Originally posted by JaTo:
Find me a State of the Union speech that's not rife with more than just a little "back-patting" and self-congratulatory messages...

Seriously.

Anyway, most points were well-delivered and valid (although in VERY forgiving language), but what I'd like to know is where we are going to come up with the money to implement the changes that Bush put forth; Social Security reform is needed like CRAZY, but digging up a plan that both parties can agree upon and then finding funding that doesn't rip the middle-class and upper-class a new one in terms of tax hikes is going to be the magic trick of the century. Same goes with alternative energy; the subsidies or tax breaks that many arms of US businesses will want (and need to a degree) to fund such a shift is going to be staggering to say the least.



Where was the money coming from in his previous proposal for SS reform? That'd be a start. Thing is, the longer this is put off, the larger the payments become. If the Dems have a better idea, I'd really like to hear it.

Now as for alternative energy, a good start would be methanol. We can put 10% into gasoline tomorrow, an instant impact on usage. The incentives to make the change-over won't be that staggering if the demand for the products comes into play. All of a sudden, it'll be profitable to make the change & it will happen. Generating the demand or seeding the market will be the trick, and that is already happening. Remember the Zetecs with CNG tanks?? CNG vehicles have been around since I was a kid. Phase in a plan to eventually require all government vehicles (except police & other emergency services) to utilize alternative fuels of some sort, electric, solar, CNG, propane, hydrogen, etc. Car companies will clammor for their share of the market, and expand on it.

Originally posted by JaTo:
I'm an avowed conservative on monetary policy, so the orgy of spending that has gone unchecked that past few years has sunk us back into one hell of a financial hole has hacked me off a bit; even Greenspan voiced his concerns about this more than once during his tenure. Where some of that spending has been necessary for security reasons, there's a large portion of it that has been political "pork". The left-side of Washington used to be the old masters at this, but it seems that the right-side has picked up a lesson or two and joined them in the muck in recent years.



This I can agree with. Spending has got to come under control. The line item veto was offered to Clinton, but he had no interest in it for some reason. I still haven't figured out why he was afraid of that... GW actually wants it available to him. The line-item veto has the potential to be abused, so it's a bit scary to many - especially the minority party. Which again, makes me wonder why Clinton didn't take it when he had the opportunity...

Originally posted by JaTo:
One thing that wasn't mentioned was lobbying reform; I want to see this ABOVE ALL ELSE in Washington. Much of the political pork legislation (on both sides) comes from intense lobbying from business and other private interest groups. Cleaning up Washington starts with gutting the current lobbying format that is practiced there; not by just deep-sixing dishonest politicians (though that's a good start)...



Agreed there too. Seems the elected representatives of both parties have forgotten about 'majority rule', and bow to the wishes of special interest groups. Far too much squeaky wheel syndrome and far too much access to the legislators.


Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.