Am in the process of reading through the text of the State of the Union address & Dem respons. (oh and let me now take a moment to apologize for the *numerous* typos in my last post. I was rushing to make the entry before jetting off to a meeting, so it was not checked *at all*. Sorry about that.) Here are some general reactions as I've read through. No great construction in this entry; it's more about what I'm thinking as I read through :)
I have to say the speech is filled with rhetoric. As everyone sat and listened to it last night we were amazed at how long it took Bush to actually *get* to the policies. As for a long historic goal, really, i don't think the Founding Fathers had the notion of ending tyranny in our world as an aim. Then again, perhaps the administration has found some "secret" federalist papers where Madison laid out plans to inavde other nations when we felt they didn't do government like we did. Oh, and we saved liberty in europe in WWII... All by ourselves? Yeah, that was a badly written sentence. The idea that we fight terrorism by giving a peaceful transition... Hrmm, so that's why we invade a country and kill people? How's that giving a peaceful transition? Tax cuts... Yeah, that's responsible... Big deficit... Let's party! Time for tax cuts! How about some responsibility for that discretionary spending that *is* defense, Mr. President?
Health Savings Accounts... I already said BOO to them. Here's why... the point of insurance is to pool risk among many people so that the individual is better able to cope when disaster hits. If the accounts are individualized, then people will bear the brunt of risk alone. The theory is that if this is so, that people will not abuse the system, and see their doctors for medication at every little turn. Most people I know with insurance don't run to the doctor all the time. it's not that they over use the system that is there. This system would make those who are healthy use the system less for fgear of drawing down their account. Those who are ill, seriously so, would have no other choice but to draw down to get needed care. Otherwise they will be ill and in pain. If they *do* draw down, what happens when the account is emptied? Do these hard working people get told that the money they saved is gone and now, sorry, guess what you can't afford that operation you need now? There's something wrong in this. I can't find the surety in this form of insurance at all.
As for the initiatives on technology and competetiveness... Okay, I'm glad that he's interested in these things. They're important. It's good to decrease dependency on foreign oil. It's good to decrease emissions. However, the reality of emissions is that it's best to tackle problems like that with a mix of sanctions and positive incentives. I also am skeptical about the notion that we'll be able to transition to that much of an ethanol fuel use economy by the year he stated. I'd like to have faith in these things, but initiatives are traditionally the black hole of research. Just because we do research doesn't mean we *do* anything with it.
His notes about decreasing spending and cutting welfare... Okay, here's why spending on it is down and fewer people are on it: we've cut poor people from getting benefits, and made it harder for them to get them. We continue in this country to villify the poor. It seems that we haven't really left the industrial revolution and the gilded age so very far behind as the space age might suggest. Bush's plans to cut welfare again simply highlight we rob from the poor to give back to the relatively wealthy.
Sanctity of life/ Marriage... His definitions don't match mine. I also bristle at the notion that diverse opinions and shifts away from what he and his base consider to be ideal equals an erosion of American culture... If anything at all, acceptance of diversity is a keystone of American culture.
on HIV... I am glad to have him reauthorize the Ryan White Act. It does a lot of good things. I also think that more testing and removing the stigma of testing is key. However, through churches? How many churches are the best place for discussing sexual health? How likely are people to get tested through a faith based institution if they're going to be told, "Well, Bob, you're not married... I'm not so sure that you're following God's laws." Yeah, um, way to end the Stigma there George. Also, the issue at hand needs to be *prevention* not just delivery of anti-retrovirals. He says nothing about that, and the Ryan white act doesn't deal with that. Also, the ryan white act doesn't handle more controversial HIV/AIDS issues like those who were IV drug users. it's a good piece of legislation, but it isn't comprehensive. Something tells me that in his notion of reauthorization that he's not discussing massive amendments. It was always a law that was hard to combat; how can you say no to a law that is named after an innocent child and avoids the sketchy parts of a deadly epidemic?
.........
Moving on to Tim Kaine & the Dem response (I really need to read this since I so didn't get much from watching him.):
The speech itself was quite good, from reading over the text. Again, I have to say his delivery was poor. he took what could have been a great speech and really dampened it down. Perhaps it's unfair to accuse the whole party for this, but it could be a big moment, should be a big moment, and instead it was a big yawn.
As the opposition party, it's not at all surprising to hear many criticisms of the president. In fact, when people claim that there isn't enough difference between the parties, this is important to hear. However, the "there is a better way" sections fell a bit flat for me. I needed to hear, and I'm sure that most Americans need to hear some dramatic changes. Telling me that virginia has changed some things or that Illinois has set up some other systems for prescription drugs, is well and good, but what is the national party doing for change?
There is so much discussion about "we've worked with republicans" on X,Y, & Z... Okay good, so you're not the fringe. It's important to show people that you're not wacky unelectable liberals... Nice. But you need to demonstrate that you still provide some *alternatives* to their policies. The turn over in 1994 happened because the republican party finally realized this. The Democratic party can't wait much longer before it needs to figure out what the hell it stands for these days. With bush's approval ratings rising, and having dodged a bullet from Scooter Libby & Abramoff, the party can't simply expect that the people will vote their way come November. People like to vote *for* something, not just *against* something.
Okay, so that's my commentary. I make no claims for thoroughness or an academic look at the speeches. These are my gut reactions on the issues that are mentioned.