KLECZKA’S KORNER

President’s Speech: A Few Good Ideas, Bad Economic Plan, and Obsession with a War

By Congressman Jerry Kleczka

January 31, 2003-

Recently, the President delivered his annual State of the Union address before a joint session of the House of Representatives and Senate. This speech gives him the yearly opportunity to lay before Congress and the American people his views on the condition of the nation as well as the direction in which he wants to take the country over the next year.

A number of highlights the President touched upon were commendable. He announced a renewed federal effort to combat substance abuse and addiction. An initiative to recruit and train mentors was proposed that could help provide guidance for one million disadvantaged junior-high aged teens and children of prisoners. And in response to the potential threat of terrorist attack by biological weapons, he proposed a major research and production effort called Project Bioshield to make vaccines and treatments quickly available to counteract diseases like anthrax, plague, and Ebola.

But although the President gave his views on the state of the nation by announcing that “our union is strong” he neglected to mention that our economy is a disaster. When he took office, he pushed for and passed the largest tax cut in history by saying it would bring the country out of recession and pledging that it would restore jobs and the economy.

Since then, nearly 2 million jobs have been lost and unemployment stands at the highest mark in 8 years. What was a $236 billion surplus in 2000 has been turned into a $157 billion deficit last year, with projections that the red ink will double to over $300 billion in 2003. Instead of learning from his mistake, the President proposed more of the same: massive future tax cuts which a number of experts have said will not stimulate the economy, but will lead us $674 Billion deeper in debt.

The centerpiece of his proposal, a dividend tax cut, would send nearly two-thirds of its benefit to the wealthiest five percent of the population (those making at least $140,000). A better alternative would be a more targeted, affordable plan, like the one I support, which would among other things give middle-class families a $600 tax cut right now that would be injected right back into the economy without exploding the deficit.

After making a passing mention of the bipartisan education reform plan passed a little over a year ago, the President said he would strictly limit overall spending. Unfortunately, after taking into account these funding restrictions, the cost of his newly proposed tax cut, and the $8 billion a month it will cost if he decides to start a war with Iraq, there won’t be much left in the budget to help local school districts make the improvements the President asked of them. Just saying the words will not make it so. It takes commitment and resources that were nowhere mentioned in his speech.

The most pressing task facing the President that evening was to explain why he is determined to take the country to war against Iraq. Over one-third of his address was devoted exclusively to this topic, in which he denounced Saddam Hussein as a tyrant, listed some terrible things he has done, and speculated that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.

But at the end of approximately 20 minutes of fervent speaking on this point, the President had still not presented any compelling new evidence that our country faces any imminent danger. He also failed to make a convincing case that we should carry out the first unprovoked act against another country in our nation’s history. Nevertheless, the President’s words left no doubt about his intentions to wage war against Iraq, no matter whether our troops are joined by allies or are forced to go it alone.

By the end of the hour-long speech, the President had listed a few promising initiatives that are worth a second look, an economic plan that should be sent back to the drawing board, and an unconvincing pitch that our nation should start a war. With our own massive conventional forces and weapons of mass destruction, there is no doubt that we could win any war against Iraq: the harder question is whether we can win the more difficult peace that follows.