my transcript of the SOTU address

<p>transcript of President Bush’s State of the Union Address–1/31/06</p>

<p>Good evening. I’d like to begin by acknowledging the passing–I can’t say “die,” it’s too much of a downer–of a great American, Corretta Scott King, wife of civil rights leader Martin Luther King. I do while laughing like hell inside, as the Republican party and its allies have worked hard in many states to draw legislative district lines in a way that minimizes the power of predominantly Democratic African American voters as well as working to suppress African American voter turn out by everything from providing polling places with insufficient voting machines or other supplies to voter identification requirements which disproportionately penalize poor and uneducated African American citizens. This acknowledgment of Ms. King, an appeal to the African American community, is one of my better cynical moments and I’d smirk now but Karl Rove told me that tonight I can’t.</p>

<p>I offer you a false dichotomy on the war on terror: either do it my way or support isolationism. We are on a mission to end tyranny in the world, attempting to save our freedoms abroad by incrementally diminishing them at home. We are fighting terrorism in Iraq and we can not retreat while leading. Whatever you may think of the bad decisions that brought us to where we are in Iraq, your only alternative to defeat is unquestioning support of the bad decisions we’re making now. </p>

<p>In support of my program, I have here as my guests tonight the family of a soldier who was killed in Iraq. I am shamelessly exploiting their family loss, using them as human props to manipulate public opinion in favor of my policy. </p>

<p>As a result of my policies, we are fostering democratic reform. We have had elections in Egypt, where the opposition that increased power was the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization. We have had elections in Palestine, where Hamas, an organization that has orchestrated terror against Israel for years has gained power; now that they have gained power, we expect them to drop their support of terror as a weapon because we said so. Reforms are taking place in Saudi Arabia, where religious conservatives of the Wahabi sect that underpins the ideology of Osama bin Laden have gained control of city councils and would dominate the country if elections were held nationwide. Look, when I want religious conservatives who want to impose their beliefs upon a country to rule, I mean Evangelical Christians in this country, not abroad. </p>

<p>We now face a growing threat in Iran, where the country has fallen under the control of a small group of clerics. We know that if they are overthrown, the Iranian people would welcome our intervention just as the Iraqi people have in Iraq. I would make more explicit military threats against Iran but our military is, uh, otherwise engaged for the foreseeable future. So sue me.</p>

<p>But just because we are fighting terrorists abroad, it does not mean that we can forget about the threat of terrorism at home. We have many fine men and women in law enforcement working against the threat of terrorism. This being an election year, like 2004, I expect a flurry of new heightened terror alerts as election day approaches, just like we did in 2004, in our effort to help keep voters afraid and intimidated. </p>

<p>As for wiretapping, I will muddy the issue as much as possible, keeping the question focused on “why”; you must surrender any questions of “how,” “who,” “what,” and “when” to me…otherwise you are aiding America’s enemies. Besides, if the President does it, it’s not illegal. I said so. Dick Cheney says so. So there.</p>

<p>We must reform Social Security and Medicare. Social Security spending is rising and we must Do Something. But that something should not include the elimination on cap on income which is taxed for Social Security, for that burden would fall exclusively on my friends, wealthy supporters. Medicare must be reformed, but in a way that gives the consumer maximum choice over which health care company they want to benefit; our health care may cost twice as much per capita as any other rich nation, but that’s the cost of campaign contributions.</p>

<p>In global trade, no one can out produce or out compete the American worker. If necessary, workers at customer service centers in Bangladesh and software houses in India will be given American citizenship.</p>

<p>We need to protect our borders. We need to provide workers for our businesses that need them. We must never give amnesty. We must eliminate smuggling across the border. There. I’ve said something to appease every faction of my party and I really don’t give a damn how they hash it out.</p>

<p>I’m proposing a Keep America Competitive initiative, about which after this week you will hear as little as about the federal efforts at relieving the impact of Hurricane Katrina. It will require health care for the poor and elderly–don’t worry, we can keep redefining “poor” downward and “elderly” upward until it doesn’t cost much–and for everyone else, you’re on your own…I suggest you use money from the sale of the stock options in your trust to pay for your health care.</p>

<p>In the last four years, America has created 4.8 million jobs, more than Europe and Japan. It doesn’t matter that their combined population is smaller. It doesn’t matter that the number of new jobs hasn’t kept up with the number of people seeking them. Thank goodness, the unemployment numbers don’t count them because the number doesn’t include those who have never been employed before.</p>

