and insurgents are violently opposed to democracy, and will continue to attack it. Yet, the terrorists' most powerful myth is being destroyed. The whole world is seeing that the car bombers and assassins are not only fighting coalition forces, they are trying to destroy the hopes of Iraqis, expressed in free elections. And the whole world now knows that a small group of extremists will not overturn the will of the Iraqi people. (Applause.)

We will succeed in Iraq because Iraqis are determined to fight for their own freedom, and to write their own history. As Prime Minister Allawi said in his speech to Congress last September, "Ordinary Iraqis are anxious to shoulder all the security burdens of our country as quickly as possible." That is the natural desire of an independent nation, and it is also the stated mission of our coalition in Iraq. The new political situation in Iraq opens a new phase of our work in that country.

At the recommendation of our commanders on the ground, and in consultation with the Iraqi government, we will increasingly focus our efforts on helping prepare more capable Iraqi security forces -- forces with skilled officers and an effective command structure. As those forces become more self-reliant and take on greater security responsibilities, America and its coalition partners will increasingly be in a supporting role. In the end, Iraqis must be able to defend their own country -- and we will help that proud, new nation secure its liberty.

Recently an Iraqi interpreter said to a reporter, "Tell America not to abandon us." He and all Iraqis can be certain: While our military strategy is adapting to circumstances, our commitment remains firm and unchanging. We are standing for the freedom of our Iraqi friends, and freedom in Iraq will make America safer for generations to come. (Applause.) We will not set an artificial timetable for leaving Iraq, because that would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out. We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself. And when that result is achieved, our men and women serving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned. (Applause.)

Right now, Americans in uniform are serving at posts across the world, often taking great risks on my orders. We have given them training and equipment; and they have given us an example of idealism and character that makes every American proud. (Applause.) The volunteers of our military are unrelenting in battle, unwavering in loyalty, unmatched in honor and decency, and every day they're making our nation more secure. Some of our servicemen and women have survived terrible injuries, and this grateful country will do everything we can to help them recover. (Applause.) And we have said farewell to some very good men and women, who died for our freedom, and whose memory this nation will honor forever.

One name we honor is Marine Corps Sergeant Byron Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas, who was killed during the assault on Fallujah. His mom, Janet, sent me a letter and told me how much Byron loved being a Marine, and how proud he was to be on the front line against terror. She wrote, "When Byron was home the last time, I said that I wanted to protect him like I had since he was born. He just hugged me and said, 'You've done your job, Mom. Now it is my turn to protect you.'" Ladies and gentlemen, with grateful hearts, we honor freedom's defenders, and our military families, represented here this evening by Sergeant Norwood's mom and dad, Janet and Bill Norwood. (Applause.)

In these four years, Americans have seen the unfolding of large events. We have known times of sorrow, and hours of uncertainty, and days of victory. In all this history, even when we have disagreed, we have seen threads of purpose that unite us. The attack on freedom in our world has reaffirmed our confidence in freedom's power to change the world. We are all part of a great venture: To extend the promise of freedom in our country, to renew the values that sustain our liberty, and to spread the peace that freedom brings.

As Franklin Roosevelt once reminded Americans, "Each age is a dream that is dying, or one that is coming to birth." And we live in the country where the biggest dreams are born. The abolition of slavery was only a dream -- until it was fulfilled. The liberation of Europe from fascism was only a dream -- until it was achieved. The fall of imperial communism was only a dream -- until, one day, it was accomplished. Our generation has dreams of its own, and we also go forward with confidence. The road of Providence is uneven and unpredictable -- yet we know where it leads: It leads to freedom.

Thank you, and may God bless America.


* Note that the Democrats sat on their hands for the Marriage Amendment but lept up for the Culture of Life? How can they know that abortion is kicking their butts but not gay rights?

* Brilliant how directly he's pitching programs to blacks. [As he was leaving he told a black congressman that the speech showed he'd been listening at their meeting the other day.]

* The front page of every paper in the West tomorrow has to be the hug.

* The response is always awful, not least because the President had an audienced and you don't, but could somebody please help Ms Pelosi put her eyes back in her head.

* One of the changes George Bush and Karl Rove were intent on making when they got to Washington was to make the President less omnipresent than especially Bill Clinton had been and to reserve the use of his presence in our lives for important moments. their best idea was to ditch the State of the Union speech and return to just delivering a written message to the Hill. Obviously they had to take advantage of the dreadful format in January 2001, after the election mess, but it's easy to imagine that might have been the last for awhile. But then 9-11...

