So GWB gave his annual report on the state of the union last night, and overall, it was about what I expected. Two things I was surprised at: He backed off some of the language and forcefulness he used in his inaugural address, and dialed down the rhetoric on social security.
Two weeks ago it was “CRISIS!!!!!” on the social security front, and last night the President seemed to back away from that quite a bit by stating that his ‘private/personal’ accounts wouldn’t actually fix anything with social security, but might be “a better deal” than whats available now. The whole thing is just way overblown and exaggerated I think, and one key point the president should get called on is this statement:
“We will 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.”
‘fiscally responsible’?? I don’t think so, and neither does the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
“Over the first ten years that the plan actually was in effect (2009-18), it would add more than $1 trillion to the debt. Over the next ten years (2019- 28), it would add over $3.5 trillion more to the debt. All told, the plan would add more than $4.5 trillion to the debt over its first 20 years.”
Who in their right mind considers adding $3 to $5 trillion dollars to the national debt ‘fiscally responsible’?
At any rate, I’ve never been a huge fan of SOTU addresses. The whole thing is a a bit overblown, often big on promises but short on delivery, and really just a chance to exploit whatever issue they want by placing someone next to the first lady that is involved with the hot button issue of the year.
The fact is that Bush can talk a big game all he wants over the next four years, but it’s how much of it he can achieve that will define his second term, especially considering he has control of both houses of congress. I said it in the mid-term elections back in 2002, I’ll say it again today, and probably again in 2006: One party has control of the federal government, if they can’t fix the problems facing Americans, there’s no one else to blame except themselves.
They’ve had that same control since 2002 by the way. Has America been fixing it’s problems over the past two years, or focused on pet issues like social security ‘reform’?
One other issue I had with the speech, and with the Presidents policy in general, was the part where he re-affirmed his support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, or as he likes to put it, “constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.”.
Whats the deal with him trying to be Super Freedom-and-Liberty-Bringer Man to the rest of worlds population, but when it comes to gay/lesbian/bi-sexuals who want equal spousal rights, he is anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and anti equal rights?
Of course the point of bringing the whole thing up was to pacify his conservative base who haven’t been exactly quiet in expressing their disapproval that the President might be backing off the whole anti gay marriage constitutional amendment thing, especially after he used it as such a hot button issue in the election.
So the president throws them a bone by saying he supports a “constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage”, when everyone outside the bible belt realizes it will never even get close to coming to the floor of the House and Senate, much less jump through all the hoops it takes to become an amendment. Hell, it didn’t even make it out of conference committee last Summer when there were more Democrats in congress!
People should stop tip-toeing around the whole gay marriage issue in my opinion. If two people love each other, rock on. Love doesn’t hurt the family, it enhances it, and it doesn’t matter if that love is between two men, two women, or a man and a woman. The ability to raise a family that has good morals isn’t dependant on the sexual orientation of the people doing the raising. It depends on the characteristics of the person, so when people like the president insinuate that somehow gay marriage/benefits will “HURT” the family, I say they could use a little lesson in some moral values themselves.
Moral values like tolerance, understanding, and acceptance.
Of course, if they didn’t frame it in the “homo’s hurt the family” method, it would come off as what it really is: discrimination plain and simple.
So I say bring on the gay marriage debate so we can get to the real issues that surround it instead of tip-toeing around the presidents stance on the issue which is against the principals of liberty and freedom that he so often refers to.
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and son Carter.
The one issue that I am most concerned about is the whole Roe vs. Wade thing. Given that the Supreme Court is going to be leaning to a more conservative bent. This issue is going to be a pretty hot debate.
I believe that the last supporter is about to retire which could potentially lead to a supporting majority who wish to overturn the Roe vs. Wade decision.
….lovely….
our culture is *such* a melting pot of diverse ideas…
Maybe it is a chicken-before-the-egg problem, but it is difficult to argue that a child raised in a loving homosexual family has opportunities to develop heathily equal to if it were raised in a loving heterosexual familly (as few as they may be). If my caretakers were two gay men, for instance, I would be very likely to develop with severe emotional problems, mostly caused by the consequential outcasting from my peers as I went through school.
Not to sit the fence here, but I think it’s one thing to sit down and agree that everyone ought to have every right to receive marriage-related benefits if the relationship in question abides by the legalities of marriage. But I think it’s quite another to say that homosexual marriage = heterosexual marriage and that all that’s needed is love. In a perfect world, maybe that would be the case. We aren’t there. And, like I alluded to above, maybe we NEED gay marriage in order to approach that perfect world. But, lord help the casualities along the way, most of whom won’t have the luxury of deciding to sacrifice for the ‘sake of the movement.’
If my caretakers were two gay men, for instance, I would be very likely to develop with severe emotional problems, mostly caused by the consequential outcasting from my peers as I went through school.
I hear what you’re saying Matt. But that’s like saying that black kids integrated into white schools back in the 50′s and 60′s got harassed and may have suffered emotional damange for having black parents (and of course, being black themselves). Society will have to deal with these issues sooner or later, just like they did 50 years ago.
Hence the reason its important to have education for kids about this kind of thing, instead of a respectable figure like the president making it seem like it’s not OK if your parents are gay.
Right on, Dan. I don’t think anyone really believes change is going to be easy, ESPECIALLY in today’s fundamentalist national mindset.
Matt, I agree those kids raised in gay families may indeed be subjected to social ridicule while growing up. However, I’m willing to bet that if you asked them in adulthood whether or not they harbor any resentment toward their parents for the courage they showed in living the lives to which they are entitled, they would say no. On the contrary, I would assume they would be proud of their parents for having the guts to trailblaze a society where future generations wouldn’t have to grow up under such scrutiny. I don’t know for sure, of course, but that’s my guess.
You’re right, Dan–it’s discrimination, plain and simple. I don’t care if it’s based on religion–it’s a blatant hatred of lifestyles dissimilar to one’s own interpretation of morality, sugar-coated behind the “defense of marriage”. That’s not what America is supposed to be about.
Just my opinion, of course.
Like I said, I’m all for the equality and I hope things do get better. And I hope that anything Bush tries to pull (for the sake of Republicans not being Robinson’ed next election) gets laughed out of Congress.
I’m just saying that things are a bit more complicated than ‘all you need is love.’ In fact, love is neither necessary nor sufficient for a family (love in marriage is a relatively new concept).
But, keeping homosexuals from marrying is ridiculous, especially when one considers the rate at which heterosexuals (even Christians!) mess it up.
There are legal grounds for gay marraige. It need not even be argued on a moral level.