A CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE TO THE 2006 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS - Part VI

“We will make wider use of electronic records and other health information technology, to help control costs and reduce dangerous medical errors. We will strengthen health savings accounts -- making sure individuals and small business employees can buy insurance with the same advantages that people working for big businesses now get. We will do more to make this coverage portable, so workers can switch jobs without having to worry about losing their health insurance. And because lawsuits are driving many good doctors out of practice -- leaving women in nearly 1,500 American counties without a single OB/GYN -- I ask the Congress to pass medical liability reform this year.”

An effective national health insurance plan would resolve the portability problem. An effective national health care plan would also level the playing field for the self-employed and small businesses. But given the propensity of the federal government to a) subpoena electronic records, b) conduct electronic surveillance, c) foul up programs in health care, and d) push for control over private medical decisions (i.e. overturning Roe v. Wade, Terri Schiavo, etc.), do we really want our medical records to be turned into electronic formats? Additionally, given the problems with electronic theft of personal data, can we assure the public that such records would be safe? Then, too, given the number of medical mistakes committed by doctors (and their staff), medical equipment suppliers, and hospitals, do we really want to leave our public without the protection and recourse via the courts.

Which brings up the point that the Republicans and ultra-conservatives are so enthralled with limiting the power of the judicial branch. They are constantly attempting to rein in judges that do not rule according to their ideology, promoting judges that are activists for the conservative way, and stacking the judiciary with people that are pro-business, pro-government and against the rights of the individual. Between the stacking of the judicial decks, the pro-business legislation, the scandal-nurturing environment, exactly when will the average citizen actually get an even break?

“Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances.”

Gee, haven’t we heard this before? In the SOTU address for 2005 we heard the following:

>“To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy. Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid, and more production here at home -- including safe, clean nuclear energy. My Clear Skies legislation will cut power plant pollution and improve the health of our citizens. And my budget provides strong funding for leading-edge technology -- from hydrogen-fueled cars, to clean coal, to renewable sources such as ethanol. Four years of debate is enough: I urge Congress to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign energy.” George W. Bush, SOTU – 2005

In the SOTU address for 2004 we heard the following:

“Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run -- so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy.” George W. Bush, SOTU – 2004

In the SOTU address for 2003 we heard the president say:

“Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country, while dramatically improving the environment. I have sent you a comprehensive energy plan to promote energy efficiency and conservation, to develop cleaner technology, and to produce more energy at home.” George W. Bush, SOTU – 2003

In the SOTU address for 2002 we heard our president say:

“Good jobs also depend on reliable and affordable energy. This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil.” George W. Bush, SOTU – 2002

In a congressional address for 2001 we heard George W. say:

“As we meet tonight, many citizens are struggling with the high cost of energy. We have a serious energy problem that demands a national energy policy. The West is confronting a major energy shortage that has resulted in high prices and uncertainty. I've asked federal agencies to work with California officials to help speed construction of new energy sources, and I have direct Vice President Cheney, Commerce Secretary Evans, Energy Secretary Abraham and other senior members in my administration to develop a national energy policy…. Our energy demand outstrips our supply. We can produce more energy at home while protecting our environment, and we must. We can produce more electricity to meet demand, and we must. We can promote alternative energy sources and conservation, and we must. America must become more energy-independent, and we will.” George W. Bush - 2001

Now we are hearing the same song and dance. President Bush has had a Republican dominated congress for the life of his presidency. He has had ample time to initiate energy initiatives and get them passed through congress. Yet, the oil industries—gasoline, diesel, heating oil, LPG and natural gas—have posted some of the highest profits ever. The electric companies are constantly hiking the prices and blaming the high cost of fuels. Even the coal mines are posting record profits while ignoring what mines in other parts of the world consider basic safety equipment.

“So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy.”

Yadaa, yadaa, yadaa. We have heard this before. Let’s pretend we’re from Missouri and show us the goods. But we have to remember that our president, vice president and others in the administration have a history in the energy business.

“We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years.”

So perhaps we should eliminate the tax credit for businesses that buy and use gas-guzzling SUVs? Perhaps we should restore credits and low-cost financing for alternative energy sources like solar panels for homes, windmills for local energy cooperatives, as well as initiatives for municipal and co-operative energy producers? Just maybe we need some distribution alternatives for existing fuels as well, putting profits back into our government rather than in the pockets of those that have already made billions off the backs of our citizens?

“Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.”

Please. A twenty-year plan demonstrates such an obtuse understanding of the problem and how urgently we need reforms and alternatives. Seriously folks, do we think the Republican plan will survive twenty years?

“And to keep America competitive, one commitment is necessary above all: We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people -- and we're going to keep that edge. Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science.”

But we have already seen cuts in basic educational financial aid. Why are we saying one thing while doing another? How can we claim to be supportive of “human talent and creativity” while we are busy undermining the entire financial aid system? Something is wrong? I am experiencing cognitive dissonance.

“First, I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years. This funding will support the work of America's most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.”

All of which will be developed using our tax dollars, patented by those developing it, and sold back to us at extremely high prices. Shouldn’t there be some share of the technology developed with tax dollars, credits and incentives that comes back to us without costing us more than our fair share? Shouldn’t research and innovation funded with our tax dollars be placed into the public domain for use by everyone? Again, we see a pro-business, anti-consumer, anti-citizen ideology in action.

“Second, I propose to make permanent the research and development tax credit to encourage bolder private-sector initiatives in technology. With more research in both the public and private sectors, we will improve our quality of life -- and ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come.”

Again, shouldn’t we develop some way where we, the people, benefit from the research and innovation that we paid for in the first place? Too much research and innovation has been developed with out tax dollars and benefited big business.

“Third, we need to encourage children to take more math and science, and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We've made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country. Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs. If we ensure that America's children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world.”

NCLB is a federally mandated, locally funded initiative that was shoved down the throat of every school district. While it has lofty goals that should be applauded, the lack of funding and the mandatory nature of the program have made in unsustainable in the long-term. In order to bring 30,000 math and science professionals to the classroom there is will be a need to increase the salaries of teachers. A scientist or engineer can make two to three times the salary of an average teacher. But isn’t it funny that teachers have been telling us that education is the road to success for our nation as a whole for decades (even Horace Mann and John Dewey told us that) and have been ignored?