At any rate, that's the best State of the Union anyone's given in some time and the reason is because they focussed so much on one or two issues (Social Security and Iraq) and mostly did away with the usual laundry list approach.

MORE:
Bush Outlines Views On Economy, Free Society, Peace (James Gerstenzang, February 2, 2005, LA Times)

President Bush summoned Americans tonight to meet three long-term responsibilities - to protect the economy, preserve their free society and promote peace - as he unveiled a Social Security restructuring that would introduce individual investment accounts for younger workers and potentially cut deeply, in unspecified ways, into benefits for future retirees.

In his 53-minute speech, Bush outlined a world view founded on expanded individual responsibility and a national responsibility to build a world of greater economic and physical security.

"Tonight, with a healthy, growing economy, with more Americans going back to work, with our nation an active force for good in the world - the state of our union is confident and strong," the president said.

Under the president's Social Security proposal, which faced sharp skepticism among Democrats and some Republicans even before it was unveiled, those born after Jan. 1, 1950 would be allowed to divert a portion of the money that would have gone into the Social Security trust fund into individually controlled investments instead. Under the plan that would be phased in over three years, beginning in 2009, workers could divert up to 4% of the 12.4% payroll tax that is paid equally by workers an employers.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 2, 2005 9:44 PM
Comments

I'm pleased about his immigration stance: more guest workers, but it "rejects amnesty."

Posted by: Ryan at February 2, 2005 9:52 PM

Best SOTU W has given. Clear explanation of SS will reap benefits. He framed the debate even if details later forgotten. Throwing down the challenge to SA, Egypt, Iran and Syria to catch up to the Paleos on democracy was great.

Posted by: JAB at February 2, 2005 10:09 PM

I just got out of history class, but the folks at Lucianne.com make me suspect that Bush just smashed one out of the ballpark.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at February 2, 2005 10:13 PM

Pelosi's eyes. I've been worried about her meds for some time now...

Posted by: M. Murcek at February 2, 2005 10:38 PM

I realized about halfway through the response that this was the Harry Reid I keep hearing about. I kept thinking, couldn't they find anyone better than this joker?

What a great week for GWB.

Posted by: David Hill, The Bronx at February 2, 2005 10:56 PM

Maybe, just maybe, Democrats did not stand up to cheer Bush on the marriage amendment because no matter how much their support of gay rights hurts them at the polls, they won't support changing the nation's foundational charter in a way that is fundamentally at odds with all that Democrats stand for, and dare I say, at odds with all that America is about.

Posted by: wpb at February 2, 2005 11:14 PM

I can't understand how Reid became a senator, much less the top senator. That was a horrific "response." But does it count as a response if it had nothing to do with the speech Bush gave? Reid could have given that (bizarre, surreal) speech anywhere, at any time, and it would have made just as much (little) sense. What kind of odd little boy wants to grow up and be a gaunt, mortician-like senator from a minority party?

Posted by: Timothy at February 2, 2005 11:17 PM

Like OJ said, the response is always awful, and the opposition party should skip it, but no politician will turn down the chance to be on national television, even if what's being televised is their suicide.

The President of the United States, in the well of the House of Representatives, speaking to the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Cabinet and the Diplomatic Corp, standing in front of the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House and the American flag, discharging his Constitutional duty, followed by a couple of unknown suits who just ran into a small room. They're going to look small and petty no matter the circumstances.

WPB: Opposing gay marriage (and standing up for democracy, republican government and the rule of law) is "fundamentally at odds with all that Democrats stand for"? Since when?

Posted by: David Cohen at February 2, 2005 11:28 PM

wpb:

They're willing to fake opposition to abortion but not to sodomy? If that's principle it's highly nuanced.

Posted by: oj at February 2, 2005 11:34 PM

Fred Thompson's response to Clinton's SOTU address back in 1995 was pretty effective, since he had the stage presence to go head-to-head with Bubba (pity they can't do so again on "Law and Order"), and because the Republicans had just stunned the Democrats by winning control of both houses of Congress, so the Democrats were about as back on their heels that winter as they are now.

...and if Ms. Pelosi has one more plastic surgery face lift and keeps doing the eye thing, she's going to look like a Tex Avery character doing a double-take.

Posted by: John at February 2, 2005 11:41 PM

Mr. Cohen--

The idea that judges should show restraint and not invent law as it pleases them is clearly "fundamentally at odds with all that Democrats stand for," I suppose.

