« “Syndication” with the Princeton Tory | Home | Human Shields are Human Traitors »

Response To The State Of The Union

By Matt Margolis | February 1, 2003

I have to say I was very pleased with President Bush�s State of The Union address. I remember being awed by his authoritative presence during his speech on September 20, 2001 to a Joint Session of Congress, and although his performance did not quite reach that caliber of excellence, he did a fine job of saying all that needed to be said.

Bush clearly tried to connect his present words with post 9-11 rhetoric early in his speech when he said ��our faith is sure, our resolve is firm, and our union is strong.� Our union is not as strong as it was the days and months after September 11th 2001. That day may have brought out the best in America�s strength and resolve, but today, that morning of September 11th has become a distant memory.

We�ve had hard times since September 11th, 2001. The economy was declining because of Clintonian recession, which was inherited by the Bush Administration, and the terrorist attacks themselves affected the economy. Bush addressed this issue first in his speech by telling us that the economy is beginning to recover. Although it is not recovering at the speed we�d like it to, Bush has a plan to make the process accelerate.

It was a telling moment during his speech to see how the members of congress reacted to key statements.

I could not have been happier when Bush said �Jobs are created when the economy grows; the economy grows when Americans have more money to spend and invest; and the best, fairest way to make sure Americans have that money is not to tax it away in the first place.�

Republicans rose from their seats to applaud President Bush. From my living room, I felt like doing the same. Democrats however had a more somber reaction, staying firmly in their seats to give an ounce of approval to the President�s comment.

This gesture by the Democrats clearly indicates their fiscal philosophy of thinning our wallets, and fattening the government�s. While they were sulking in warm of glow of tax reductions proposed by our President, the rest of American�s were pleased to hear Bush propose �that all the income tax reductions set for 2004 and 2006 be made permanent and effective this year,� and reduction of marriage penalty, and increase of the child tax credit to a thousand dollars be made immediately.

One of the key differences between Republicans and Democrats was spelled out clearly when Bush stated, �This tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes.� While Bush has been pitching his Tax Stimulus Package, which will actually help the economy, Democrats have been proposing tax cuts to people who do not pay any taxes (otherwise known as welfare.) This does not help anyone get jobs, or improve the economy in the long term.

The Democrats proposal is more akin to a grandparent giving their grandchild a 20-dollar bill for the holidays. It lets them buy candy and feel happy momentarily, but it doesn�t give the child any sense of the value of dollar, nor gives them a reason to pursue the means to earn their own money. A 300-dollar handout to lower and middle class families is a short-term distraction from their financial difficulties � and President Bush knows this.

The theory is simply stated by the President with the words �Lower taxes and greater investment will help this economy expand. More jobs mean more taxpayers - and higher revenues to our government. The best way to address the deficit and move toward a balanced budget is to encourage economic growth - and to show some spending discipline in Washington, D.C.�

It comes down to a complete change in the business practice of the government. President Bush, the first President with an MBA, certainly knows what he�s saying and what he�s doing. Every angle of the economy problem appears to have been addressed. �We must work together to fund only our most important priorities. I will send you a budget that increases discretionary spending by four percent next year - about as much as the average family’s income is expected to grow.�

President Bush preaches fairness in government. Is it not reasonable to curb rising Federal spending down to the same rate as paychecks, rather that it being higher?

Our President has the right goals in mind when he speaks of medical liability reform. This is a measure, which if passed, will reduce to cost of medical care. I applaud our President for addressing this issue.

Bush addressed the concerns of many Americans, and contrary to what liberals have said in attempt to tarnish his image, he is dealing with issues involving the environment as well. He is proposing 1.2 billion dollars to support the development of hydrogen-powered automobiles. This completely contrasts the allegations made by liberals that his oil interests motivate his foreign policies.

Our President also put something very important into perspective. America haters, both foreign and domestic, label our country as an evil empire. Yet, as Bush clearly stated, �60 percent of international food aid comes as a gift from the people of the United States.� With such humanitarian gestures made by our country, it�s hard to explain how anyone could detest such a country, which has been responsible for so much good. Bush later spoke of his request of Congress to commit 15 billion dollars to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean. This is undoubtedly a noble commitment, but I hope this doesn�t curb efforts to fight AIDS in America.

