Perhaps I’m just weary of President Bush’s SOTU addresses, this
having been the sixth one I’ve watched. Or perhaps I’m just more
critical of Bush the longer he is in office. Either way, this
speech seemed to be one of the most disappointing.
There were some high notes. His defense of the Iraqi War was
strong, and his health care proposals, though modest, would move
America toward a more market-oriented system. Furthermore, his call
to “confront the larger challenge of mandatory spending, or
entitlements” in the wake of his failed attempt to reform Social
Security was bold.
But that is where the boldness ended. To address the problem of
entitlements, he called for the creation of “a commission to
examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.” He also called for an American
Competitiveness Initiative, a Helping America’s Youth Initiative,
and an Advanced Energy Initiative. How many commissions and
initiatives have various presidents called for over the years, and
how often does anything come of them? The question is
rhetorical.
He also made one remark that must have induced a lot of head
shaking among fiscal conservatives: “Every year of my presidency,
we’ve reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending.”
Oh, to see the accounting that supports such a contention!
Then there were the various contradictions that seemed to come
one after the other. He called for reforms that will “save the
American taxpayer another $14 billion next year” and “cut the
deficit in half by 2009.” He also praised Congress for “working on
earmark reform.” Yet, a few minutes later he called for “a
22-percent increase in clean-energy research…at the Department of
Energy.” This was followed by proposals to “to double the federal
commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the
physical sciences over the next 10 years,” and “train 70,000 high
school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and
science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in
classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with
math.” It is unlikely that Congress will be willing to give up its
earmarks when the President has his own new spending plans.
In another contradiction, he praised the American people for
building a strong economy. He stated, “Even in the face of higher
energy prices and natural disasters, the American people have
turned in an economic performance that is the envy of the world.”
He dismissed the notion “that the government needs to take a larger
role in directing the economy, centralizing more power in
Washington and increasing taxes.” Except on the issue of energy. In
that area the American people can’t be trusted because “America is
addicted to oil.” Thus, the government must do more via the
aforementioned Advanced Energy Initiative. This includes investing
“more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and
wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy.” It also means
more funding for research into hydrogen and ethanol so we can
“change how we power our automobiles.”
This might as well be dubbed the Advanced Exercise In Futility.
Although wind and solar have received a plethora of tax credits and
subsidies over the last two decades, they still generate less than
two percent of the nation’s electricity. Despite similar treatment
for ethanol, it is still barely competitive with gasoline, and
that’s only because the price of gas has risen in the last year.
Nor will the production of more ethanol or the advent of viable
hydrogen technology do much to “make our dependence on Middle
Eastern oil a thing of the past.” Even if alternative fuels were
cheaper than oil, they would first replace the oil that is the most
expensive to produce. The most expensive oil tends to be produced
in the United States.
It is tempting to blame this on “neoconservatism.” Undoubtedly,
that has something to do with it. An administration comfortable
using big government to achieve conservative ends won’t have many
qualms about using it to reform the energy sector of our economy
and spending more money to do so.
However, much of the problem can be traced all the way back to
the conservative base. When Bush first ran for President in 2000,
few pressured him to rein in spending or pursue free-market energy
policies. And who could blame them? Conservatives had watched the
GOP get shellacked by Clinton on spending, and gas prices were low.
By 2004 the administration’s problems on these issues had become
evident, but conservatives set them aside due to the War on
Terrorism. Bush was (and still is) the best suited to lead us in
that struggle.
At this point, one can only hope the Bush administration will
improve in these areas in the next three years. Looking ahead to
2008, if we are really serious about addressing problems such as
spending and energy, conservatives must demand from every GOP
candidate for president plans to reduce government and deregulate
energy markets (and demanding the same from Democratic candidates
wouldn’t be a bad idea either). Only by making these issues big
ones in the presidential primaries can conservatives ensure that
future leaders take action. We missed our chance with Bush.
