State of the Union or State of Denial?

[Omaha Steve]

http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/01/24/state-of-the-union-or-state-of-denial/

State of the Union or State of Denial?

by Mike Hall, Jan 24, 2007

The question on a local Washington, D.C., radio call-in show today asked: State of the Union or State of Denial?

As an analysis by the non-partisan Drum Major Institute for Public Policy puts it:

When one looks past the State of the Union’s middle-class window dressing, one cannot help but notice the speech reflects a view of America and an approach to government that is at odds with the reality lived by average Americans.

State of the Union or State of Denial?

You decide.

Economy and Jobs

Bush declared the economy “is on the move” and growing. Facts, figures and a struggling middle class, paint another picture, says Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who gave the Democratic response last night.

When one looks at the health of our economy, it’s almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney says Bush’s view of the economy is far off the mark.

Under this president, more than 37 million Americans live in poverty. Since he took office, 3 million good manufacturing jobs have disappeared. And it’s a national disgrace that 47 million Americans struggle to get their basic medical needs met because they have no health insurance.

Health Care

Bush acknowledged that millions of Americans have no health insurance and those who do are paying huge premiums and deductibles and more and more co-payments. But, says Sweeney, Bush’s health care plans—giving families tax deductions to buy their own private insurance but taxing millions of workers on the health benefits they now receive from their employers, expanding so-called Health Savings Accounts and other flawed proposals—don’t address the crisis in a “meaningful way.”

United Steelworkers President Leo W. Gerard says the Bush plan poses a real threat to workers:

Congress should reject this plan out of hand. It not only erodes employer coverage, where two out of three Americans now receive their health benefits, it’s a back-door attempt to saddle union workers with a tax for the health care benefits they negotiate through collective bargaining.

This proposal makes it more apparent than ever that the Bush administration doesn’t have a clue about how to address the needs of middle class and working Americans, who are being hammered by health care costs running totally out of control.

Retirement Security and Medicare

Except for telling members of Congress they must work together to “save Social Security,” Bush made no mention of the growing retirement security crisis.In the past, Bush’s plan to “save Social Security” meant privatizing Social Security and most analyses of the privatization schemes predict benefit cuts and higher and higher retirement ages.

Corporations are slashing pension benefits or entirely abandoning pension plans, with many—such as a number of airlines—using the nation’s bankruptcy laws to scrap pension plans and break their promise to workers. Yet Bush did not find time in his 5,700 word speech to even acknowledge that he was aware of middle class families’ fears about retirement security.

Bush’s proposal on Medicare was as in-depth as his plan for Social Security. He said to Congress:

You and I can fix Medicare.

Yet this month, when the House moved to help fix the Medicare prescription drug plan by passing legislation to requiring Medicare to negotiate with the drug industry for lower drug prices for seniors in the program, Bush said he opposed the bill and would likely veto it if got to his desk.

George P. Kourpias, president of the Alliance for Retired Americans, says Bush learned little from the voters’ rejection of his party and his policies on Election Day.

His stances on two of the issues most important to seniors, Medicare and Social Security, seem utterly inflexible. The 2006 elections brought new majorities in the House and Senate that agree on two crucial points: Medicare should use its power to negotiate lower drug prices, and private accounts are not the solution to the long-term solvency of Social Security.

Education

Bush also barely touched upon education. He did call for reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act but did not mention that, since the act was passed with bipartisan support in 2002, the Bush administration has refused to fully fund the act. According to AFT, Congress in 2006 authorized $22.7 billion for Title 1, the cornerstone of the No Child Left Behind Act, but Bush only budgeted $13.3 billion. The additional funds could have helped more than 1,700 struggling secondary schools and 7,000 elementary schools meet the standards the act calls for, says AFT.

Jill S. Levy, president of the of the American Federation of School Administrators (AFSA), says:

The president’s education policy fails woefully in fulfilling the needs of our children and our country.

Bush did not mention the soaring cost of higher education for working families and students in his speech. Last year the Bush administration and the Republican White House allowed the interest rate on federal student loans to double. Yet this month when the House passed a bill to cut the new rate in half, the Bush administration announced its opposition to the measure that could help an estimated 5.5 million students.

Iraq

Bush devoted a large part of his 50-minutre speech to war in Iraq and his plan to send 20,000 more troops into battle, plan that has drawn overwhelming public opposition—65 percent say they disapprove of Bush’s handling of the war—and bipartisan criticism, including Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee who plans to introduce a Senate resolution critical of the Bush troop increase.

Says Sweeney:

It’s imperative the president, and his military leaders, clearly articulate the path for rapid withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. What is needed in Iraq is an expansion of political and diplomatic efforts—not military escalation.

In his rebuttal, Webb, a former Marine and Navy Secretary in the Reagan administration, says:

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

Most commentators were surprised that Bush completely ignored any mention of the continuing need to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf coast that was decimated in 2005 by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Not surprisingly, however, was Bush’s failure to talk about workers’ rights on the job.
Workers and their allies in Congress are mobilizing for the Employee Free Choice Act to change the nation’s labor laws so working people will have the freedom to make their own choice about whether to have a union and bargain for better wages and benefits.

In Bush’s view of the world, “The state of our union is strong.” But in the eyes of the nation’s working families the state of out union is need of major overhaul. Says Sweeney:

Last November, working people sent the Bush administration a powerful message: It’s time for our nation to change direction. Now the President should listen to American voters and work with lawmakers from both parties to put our nation back on track instead of stubbornly continuing to drag us in the wrong direction.

[salin]

1. denial, of course.

a kick so that others may read this.

[Rydz777]

2. Bipartisan coalition

Ken Duberstein, Reagan's former chief of staff, said last night on Charlie Rose that Bush has created a bipartisan coalition - that even the Republicans are now against him.