The speech took a different course at this point. Knowing how disconnected we�ve become from the shock of 9-11, Bush reminded us of the difference between our perspective of the War on Terror versus his. �There are days when the American people do not hear news about the war on terror. There is never a day when I do not learn of another threat, or receive reports of operations in progress, or give an order in this global war against a scattered network of killers.� This is a vital piece of information for the public to understand. We need to accept the fact that we are not aware of everything that is going on, but the threat of terrorism is still very real, and war to defeat it continues, but we are in fact winning the war.

Our President said �To date we have arrested, or otherwise dealt with, many key commanders of al-Qaeda.� I loved it ��or otherwise dealt with,� that was gorgeous. President Bush is leading a coalition in cleansing the world of the dark stain of terrorism that has been blemishing civilization. Those behind the bombings of the USS Cole, and U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania met American justice. Bush went on to list several examples of our triumphs in The War on Terror. Over 3000 suspected terrorists have been arrested around the world; many others, according to our Commander-In-Chief have met a different fate. They are no longer a problem for the United States and our friends and allies.� These were beautiful words. I was thrilled to hear them.

Current Democrat Presidential-hopefuls are suggesting that Bush has failed to provide us with an effective Department of Homeland Security, and that we�re losing the War on Terror. Bush points out to the contrary, that al-Qaeda cells in Hamburg, Milan, Madrid, London and Paris have been broken, as well as a sleeper cell on American soil, in Buffalo, NY.

As said before, the battle continues� we can�t be sure just how long it will last. We must remain committed to this goal. One of the most important lines of our President�s speech acknowledged this: �Whatever the duration of this struggle, and whatever the difficulties, we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men…free people will set the course of history.�

We�ve reach a point where free people have to understand that the actions of today will be judged tomorrow � and history cannot afford to turn a blind eye to existing and potential problems of global security. It is clear how dedicated President Bush is to dealing with this problem, and no one can doubt that he genuine concerned for our safety.

Our President made a good case for action against Saddam Hussein. He informed the people of Saddam�s past violations, and then explained to us what the UN weapons inspectors are really meant to do � not what most people think they are meant to do. �The 108 UN weapons inspectors were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq�s regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons…lay those weapons out for the world to see…and destroy them as directed.� This is important because the so-called �anti-war� movement wants everyone to believe that if there is evidence in Iraq, then it would have been found by now� Maybe now people will have a more realistic perspective.

President Bush detailed the types of weapons Iraq was producing, and what they have not accounted for. If Iraq can�t (or in reality won�t) account for their weapons of mass destruction, can anyone feel safe? Materials to produce 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent� These materials have the potential to kill millions and millions of people. Saddam has these materials, but he doesn�t want us to know he has them. He has even gone to great lengths to intimidate those who come in contact with the inspectors to keep quiet. Everything Saddam does not want us to know is exactly what we need to fear.

Democrats can politicize this situation as much as they want, but Homeland Security should not be a political issue. Homeland Security is a moral issue, and we need to do what is morally and ethically right: protect the people of the United States of America. President George W. Bush has shown his commitment to protecting the people � Democrats have done everything to undermine our Commander-in-Chief achieve it.

When Senators like Ted Kennedy say things like �We need to wait until the imminent,� it insults the intelligence of even the most simple-minded person. Unfortunately many in the so-called �anti-war� movement swear by this strategy. Bush took on this issue with a simple question: �Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?� Plain and simple, he said all there needed to be said. The immediate, logical, and truthful answer is �never.�

Of course, we cannot forget that there is a country to be liberated as well. Bush detailed the horrifically evil acts carried out by Saddam�s brutal dictatorship against the Iraqi people. The people who marched at Washington D.C. to protest President Bush and the War on Terror apparently do not care about this country of oppressed people. Their swiftness to attack the President and not Saddam Hussein is a manifestation of their own leftist anti-American ignorance, not genuine pacifism. President Bush strives for peace � we all do, but evil forces don�t just go away without a fight. Saddam Hussein has weapons that can kill millions, and he has been torturing and killing his own people as well. Is removing Saddam Hussein not a just cause?

George W. Bush spoke of many goals in his State of the Union. From domestic issues like the economy, to worldwide issues like terrorism, he has shown a tremendous amount of resolve and honor � and he has proven himself a great American leader.