<p>I want to make the tax cuts of my administration permanent. In contrast to the tax-and-spend Democrats of yore, I want my legacy to be that of a tax-cut-and–spend Republican. Don’t bother me about the deficit; it doesn’t look quite as bad if you keep the war in Iraq off the books as a temporary expense that’s incalculable. “Incalculable.” That means it can’t be calculated.</p>

<p>America is addicted to oil. I know, because even though my own oil company went bust, many of my friends, including Vice President Cheney, have been hardworking oil executives. I say this because they have worked hard. They have worked hard on many fronts, from gaming energy supplies in California and the Pacific Northwest to create an “energy crisis” so that Grandma Millie had to pay more to keeping refinery capacity flat so that prices remain high. We want to develop more sources of oil. If allowed to drill in Alaska, every arctic caribou will have his or her own oil well. And I am going to do my damnedest to put oil drilling rigs in the bays off the coast of Santa Barbara and Santa Monica; nobody but a bunch of liberals live there anyway, serves ‘em right.</p>

<p>We will wean our dependence on Middle Eastern oil so that we are exclusively dependent on American oil then. This has two great consequences: wait until you see Exxon’s profits then and then the Middle East can rot for all I care. I am pushing for research in alternative energy sources, which will take off just as soon as the oil companies can control the supply of hydrogen…we’re thinking of making private possession of water illegal.</p>

<p>Our future depends on the talents of an educated work force. To boost our abilities in Math and Science, I am proposing an American Competitiveness initiative that will require annual SAT tests for everyone, children and adults, every year. Certain entrepreneurs will make a mint in the test preparation business. And the National Security Agency will monitor telephones to make sure that every citizen is complying…hey, did you know that every land line telephone in your home can be turned into an open microphone with the right adjustment?</p>

<p>I’d like to recognize our two newest Supreme Court justices, Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito. And I’d like to say this: nyeah-nyeah-nyeah.</p>

<p>I’m going to cram all the other stuff into the next seven minutes because I don’t care much about it. As we face the future, I have a platitude for every occasion and faith in God that my poll numbers will go up because this last year hasn’t been much fun. Thank you and good night.</p>

<h1>#</h1>

<p>Shouting out loud: AN INSTANT NOMINATION FOR A COLLEGE CONFIDENTIAL WRITING AWARD!!</p>

<p>Thanks, TheDad - Perfect!! Well, almost perfect - you forgot the “God Bless America.”</p>

<p>You people really are mad, aren’t you?</p>

<p>Mad=Furious about being lied to and watching our beloved country go to Hell in a handbasket, then yeah, sure.</p>

<p>If</p>

<p>Mad=insane and depraved, then no. I would argue that we’re the saner ones. At the very least, we’re the less ignorant ones.</p>

<p>TheDad, nice effort </p>

<p>Sarcasm is a powerful weapon when well done. </p>

<p>The piece was remarkably long. Now, could we please read what the Democratic Party has in mind to turn our country around? I do not doubt not would a lot more humorous and pathetic at the same time. Tonight I saw the fools who compose that magnificent party stand up and wildly applaud themselves when the President said, “Congress failed to act on Social Security reform” Oh yes, they did what they do best: NOTHING! </p>

<p>So, I am all ears or eyes for your plan, but do not hold my bated breath for an instant. </p>

<p>**La critique est ais</p>

<p>For those who are interested… the official Groundhog Day begins in less than 24 hours. For most of us, it arrives only once a year.</p>

<p>Here’s to the end of a great day…a new Supreme Court Justice who loves liberty and freedom and civil rights. Life is good.</p>

<p>OK, here is my version. I was really appalled. Who wrote his speech, Gary Trudeau? </p>

<p>“9/11”
“War on Terror”
“Weapons of Mass Destruction”</p>

<p>(I didn’t imagine that did I? He actually said, “Weapons of Mass Destruction”!! How can he say those words with a straight face?)</p>

<p>and for my Kodak moment I have this beautiful real American family, complete with written documentation that the deceased supported the War on Terror. </p>

<p>I thought the whole thing was ghastly. Once again, he exceeded my expectations.</p>

