The State of the Union Address was good. I liked the larger themes woven through the speech, but disliked the concessions to liberalism that were apparent in the details. The federal government should be much concerned with national security and balanced budgets, but has no business meddling with the cost of health care or education, or the training of lawyers.
Several issues raised during the speech caught my attention.
“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.”
Not good enough! Borrowing money from future generations should be limited to financing critical initiatives that benefit those generations. For example, financing the war against terrorism is of benefit to future generations because without national security we will not prosper and the America that is left to those generations will be less than the America of today. Borrowing money to finance education or subsidize farming, for example, benefits specific Americans today but ultimately harms future generations by reducing our national ability and inclination to compete for economic gain. While Democrats may seem enthusiastic about spending discipline, listen carefully and it quickly becomes apparent that their enthusiasm is for tax increases, military decreases, and income redistribution. We need to reduce spending and reduce the size and scope of the federal government in a manner more aggressive than that proposed by the President.
“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.”
Our system of taxation is an abomination, and anyone who opposes changing it either is a knee-biter, or makes his living as a tax consultant. We need change, and I for one believe we need it this month, before I have to file my 2004 tax returns.
“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.”
If we won’t defend our borders and our national identity, why don’t we just give up and call ourselves French? A temporary guest worker program will not address the problem of illegal immigration, will not prevent future calls of amnesty for illegal aliens, and will not increase border security. A temporary guest worker program will further erode the rule of law, and will further distort market dynamics. If we enforce existing immigration laws, the demand for labor will increase resulting in higher wages and higher prices; when wages and prices increase the market will react- with increases in willing workers, decreases in interested consumers, or both. If we enforce existing immigration laws we de facto address security concerns.
“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. The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy, and so we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security.”
Remember how President Clinton triangulated Republican proposals on welfare reform to great political benefit. This issue provides a similar opportunity for President Bush and the Republican Party. The actuarial crisis in Social Security is apparent to every American. By confronting the problem the President is forcing the anything-but-Bush Democrats to oppose popular and necessary reforms. The Republican Party is positioned to become the party that saved Social Security for today’s young workers and for future generations. This issue, more than any other has the potential to stamp Republican on the executive and legislative branches of the government, for years to come.
“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.”
I am reluctant about amending the Constitution, but the more I think and read about the strategy adopted by the homosexual lobby, the more an amendment seems necessary to prevent yet another special interest group from imposing its agenda by judicial fiat. The homosexual lobby is not going to take no for an answer- not when the no comes from a state referendum, court, or legislature, or even when it comes from the congress. The only means available for the majority to protect their values are Constitutional.
Posted by publius at February 3, 2005 06:51 AM