Home > Political Ranting > SOTU: Same Old, Tired, Untrue Speech (Part Two)

SOTU: Same Old, Tired, Untrue Speech (Part Two)

February 9th, 2006

Okay, I’ve recovered enough from wading through the first part of the speech, enough to come back and stomach what’s left.

Our economy is healthy and vigorous, and growing faster than other major industrialized nations. In the last two-and-a-half years, America has created 4.6 million new jobs — more than Japan and the European Union combined.

This statement is misleading in many ways. First of all, it’s selective editing. Bush only mentions job growth since jobs started growing, and ‘forgot’ to mention the first three years when jobs were consistently lost. Over Bush’s whole presidency, job growth was only 2.1 million jobs, or an average 35,000 per month–anemic at best. Also, compared to recovery in jobs after the start of a recession, this is the slowest “recovery” in the past half century, by a very large margin. Bill Clinton added 22 million jobs in eight years–even taking Bush’s claim of 4.6 million new jobs, he’s got just two more years to create 17.4 million more jobs and he’ll be even. Think he’ll do it?

Second, the type of jobs Bush has been creating has been dramatically different. Under Bush, we’ve seen job growth in lower-paying, benefit-poor employment–hardly “vigorous.” Under Clinton, there were a lot more well-paying jobs created; under Bush, most Americans have been sliding down to poorer and poorer levels.

And third, the comparison he made about other countries was bogus, relying on chance and statistics more than actual economic performance. It does not factor in population growth in America versus decline in Europe in Japan; it takes advantage of a temporary slump in Europe, as well as the effects of a long-term recession in Japan. Saying that you’re doing better than two other poor performers at a bad time is not an impressive claim.

In short, Bush is using smoke and mirrors to paint a rosier picture than exists, but you can hardly expect him to admit to failure, can you?

In the last five years, the tax relief you passed has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses and families. And they have used it to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth.

Oh, please. As if the economy has been going strong for four years. And let’s try not to pretend as if none of the tax cuts went to the wealthy. Most of them went to the rich, and what small portion went to the “little guys” Bush is acting like he champions, was taken back in a tax shell game, and in other forms such as slashed services and entitlements. And let’s also not forget that what benefits may have come from the tax cuts has been more than offset by the damage done by the far more massive budget deficits.

If we do nothing, American families will face a massive tax increase they do not expect and will not welcome. Because America needs more than a temporary expansion, we need more than temporary tax relief. I urge the Congress to act responsibly and make the tax cuts permanent.

If Bush is suggesting that only tax relief for the average mom-and-pop Americans he pretends he fights for here, and not for, say, anyone making more than a million dollars a year, then great. But you know that the vast bulk of the tax cuts he wants to make permanent are on the millionaires’ side.

Every year of my presidency, we’ve reduced the growth of nonsecurity discretionary spending. And last year you passed bills that cut this spending.

Boy, you’d think Bush was a real budget-slasher from this statement, wouldn’t you? Except when you look real close, you’ll see that he’s serving up yet another line of misleading BS. First, “nonsecurity discretionary spending” accounts only for 16% of the total budget; and you’ll note that he said that he’s reduced growth, not stopped growth or reduced the total. And by how much? Well, over the past five years, that spending has dropped by a whole one-tenth of one percent! Wow!

But it’s the other 84% that’s killing us, as Bush’s total spending has increased 42% over the past five years. And hey, let’s not forget that the deficit will increase by more than $50 billion this year. What a great job he’s doing!

I am pleased that the members of Congress are working on earmark reform, because the federal budget has too many special interest projects. And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto.

This is one of those moments where you have to wonder if Bush’s speech writers are completely insane. First of all, Bush has never vetoed a single bill. Not one. Hasn’t used the veto stamp at all, while his Republican colleagues have been on an orgy of pork-barrel spending.

Second, there’s the tiny little detail that the Supreme Court ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional in 1998. But then, Bush doesn’t seem to care much about the Constitution, does he?

So tonight I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

This commission should include members of Congress of both parties and offer bipartisan solutions. We need to put aside partisan politics and work together and get this problem solved.

Except that although Bush has talked about bipartisanship from day one, he never practices it. And he proved that just a few days after the State of the Union address, by quietly sneaking in his plan to privatize social security–after Congress decidedly killed it last year due to the diligence of the Democrats.

And of course, after Bush’s consistent and heavily partisan efforts to weaken or outright kill all three of those programs, a call to try to “solve” the problems in a “bipartisan” way rings so hollow that one would have to laugh aloud–until one remembers what pain and suffering Bush’s efforts would lead to if successful.


Holy cow. Is there still one third of his speech left? And I’m only going over the highlights. I can’t take any more of this tonight. I’ll have to see if I can finish this off in one more go at a later time. And I haven’t even gotten to Bush’s priceless “Manimal” bit yet!

Categories: Political Ranting Tags: by
  1. Tim Kane
    February 10th, 2006 at 03:44 | #1

    In regard to jobs, and comparing to Europe or Japan, perhaps a better measure is the total number of labor hours worked.

    This is probably still lower than when Clinton left office.

    Europeans, on the other, on average, get paid much better for the same work performed, in most circumstances.

  2. Chaeli Sullivan
    February 10th, 2006 at 07:28 | #2

    Luis
    Am so glad you waded through the speech clarifying the salient points, especially the 2.+ million jobs vs the 22 million jobs created by Clinton.
    And the quality of those jobs . . . .
    Work well done.
    Would you mind if I quote parts of your essay on my blog (spritelyspoofs.blogspot.com) with a link leading back to your page? I haven’t tried to do this before, yet i believe that your comments should have a wider audience.
    Chae

  3. minimalistmatt
    February 10th, 2006 at 10:08 | #3

    maybe your next topic ?….

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1706884,00.html

    does this guy get any dumber!

  4. cc
    February 10th, 2006 at 22:59 | #4

    Have you fogotten 9/11? It happened 8 months into his first term. I seriously doubt that the deficits went up to such an extent before then. With the devastating economic aftermath of 9/11, it is remarkable that the economy stayed afloat and recovered as quickly as it did. Again, those supposed tax cuts “for the rich” did some good, as did other factors. I think this kind of criticism has actually helped the President, since it is petty and, for the most part, wrong. First of all, no President is able to create a budget that will make everyone happy. Secondly, the rich pay the most taxes anyway. Thirdly, the middle class hasn’t suffered as much as some would like to believe, and neither has the poor (at least not because of Bush’s tax cuts).

    By the way, it has been shown that the deficits are coming down. I have read several articles in mainstream newpapers, even Newsday, that have stated this fact. This is partly due to the tax cuts the President asked for. The economy is actually a lot stronger than Bush’s opponents make it out to be, as many articles have pointed out. The reasons the papers are willing to say so is that the good numbers have not helped the President in the polls much.

Comments are closed.