The State of Dis-Union (Part 1)

Right after the 2000 election, I coined the phrase "50-50 Nation" to describe how evenly divided the country was. Four years later, the press came up with their own idea of the "red states" vs. the "blue states". Well, we're still in a divided country; it may not be as blatant as it was the last two presidential election days, but the real difference is that the two sides have grown more and more vicious toward each other. The president gave his annual State of the Union address the other night, but I think it would be more appropriate to say this country is in a state of dis-union, and sadly, that state of dis-union is strong.

Any thought that the new Congress would be more bipartisan and work to bring this country together died in the first few days, as I suspected it would. I pointed out in this very blog right after the election that Democrats should remember that they didn't so much win the Congress as Republicans lost it, because of Jack Abramoff and Bob Ney and Tom DeLay and Mark Foley... ESPECIALLY Mark Foley... Well, they've forgotten; they are now quick to declare (with their letter and column-writing minions behind them) that they took power because of Iraq, and ONLY because of Iraq, so they have carte blanche to tell the president what to do on that. Heck, now that they're in charge of the Congress, they have carte blanche to tell the president what to do on ANYTHING... that's how they feel. And more and more it seems like what they're telling the president to do is take pretty much everything he's proposed on anything and stick it where the sun don't shine.

Now I understand that the major focus of opposition is the "surge" in Iraq, and that Republicans are also opposing this. However, Democrats are using this leverage to open fire on everything Bush has proposed. The mantra is "oppose, oppose, oppose"... not that they have the answers themselves, or in many cases, the right answers.

Let's look point by point at some of the things the president wants to do. He has proposed a plan to fix the health insurance problem in this country. After years of nothing from the Republican Party as to the growing number of uninsured Americans (unless you count "no Hillary-care"), Bush wants to try to fix the problem himself, WITHOUT government mandates. So he proposed a system whereby those who cannot afford health insurance receive tax credits to get their own insurance. Great idea, but how do we pay for this? Simple, those who receive over a higher threshold of benefits will be taxed on those benefits. Yeah, it's a tax increase, but considering everything else gets taxed these days, you may as well get the money where you can. And the point is those who are getting taxed are the ones getting over $7500 in benefits on an individual basis and $15,000 as a family... that's a LOT of money in benefits. If you're getting that much, you're probably in pretty good shape financially.

Now one would think the Democrats would LOVE the fact that the rich are getting hit once again to pay for the poor's health insurance... nope, wrong. Instead, we get liberal nutjob Paul Krugman of the New York Times telling President Bush that he "doesn't know what it's like to be uninsured." Well, Mr. Krugman, considering the generous salary and benefits you probably pull down as a New York Times and nationally syndicated columnist, YOU probably don't know either. This is the best way to allow the private sector to take care of itself. We don't need a government takeover of health care, and we don't need mandates like the one in Massachusetts, where you now are REQUIRED to have health insurance. Their rationale is, "Well, you're required to have auto insurance if you drive a car." True, but note the qualifier: "IF you drive a car." Some don't, and they don't have auto insurance, and that's fine. So by your rationale, if you live in Massachusetts and you don't have health insurance, is it therefore illegal to BE ALIVE? This law is just begging for a test case where someone gets convicted of not having health insurance... cuz when it gets to the Supreme Court, that law will get struck down faster than you can say, "Unconstitutional."

Bush also proposed raising the CAFE (gas mileage) standards on automobiles and cutting back on our reliance on foreign oil by setting a goal for using more ethanol and less gasoline by 2017. This is exactly what Democrats have wanted us to do for years... and guess what, many of them OPPOSE THIS ONE TOO! Why? Because it's not enough. The environmentalists don't want us to go a step at a time, or as I would also put it, RATIONALLY. They want to take the irrational step of going from 0 to 60 on not using oil and stopping greenhouse emissions, which would take our economy from 60 to 0 in no time flat. And so, they will stop Bush's piecemeal approach from happening, and just like with health care, the Democrats are hoping that Americans get so upset at nothing being done that they will ultimately throw their hands up, say, "Screw it," and go along with the all-at-once approach that liberals want. "Oppose, oppose, oppose..."

Which brings us back to Iraq, and the real viciousness between red and blue. The Democrats pretty much declared who they are as a party when they chose Senator Jim Webb of Virginia to give their response to the president's State of the Union. In case you missed it, Senator Webb attended a get-together of freshman Congressman held at the White House, and basically told the president to shove it when he tried to have a friendly conversation with the senator. As you might expect, the senator in his speech rattled off a litany of failures, including what he termed the "predictable and predicted disarray" in Iraq. Excuse me? Who exactly predicted this? The 23% of Americans who were against the war the day we invaded? Certainly not your fellow senators like Kerry and Clinton who voted for the use of force in Iraq.

And so, a Senate committee passed its long-awaited non-binding resolution showing its disapproval of the move to send 21,000 more troops to Iraq. Vice President Cheney replied by saying that wasn't going to change a thing. Well, he's right! Senator Joe Biden (an, ahem, presidential candidate) has now said that he will introduce legislation that invokes the constitutionally mandated powers of the Congress to end the war. Well it's about damn time that they figured out what they can and can't do; it certainly could have saved them two weeks of empty threats about cutting off funding if they'd actually gone and READ Article 1. The only way Congress can unilaterally end this war is to revoke the original authorization of the use of force, passed in 2002. That's it. Otherwise, it's unconstitutional.

Not that it matters, because liberals seem to have a hazy definition of what passes for constitutional these days anyway. Yup, I'm gonna talk impeachment... next time. After all, this entry is threatening to become like most State of the Union speeches are themselves: long-winded...