Posted by: John Thacker at February 3, 2005 12:59 AM

First, If you all really think that Democrats secretly love abortion and are just posturing when they stand up for a culture of life, then, well, we don't have much to discuss on this issue. There are forty million abortions performed worldwide each year, 20 million of which are conducted in countries where abortion is illegal. Democrats believe that the best way to oppose abortion is to build a culture of life by expanding access to comprehensive family planning services and prenatal care, ensuring adequate health care for poor families and their children, providing reality-based sex education to young people, and by ensureing economic and educational opportunity for all. To accuse Democrats of being pro-abortion or anti-life simply because they believe that government regulation of womens' bodies is neither just nor effective public policy is intellectually dishonest and personally offensive.

Second, whether you all like it or not gay, lesbian, and transgendered people are real live creatures of God and citizens of the United States just like you and me, and no matter how much you condemn them they are not going away. Whether you all are willing to face reality or not, homosexuality is a social fact, not a lifestyle choice. Are you all truly serious that you don't know people who are just plain gay, no two ways about it? Don't you all get out of the house? Instead of just talking about how America is a republic of laws rather than a democracy of men, Democrats act on that belief by refusing to submit constitutional liberty to raw majoritarianism. The Constitution commands, that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." If you really think that your opinion, religious or otherwise, of what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom provides a compelling justification for denying them equality under the law and equal access to basic civil liberties like the right to inherit their life-long partner's estate, or to be free from harassment in the workplace, or even the right to be considered a family member for purposes of visitation in the intensive care unit of a public hospital, all of which are "legal incidents" of marriage dissolved by 8 of the 11 marriage amendments passed last Novemeber, then, again, we really don't have much to talk about.

But, alas, I am not really sure we are arguing with each other as much as jsut speaking past each other. Like the nation as a whole, we are having a clash of worldviews. From your perch you see your America and its role in the world, and from my perch I see mine. Just like you, I believe in truth. My truth makes me view the President's speech tonight and the policies it endorsed with dismay, while for you it is cause for celebration. Fortunately, I suppose, we can all agree about how lucky we are to live in a place where citizens are allowed to live by the truth of their choosing. After all, if America wasn't liberal enough to live and let live, who then would be the great beacon light of hope to all the world? Here are two parting thoughts for you from two people who shared my view.

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

Thomas Jefferson


"We must recognize the full human equality of all of our people -- before God, before the law, and in the councils of government. We must do this, not because it is economically advantageous -- although it is; not because the laws of God command it -- although they do; not because people in other lands wish it so. We must do it for the single and fundamental reason that it is the right thing to do."

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Posted by: wpb at February 3, 2005 1:38 AM

But... but... what about Mars?

Posted by: melior at February 3, 2005 1:55 AM

Thanks for posting the speech in it's entirety. I bet nobody else in the blogsphere thought of that.

"he told a black congressman that the speech showed he'd been listening" What? Wouldn't the speech have shown that? I just want to point out that my statement shows that I'm smarter than you. You thank me and I'm welcome.

He wasn't on holiday all those months? No. He was "reducing his omnipresence!" (pure gold!) It must be tough to pretend to be mortal when you're actually God.

Is he actually trying to praise America for abolishing slavery? Like Abe invented the idea? America was a pariah back then, too. They eventually followed the rest of the planet, but only after tearing themselves a new arsehole.

Bush could have read the back of a cereal packet and the Brothers Judd would still felate him for it. ( Metaphorically speaking. )

Posted by: Dave at February 3, 2005 1:58 AM

Democrats did not stand up to cheer Bush on the marriage amendment because . . . they won't support changing the nation's foundational charter in a way that is fundamentally . . . at odds with all that America is about.

America is all about . . . vaidating buggery? . . . oligarchic rule by a judicial elite imposing its "values" on the peons? Please elaborate.

Posted by: Mike Morley at February 3, 2005 5:15 AM

Dave:

Remember how often Bill Clinton was on your tv? Now think how seldom W is.

If you'll recall, Democrats didn't get rid of slavery--Republicans did it for them.

Which cereal?

Posted by: oj at February 3, 2005 7:26 AM

wpb:

It's no secret.

Posted by: oj at February 3, 2005 7:29 AM

"America is all about... validating buggery?"

One of the things that America is about is validating not buggery directly, but the freedom to pursue happiness. If 'buggery' is how one wishes to pursue happiness in the privacy of one's own home, then so be it.

If the "judicial elite" says that your neighbor has the freedom to commit sodomy in his bedroom, then that "elite" is not imposing anything on you.