<p>Thank you TheDad and NJRes for your excellent recaps. </p>

<p>I myself didn’t have the stomach to watch – I was going to wait for Jon Stewart’s take tomorrow, but I think you two have about covered it.</p>

<p>Ditto calmom, and TheDad, bravo!</p>

<p>And the critics without a plan nor meaningful ideas of their own still line up. </p>

<p>More hollow blah-blah like the Democratic rebuttal. What a surprise! :(</p>

<p>I didn’t watch it either- but here is our ABC affilate recap
State Of The Union Fact Check</p>

<p>*January 31, 2006 </p>

<p>By KOMO Staff & News Services </p>

<p>WASHINGTON, D.C. - President Bush set energy self-sufficiency goals Tuesday night that would still leave the country vulnerable to unstable oil sources. He also declared he is helping more people get health care, despite a rising number of uninsured.</p>

<p>Whether promoting a plan to “save Social Security” or describing Iraqi security forces as “increasingly capable of defeating the enemy,” Bush skipped over some complex realities in his State of the Union speech.</p>

<p>ENERGY:</p>

<p>By identifying only Mideast oil imports for reductions, Bush was ignoring some of the largest sources of U.S. petroleum, among them Canada, Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela. The U.S. considers Venezuela a source of political instability in the region; relations with Mexico have been strained over immigration; and violence has curbed nearly 10 percent of Nigeria’s oil output.</p>

<p>Imports of oil and refined product from the Persian Gulf make up less than a fifth of all imports, according to the government.</p>

<p>Bush has spoken of reducing reliance on foreign oil in every State of the Union speech, if not as explicitly as in this one, and presidents back to Richard Nixon outlined similar goals, to little or no effect.</p>

<p>Nixon announced Project Independence in 1973, setting a goal of energy self-sufficiency in seven years. Then, the U.S. imported 35 percent of its oil; now it’s close to 60 percent. This, despite substantive steps taken by Nixon and Jimmy Carter to spur both supply and conservation, including construction of the Alaskan oil pipeline and reduction in the highway speed limit to 55 mph for many years.</p>

<p>HEALTH CARE:</p>

<p>Noting that the government must help provide health care for the poor and elderly, Bush asserted, “We are meeting that responsibility.”</p>

<p>It is true that a new prescription drug benefit took effect this year, a new entitlement for up to 42 million disabled and older people. But implementation has been rocky: Mark McClellan, the administration’s top Medicare official, recently acknowledged that tens of thousands of recipients probably didn’t get medicine due to confusion and computer glitches, prompting some lawmakers to seek an extension of the May 15 signup deadline to work out the snafus.</p>

<p>An incomplete picture also emerges on health care for the poor.</p>

<p>The number of uninsured has increased nearly 5 million since Bush took office in 2001, to 45.5 million in 2004, two-thirds of the total from low-income families, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.</p>

<p>And while total federal spending on the health care “safety net” for the uninsured edged up from 2001 to 2004 - adjusted for inflation, slightly more than 1 percent - spending actually decreased from $546 to $498 per uninsured person due to the jump in uninsured, the Kaiser group said.</p>

<p>Bush actually is expected to propose curbing the growth of benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid in his 2007 budget request next week.</p>

<p>SOCIAL SECURITY:</p>

<p>Bush said Congress did not act last year on his “proposal to save Social Security.” In fact, his plan does not take care of Social Security’s future solvency; instead, he wants to let younger workers divert some of their Social Security payroll taxes into private investment accounts to take advantage of the possibilities for a better return.</p>

<p>IRAQ:</p>

<p>Bush’s upbeat account of progress in Iraq, coupled with an acknowledgment that “our enemy is brutal,” left unstated a variety of setbacks in turning control over to Iraqi forces, including Iraqi Army desertions in the volatile west.</p>

<p>KATRINA:</p>

<p>Addressing Hurricane Katrina aid, Bush said a hopeful society “comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency” and the government is meeting New Orleans’ “immediate needs.”</p>

<p>Federal money is indeed being used to build stronger levees and provide business loans and housing assistance. But the government has declined to rebuild levees strong enough to sustain a Category 5 hurricane, and it recently rejected as unnecessary a $30 billion redevelopment plan for Louisiana that state officials considered the cornerstone of their hopes for rebuilding.</p>

