NEWS - No, I didn't plan to catch the State of the Union address

I didn't watch the State of the Union address on TV. I knew the president probably wasn't going to say anything I really wanted to hear, little or nothing I needed to know, and little or nothing important.

Nonetheless, I heard part of it in the car coming home from dinner. I tuned in to his annual grandstanding when President Bush asked for the line-item veto. My gut instinct is to oppose this--the all-or-nothing nature of the veto is a way to force the president's hand regarding laws he doesn't like--for good or bad. Last year's provision prohibiting torture, attached to a defense spending bill to insure its passage, comes to mind as an example of a good law that would have been vetoed that way. His argument was that it would help him combat pork. Since he has never vetoed any bill, and has increased non-defense discretionary spending by 18% in the first two years of his administration alone I am forced to question his commitment to fighting pork.

Next, he said, "We must also confront the larger challenge of mandatory spending, or entitlements." That's chutzpah! Bush--with his party controlling Congress, couldn't pass his weak and moderate partial privatization of Social Security. He did passed his Medicare prescription drug benefit. In this year's address, he reaffirmed three major entitlement programs: public education ("Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers..."), Medicare, and Medicaid ("Our government has a responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly..."). Bush is part of the problem of the rising cost of entitlements--a big part.

Then, he went on to talk about international trade and immigration. "Keeping America competitive requires us to open more markets for all that Americans make and grow." is a statement I agree with--though I was forced to wonder if Bush acknowledges how the Golden Rule and basic fairness apply to that statement--we must also open our markets to foreign products. "Keeping America competitive requires an immigration system that upholds our laws, reflects our values, and serves the interests of our economy. " I agree. To me, however, that would be free and open immigration. His subsequent demands for harsher enforcement and a "...guest worker program that rejects amnesty..." are contrary to what I regard as the free, just, and rational policy that would be in line with what we had in the past and need for the future. So we have two examples of wishy-washy and meanignless "I love America" types of statements leading into bad ideas.

By the time I got home, Bush was getting to his, "America is addicted to oil" demands. Again, I will grant that we need to decrease our dependence on imported oil, in favor of increased use of nuclear power and coal for electricity, and decreasing demand for gasoline through more fuel-efficient vehicles, and hydrogen, ethanol, and biodiesel as alternate sources for motor fuel. However, stating the obvious long after it needed to be said and then proposing more government spending--of a type I'd describe as corporate welfare--is not going to make me a supporter of his "Advanced Energy Initiative."

I got out of the car convinced by what I heard. Not convinced of anything Bush advocated, but rather, convinced my expectations of the State of the Union were correct and that I should strive harder to ignore such future addresses.