Anything other than freedom, that is.

Posted by: creeper at February 3, 2005 7:50 AM

"Remember how often Bill Clinton was on your tv? Now think how seldom W is."

Think how often Bush would be on TV if it benefited him and his party - that is, if he came off well unscripted.

Posted by: creeper at February 3, 2005 7:54 AM

WPB: I'm agnostic on whether Democrats love abortion as I can't see into their hearts. However, the positive statement "Democrats act as if they love abortion" has a predictive value of 1.00.

Your defense of the humanity of homosexuals is moving and convincing. It is, however, somewhat besides the point. First, I'm not aware that anyone here denies their essential humanity and almost no one here (albeit with one notable exception) wishes to punish them for their orientation. Second, your stereotypes are pulling you off the path of relevance. My guess is that I know more homosexual couples who are functionally married and, at this point, actually married, than you do.

Most importantly, though, your cri de coeur has nothing to do with the Democratic party. John Kerry's position in 2004 was that he opposes gay marriage and the party punted, saying only that it should be left up to the states. So, are the Democrats liars or hypocrites?

Creeper: We weren't really talking about Lawrence, but let's talk about it. I'm not a huge fan of anti-sodomy legislation. On the one hand, I do believe that the law is, should be and must be a tool for the shaping of a cohesive society in which we the people make our values clear. So, if one of our values is to eschew sodomy, then I have no problem with the law saying so -- and, leaving sodomy to one side, this is true even for values I don't share as just having a set of national values is good. In the case of sodomy, however, criminalizing our societal consensus against it runs headlong into other important values: limitation on state snooping, fair play, reliance on individual morality and the freedom of the individual to decide for himself. It is also true that we can't be successful in stamping out sodomy, but this is true of all criminal laws and thus is simply a makeweight argument.

So, if I'm philosopher king, weighing up all these competing issues, even giving great weight to the societal consensus against sodomy, I come down against such laws. But I'm not the philosopher king, so who cares what I think. More to the point, Margaret Marshall and John Greaney aren't philosopher kings, either, so who cares what they think? Isn't our overwhelming value that a just government derives its power from the consent of the governed? Lawrence, Goodridge, Roe, etc., are destructive of that most basic American value.

(Not to try to forestall debate, but: I've read Roe, Goodridge, Lawrence, et al. I am very familiar with 14th Amendment jurisprudence. I don't believe it. Given everything the courts have said about the due process and equal protection clauses, each of these cases has a fig leaf of cover (it's a little hard to imagine the argument that wouldn't). The point is that the courts shouldn't be in the business of finding cover for achieving their own policy goals, but should instead honor the intent of the people in ratifying the Constitution.)

Posted by: David Cohen at February 3, 2005 9:48 AM

I thought the speech was just great. He certainly was confident and that is contagious.

His introduction of the fallen soldier's parents was magnificient. It sure brought a lump to my throat.

What in Hell was Reid talking about during the 'response'? I must have missed what he was responding to.

GO BUSH!

Posted by: Tom Wall at February 3, 2005 10:16 AM

Did anyone else catch Bush's wink to Justice Breyer immediately after he decried judicial activism?

Posted by: ratbert at February 3, 2005 11:24 AM

wpb-- Yes, certain rights should be enshrined past majorities. But it's ridiculous to invent rights that clearly were not part of the amendments, and which no one agreed to, and which are opposed by a vast majority.

If Republicans played by the same logic as Democrats, Republican judges would find a universal "right to life" that prohibited abortion everywhere. Certainly it's as well grounded as your other claims. Do not the weakest and most helpless among us deserve dignity and rights? Do not those who have no voices deserve someone to speak up for them? But Republicans play fair, and that's not going to happen. The only thing any Republican judge would do is leave it up to each state.

Posted by: John Thacker at February 3, 2005 5:18 PM

creeper:

It's a republic.

Posted by: oj at February 3, 2005 5:21 PM

creeper:

He's given ten of the best speeches of the past hundred years and routinely punishes the press at his infrequent press conferences. His topwnhall shtick is nearly as good as Clinton's, as kerry learned to his shock.

But they use political capital as if it mattered which is why he's so successful governing.

Posted by: oj at February 3, 2005 5:28 PM

OJ:

Speaking of Bush speeches, might you have a link to a tongue-in-cheek post you made some months ago saying that if the president's goal were to spread democracy he might say something like this...or this...