<p>HOMELAND SECURITY:</p>

<p>Bush urged Americans to back his secretive domestic spy program, saying he was using his “authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute” and noting that “appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed.”</p>

<p>Bush did not address the counterarguments that he failed to heed a separate 1978 law that specifically calls for court approval to conduct the surveillance. Some lawmakers have also questioned why Bush did not brief more than eight members of Congress about the program, which has been in effect since 2001.</p>

<p>EDUCATION:</p>

<p>On the theme of improving math and science education, Bush boasted, “We have made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country.”</p>

<p>In 2005, fourth-graders and eighth-graders posted their highest-ever math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and black and Hispanic children narrowed their achievement gap with whites in both math and reading. But the fourth-grade reading performance was essentially flat, and in eighth grade, reading scores dropped.</p>

<p>SPENDING:</p>

<p>The president said that “every year of my presidency, we have reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending.” That doesn’t tell the full story because the category he cited omits big-ticket spending items like Iraq, natural disasters such as Katrina and homeland security.</p>

<p>He spoke of saving taxpayers $14 billion next year if his budget proposals are adopted, not mentioning some of those savings would come from health care programs such as Medicaid.*</p>

<p>It is darn interesting how “assessments” turn into criticism. Absent from this review are any historical perspective. For instance, the discussion on Katrina borders to the ridiculous. The report intimates that the 30B was a good idea, but it was nothing but an illusory and misguided sham. Further, the government should NOT spend money on building Cat 5 levees but spend the necessary funds to save the ENTIRE area and not subsidizing the chosen lifestyles of a few. Simply stated: wanna live in that poster child for decadence that NOLA is, then pay for it with your own resources! Nobody is forcing anyone to live behind levees that will NEVER be strong enough to protect the city. It is a choice, just as wanting to live in an unprotected seacoast area. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, should not be compare the progress of Education under Clinton Iand II, when the budget for education was cynically decreased at a time of record streams of income. Obviously, it was more important to fill that silly lockbox than spend on most needed investments. Again, in the eyes of some, it is better to do NOTHING but criticize others who at least TRY. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>How do we fix Iraq? Suggestions please? For once…</p>

<p>He is focusing on the “why” because that “why” is because a bunch of lunatics killed 3,000 Americans and spend every waking moment considering how to do it again. I’d say the “why” covers it.</p>

<p>Yes they elected terrorists proving the the Religion of Peace mantra is a freaking joke. Are you suggesting that we not allow them to elect terrorists, that we interfere with their government. Cause I am…</p>

<p>Smaller Population??? <a href=“http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html[/url]”>http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“…and then the Middle East can rot for all I care…”
So do you support intervention there or not?</p>

<p>Our healthcare may cost more but most other industrial nations pay it in taxes.</p>

<p>If I have a private account that returns at minimum 6% and probably more if the investor has half a brain wouldn’t that increase the money supply for retirees rather then allowing the government to devert that money all over the place.</p>

<p>yanks -</p>

<p>You make some good points, but before I agree with you on those, let me address the one I disagree with: That the “why” of the war in Iraq is because of 9/11. What part of “Iraq and 9/11 are not connected” do you not understand? It’s as if we attacked North Korea and claimed that it was connected to Iraq.</p>

<p>However, that said, your question is the relevant one: “How do we fix it?” We can argue the “why” all day, but we have a pragmatic problem to solve and it ain’t easy. I also would suggest that we look forward and not backward.</p>

<p>Other points: Healthcare and taxes - I totally agree. We need to decide as a nation what our choice is: health care and increased taxes or less health care coverage and no new taxes. You can’t have both, except that the Congress - both parties - vote to increase coverage and still enact tax cuts, borrowing from the future. Aaargh.</p>

<p>Private accounts: Agree again, but the problem is another pragmatic one: how do we get there in such a way that (1) won’t cause huge deficits in social security because SS taxes decrease as money is redirected toward private accounts, and (2) the benefits would apply to everyone - even the poorest (for whom social security was enacted to cover anyway). Perhaps the solution is to make SS benefits more needs based combined with allowing greater (additional) monies to flow into qualified retirement accounts.</p>

<p>xiggi -</p>

<p>1968 liberal that I am, I still agree with you that the Democrats seem to be no-shows on proposing directions. I was struck last night by an interview with a prominent Dem who said that the Democrats can’t propose an alternative to the Republican plans (for peace in Iraq) because the Republicans haven’t proposed a viable enough plan for the Dems to “oppose.” Unbelievable.</p>

