By Freedom Newspapers
You could tell this was a president for the first time facing a Congress controlled by the opposition party, and not coming from a position of strength. President Bush was sober, almost somber at times, and his proposals at least gave the appearance of being calculated to appeal to more than a few Democrats. He was gracious to the new speaker, Nancy Pelosi.
Tuesday’s State of the Union was a speech for the realities of the day.
Social conservatives weren’t even thrown any bones, let alone red meat. There was no talk of a culture of life, of the need for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, of faith-based armies of compassion. This president was out to convince Democrats and moderates that he is still relevant, that he’s willing to work together, that governance is for both parties.
It probably won’t make much difference. As outwardly polite as the Democrats were on this largely ceremonial occasion, they are unlikely to give this president anything he would be able to define as a victory during the coming legislative session.
One exception might be energy, the topic on which the president has most conspicuously fallen in step with Democrats. He plans to quintuple current mandates for “alternative fuel” over 10 years, and that means fat subsidies for heartland farmers and ethanol manufacturers.
The fact that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the ethanol can subsequently generate — that subsidizing ethanol is subsidizing a net loss of energy at higher prices — seems lost on the political class. It makes corn farmers happy, it gives greens the illusion of doing something, and oil companies are starting to see it as a gravy train and jump on board. Its potential for success, as oil analyst Daniel Yergin wrote this week, has boundaries, including the slow rate at which gasoline-fueled cars leave the nations fleet, as well as the impending tension between corn for fuel and corn for food.
Unfortunately, the taxpayers lose.
When we saw the summaries of his other proposals early in the day, we thought perhaps President Bush, aware he was unlikely to get much done legislatively, was aiming for a legacy with bold domestic proposals with the capacity to change the terms of debate, if not during his term then soon afterward. Except for a passing mention of the need to fix Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security before they implode, however, he proposed mostly modest ideas of limited scope.
Changing the tax treatment of health insurance is the most interesting. The idea of offering an individual tax exemption for the purchase of health insurance rather than a tax benefit only to employers is intriguing. It offers the possibility of making people act more like consumers in an increasingly competitive marketplace rather than like dependents who expect somebody else to handle their problems.
The idea brings the free market into the debate, but it seems unlikely to pass in the face of Democratic opposition.
The president’s budget reforms are worthy but minor and unremarkable. Spinning the disastrous No Child Left Behind act as a success worthy of reauthorization shows a remarkably insular view.
It will be fascinating to see whether the Democrats will cooperate with President Bush to pass a “comprehensive” immigration reform they are more likely to support than are most Republicans.
His remarks on Iraq restated much of his Jan. 10 address, but we noted that he raised the concept of a “civilian corps” to support the military — a notion that sounds troubling, but needs more explanation.
State of the Union messages are often exercises in make-believe, pretending there are political solutions that can emanate from Washington to solve all ills and make us happy. The president’s message was firmly in that tradition.