Comments on the State of the Union Address

I have just a few comments on the President's State of the Union Address. First of all, let me preface this by saying that I do not disagree with President Bush on every issue. I for one don't see why having private accounts for Social Security would necessarily be a bad thing. Of course it would require a lot of money to get things started, but after that, what would be the problem? I didn't agree with our reasoning for going to war in Iraq. I thought it was to remove Saddam Hussein from power because of his weapons of mass destruction which ended up not existing. However I don't think it is a bad thing that he has been captured. It's great that Iraqis got to vote earlier this week. That is great.

I do have a few problems with some positions of President Bush though. First of all, the President spoke about "protecting marriage."

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

Of course what he is talking about by protecting the institution of marriage is to outlaw gay marriage. I know I have spoken about this before, but I don't see how allowing to people of the same gender to make a legal commitment of love to each other jeopardizes anyone else's marriage. If he truly wants to protect marriage, wouldn't he want to ban divorce as well? That would seem to me to strengthen marriage.

My next issue with the President's speech was when he continued to talk about "impartial justice."

Because courts must always deliver impartial justice, judges have a duty to faithfully interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. As president, I have a constitutional responsibility to nominate men and women who understand the role of courts in our democracy, and are well qualified to serve on the bench -- and I have done so.

What he was talking about here was what have been referred to as activist judges. It seems to me that what the President was saying was that judges must all interpret the law the way he thinks it should be interpreted. If a judge has a different interpretation, he or she must be an activist judge.

Another topic that the President spoke about was financial responsibility:

America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government. I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline. So next week I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: a taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all.

President Bush says that "America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government." I thought that is was fairly under control before George W. Bush took power in 2001. Since he became President, spending grew out of control. Yes, it's mainly due to the war on terror, part of which was justified. However, while increasing federal spending dramatically, he also cut taxes! I don't like paying taxes more than anyone else, but when you cut taxes and increase spending at the same time, it seems to me that the deficit is bound to grow. I also agree that redundant and ineffective government programs should not continue to receive taxpayer money, but I must wonder what is going to happen to the unemployment rate when the employees of those 150 government programs he mentions are discontinued.

I have no doubt that the country will manage to make its way through the next 3 years, 11 months, and 18 days. I just hope that the Democratic Party gets itself together and regains much of the support that it has lost in recent years.