<p>They’re all bums. We need a new party with new candidates. I say unelect them all in the next election. All incumbents - Republican and Democrat.</p>

<p>“Why” is necessary but not sufficient; ignoring or trivializing “how”, “what,” “who,” etc. is a blindered approach that leads to error.</p>

<p>Xiggi, the Dems do not speak with a single voice because there is no point of control…White House, Senate, and House are all in Republican plans. Since Democratic input has been almost completely ignored and the President’s idea of “bi-partisanship” is “smile and do it my way,” putting forth a “Democratic plan” is fruitless, though individual candidates will be putting their views forward to the voters this year and 2008. However, definition by exclusion is a useful tool. As a start, I would recommend making policy rooted in facts, not near-religious beliefs. What’s especially painful about Iraq is that there were those scattered throughout the executive branch, including State and the Pentagon, who had a clue…and were ignored because their prognosis did not match the faith-based beliefs of Bush/Cheney/et alia.</p>

<p>Noobie, thanks! </p>

<p>It is the absence of solutions that is so annoying. Actually, since we can’t expect complete solutions, I’d be happy with a minimum of efforts to find partial ones.</p>

<p>TheDad, despite my profound -almost visceral- disdain for the leadership of the Left party, I would like nothing better to see an articulation of their views. I know what they are against, but I do not know what they are for, and more importantly HOW they would implement their plans. </p>

<p>This is a time to set aside the rethorical BS; it did not work in the last elections. I know that you’ll counter with the … “well it almost worked, if Ohio had gone the other way.” While that may be true, it is also true that the Dems did not find enough votes to throw out an administration that supposedly so angered the population. One of the reasons is that people understood that a campaign built around character and claims of heroism was simply a sordid facade that hid a sea of nothingness. </p>

<p>For all I know, the next elections will be more of the same with the probable nod given to a selfish carpetbagger whose idea of our future is to return to the sixties. Next time around, your side might succeed, but it will represent a rejection of the incumbents and not the endorsement of a party with new ideas, mainly because when it comes to workable ideas, there are … none, zippo, nada, zilch. </p>

<p>Oh well, that is why the Dems are so used to be in the opposition.</p>

<p>Xiggi, then I guess it comes down to no ideas vs. ideas based on fantasies.</p>

<p>Thedad, nice job.</p>

<p>Okay, Xiggi, here’s a few suggestions for you:</p>

<p>(1) Total tax revenues = total government spending + a little more to start paying down the massive debt run up by the Reagan, Bush and Bush administrations. How to do it? Tax all sources of income (wages, dividends, capital gains) equally but with modestly progressive rates, and adjust only to make the above formula hold true, not to pander.</p>

<p>(2) Social Security: The social security tax on working Americans has been used to offset the operating budget expenses paid by the taxes on working and investment income alike for decades. Meaning, in addition to lower nominal rates currently in effect for capital gains, income received from investment instead of labor has also only been taxed to pay a part of the expenses incurred by the Government, while wage income did double duty: exclusive funding of SS + backfilling the general budget deficits. The reason for the current panic over Social Security is that a) that double taxation of labor will have to end when the SS taxes “only” equal SS payments, and b) the obvious solution to the problem is to end the subsidy currently enjoyed by those whose income includes investment return - and even get a little payback. Answer: how about facing this honestly and “solving” the problem by consolidating social security budget with the general budget and then following (1), above. Of course, that would be easier if we didn’t have to spend $350 Billion per year on interest payments on the National debt. Yeah - if we didn’t have to pay interest on the Reagan, Bush & Bush deficits “solving” Social Security would be a piece of cake. But the country is saddled with the debt, just like we’re saddled with Iraq. And what was that you were saying about the “fools who compose that magnificent party” -you were talking about Democrats, right? </p>

<p>(3) Want something more than lip service about the very real addiction to oil? How about phasing in a $2 per gallon gasoline tax over five years, and use all that cash to actually develop and implement alternative energy and transportation solutions to everyday living needs?</p>

<p>Xiggi: when you talk about fools - have you actually looked at the Republicans in office? Politicians as a class seldom come off well in full daylight, but the current kleptocrats in charge of Washington DC have set a new low in screwing the country while lining their own pockets.</p>