Bush and the not-so-hot union

President George W. Bush will deliver his State of the Union address tonight. It seems appropriate to foreshadow that speech with an outline of how the nation really is doing, without the president's spin.

The aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks is of course foremost on everyone's minds. Our sense of security was shattered. But in retrospect, our feeling of invulnerability was an illusion at best. Some say the "world changed" that day, but it didn't. We just finally got a taste of the rest of the world's realization that one can't buy security merely with more military spending and fewer freedoms.

But we're still here: The terrorists failed to destroy this country, and indeed there's no way they could. This nation is not like others (for example, any of our Arab "allies"), where an authoritarian government rules over the people. Yes, despite eight years of Republicans' screaming about "too much government" under former president Bill Clinton, we are still very much a government of the people. If some disaster wiped out our national government, we would grieve and debate how to regroup. But we would regroup and endure. Because that's what happens with a government based on consent of the governed--quarrelsome and inefficient though it is, with freedom of speech and association. We could destroy what our nation truly stands for by failing to appreciate and protect our civil liberties--but then that's our choice, not that of some foreign power or conspiracy.

Even if a massive catastrophe wiped us from the face of the earth, the nobler aspects of U.S. history--serving freedom, tolerance and democracy--should outlive us, as with the Greek and Roman democracies that inspired us.

To the extent that we recognize the above, this union is far better now than in recent history.

But on more prosaic notes, we face other problems.

For starters, we are in a recession. Staggering numbers of workers have been fired, and bankruptcies are up sharply. Republicans claim it started after Sept. 11, but the fact is that it dates from March. Further, Bush's budget plans do almost nothing to tackle the impending crisis in health care, as costs rise and millions of laid-off workers lose insurance. Instead, the Bush administration is trying to misdirect the debate, by claiming that Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle wants to raise taxes and blame the recession on Bush's last tax cuts. In reality, Daschle stated that given the five years of deficits that Bush's team admits in their budgets, perhaps we should delay the phased-in tax cuts or reduce them for upper-income taxpayers. And Daschle stated only that those tax cuts will extend the current recession (by preventing us from paying down the national debt, thus driving up long-term interest rates).

Indeed, the Republicans are actively seeking to use the current crisis atmosphere to further their own power. Two weeks ago, chief Bush adviser Karl Rove bluntly stated at a GOP meeting that the Bush administration fully intends to use this national crisis for partisan political advantage in the fall elections. Simultaneously, congressional Republicans call their proposed massive tax cuts for corporations a "stimulus bill"--but giving money to those who already have plenty of it isn't a stimulus. It's just cover for yet another pay back to the Republican constituency of the very wealthy. Further, intellectually honest conservatives don't believe in government's stimulating a weak economy (ever). Finally, there's no reason a corporate tax cut should lead to more jobs--companies expand when more people want their products, and for no other reason.