I've been searching this one out for a while but can't find it.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at February 3, 2005 7:31 PM

By the way, did Reid's repeated bloviating about Searchlight, Nev., remind anyone else of Al Bundy calling Peg on a cellphone from Burnt Scrotum, NM?

Posted by: Matt Murphy at February 3, 2005 7:35 PM

Your wrote: Note that the Democrats sat on their hands for the Marriage Amendment but lept up for the Culture of Life? How can they know that abortion is kicking their butts but not gay rights?

As I argue on my blog, maybe that's because Democrats (or some of them, anyway) recognize that a culture of life would have no problem extending marital rights and all of its benefits (legal- and health-related) to same-sex couples. You can't see this?

Posted by: MS Hayes at February 3, 2005 9:05 PM

David Cohen: is there a plausible equivalent to stare decisis that could be brought to bear on the judiciary as a whole? "Judicial restraint" doesn't seem to be cutting it.

Posted by: joe shropshire at February 4, 2005 12:56 AM

Orrin,

"It's a republic."

As well as a democracy. Republic by itself just means there's no monarch involved.

Posted by: creeper at February 4, 2005 2:48 AM

Orrin,

"He's given ten of the best speeches of the past hundred years"

Sure, Bush has good speechwriters and throughout the course of his presidency has gotten better at reading them out loud.

"and routinely punishes the press at his infrequent press conferences."

How does he punish the press exactly? I assume you mean this in a way that is flattering to Bush.

In the press conferences of his that I have seen, Bush seemed flustered, evasive and on occasion not even terribly adept at dodging questions.

"His topwnhall shtick is nearly as good as Clinton's, as kerry learned to his shock."

By his townhall shtick, do you mean his speeches on the campaign trail? Scripted and carefully rehearsed, with no danger of questions being asked, least of all questions critical of his policies or even asking him to explain his policies.

Bush's weakness at unscripted appearances when questions are asked was especially evident in the first presidential debate.

Posted by: creeper at February 4, 2005 6:18 AM

David:

That was an excellent response.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 4, 2005 7:02 AM

creeper:

No, Republic means much more than that:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1385/Republicanis.htm

He won the debates.

Posted by: oj at February 4, 2005 7:51 AM

Orrin,

Sure, Bush won the election. Whether he won the first presidential debate that I highlighted is another question. If you felt incredibly charitable toward Bush, I suppose you could call it a draw, or say that nobody watches the debates anyway, but Bush having won? At the time, public opinion was almost 2 to 1 that Kerry won that debate, and even some Republicans were dismayed at how flustered and unprepared Bush looked.

A republic and a representative democracy are by no means mutually exclusive; they actually can go hand in hand rather well.

Posted by: creeper at February 4, 2005 9:51 AM

Jeff: Thanks.

Joe: There's a famous saying (so famous I forget who said it): "While you are in power, you will protect my right to dissent, consistent with your principles. When I am in power, I will stamp out your right to dissent, consistent with my principles."

That is the dilemna that conservative judges find themselves in. Richard Posner has resolved it in favor of conservative judicial activism. As he says, any other resolution makes the judiciary into a one-way ratchet that only goes left. Justice Thomas is trying to resolve it by extending the doctrine that the power of stare decisis is reduced for constitutional interpretations. Justice Scalia, though he fights the ratchet, seems to be stuck.

Posted by: David Cohen at February 4, 2005 12:01 PM

creeper:

Yes, neither goes with freedom.

Posted by: oj at February 4, 2005 12:04 PM

Orrin,

nice deflection. Do you agree that the US is a republic as well as a representative democracy?

Posted by: creeper at February 5, 2005 6:57 AM

creeper:

Of course. Both allow for liberty, not freedom.

Posted by: oj at February 5, 2005 8:05 AM

Orrin,

Fine as to the first part.

As for the second: how do you define the difference between liberty and freedom?

Posted by: creeper at February 5, 2005 10:12 AM

Creeper:
I have no earthly idea how OJ will answer your question, but here's my 2 cent thought:
I believe that liberty is an inalienable right, while freedom is granted. I suppose I'd say that freedoms are blessings that come our way when governing civil authorities recognize, or are forced to acknowledge, that the human right of liberty extends to and a particular "thing" one wants to say, do, write, believe, etc.

Posted by: Dave W. at February 5, 2005 11:17 AM
« WHAT MITE HAVE BEEN (via Jim Yates): | Main | GOTTA DO SOMETHING WITH THE TROOPS IRAQ NO LONGER NEEDS: »