|
Politics: State of the Union
With Norman J. Ornstein
American Enterprise Institute
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003; 11 a.m. ET
President Bush delivered his third State of the Union address Tuesday night amidst brewing conflict with Iraq, persistent threats from North Korea, a struggling economy and approval ratings that have fallen in recent weeks. Meanwhile, the president continues to push his domestic agenda, from health care to taxes, and Tom Ridge, the nation's first secretary of Homeland Security, was sworn in just days ago.
Norman J. Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, was online to take your questions and comments on the State of the Union, Bush's performance and the Democratic response.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Utica, N.Y.:
Can you explain double taxation? Really. Do conservatives really want to tag each dollar with a radioactive marker as it comes off the presses and say, "this can only be taxed once?" We tax transactions, not dollars. Corporate profits are one transaction; investor dividends are a distinct and different transaction. This term "double taxation" is just a meaningless canard, like "death tax," "marriage penalty," and what's this new one? The idea to strangle retail sales through the replacement of the income tax with a national sales tax? "Fair share?"
Norman Ornstein: There is, actually double taxation on some dividends, in the sense that the corporate profits are taxed, the dividends are sent to shareholders, and taxed again. So the money is taxed at both ends. That makes dividends more costly than, say capital gains, and in theory, as most economists of any persuasion would say, it would be wise to change the system. But it is probably only wise to do so in the context of a sweeping reform of the tax system (as John Kerry said in Dec.) In this form, it is foolish policy
Austin, Tex.:
President Bush's offer to assist with the AIDS epidemic in Africa came as a surprise to me. Do you think he was trying to appease the black American voters and bail the G.O.P. out of their present racial quagmire?
Norman Ornstein: I was also surprised at the scope of the AIDS initiative. Frist may have had something to do with it, and Lott as well (indirectly.) But I also think it was a way of countering the notion that the US is arrogant and self-cetnered, and not an international good neighbor
Washington, D.C.:
We know that all Presidents use speech writers. To what degree should Chief Executives take credit or blame for major speeches such as the State of the Union address? Certainly they have to OK everything in the speech. Do some participate in the speech writing a lot more than others?
Norman Ornstein: the word you get is that all presidents participate actively, but some clearly do more than others at actually putting the words together. Put Clinton at one end of the continuum, Reagan at the other. Bush is probably closer to Reagan. But the speech is the president's after all; he rises or falls on the words and the delivery. A good wordsmith (Michael Gerson is among the best) is eloquent in a style and using words that a particular president would use and be comfortable with
Indianapolis, Ind.:
I'm not to fond of the AEI but I think you're one of their more objective members. I'm getting frustrated. In the last tax cut we got our $600 rebate BUT the money we put aside for retirement and our son's college education are in terrible shape. We're only half way through his freshman year and that money will be gone by the end of his sophomore year. Also, our retirement plans are out the window entirely. We are not naive/inexperienced investors.
So in nutshell what's the message the GOP has for someone like me? The last thing I want to hear is how we can do it all (hold down government spending, cut taxes, fight wars) because from where I sitting it's just not working.
Norman Ornstein: I personally favor a one-time, payroll tax holiday now to get some stimulus and reach everybody. I think the White House has some work to do to convince working Americans that the policies are good for them. His approval ratings on economic policy are poor. If you are going to pursue a "compassionate conservative" agenda, you need to make some safety net provisions for working poor people, do something for those in the middle, and at the same time, convince people as we approach war, that we can't have it all, including more very large long-term tax cuts
Silver Spring, Md.:
Mr. Ornstein, many things struck me in the speech, but two stand out.
First, the President said he is increasing his discretionary spending budget by 4 percent, which is equivalent to the amount the typical American family's income is increasing next year. Yet, he proposes only to increase the salaries of federal workers by 2 percent. This unfair treatment of federal workers is glaring.
Second, the President stressed that he wants older Americans to be able to choose their own doctors, yet his prescription drug plan would force olders Americans into HMOs and to abandon their longstanding doctors. Isn't this hypocritical?
Norman Ornstein: on the first-- I agree completely. Federal workers are not getting any positive signals out there, and I fear the consequences of more demoralization, especially in the new Dept of Homeland Security. On health, he actually wants to use PPOs, not HMOs, giving some choice of doctor, but I think this plan is a nonstarter-- it sends the signal to the elderly that they have to through sizable disruption if they want prescription drug coverage, and I can see the new Harry and Sally ads now
Gardiner, Mont.:
Montana, as well as other states, is struggling with budget cuts affecting education and other social services. Do you think Bush adequately addressed the needs of the states?
Norman Ornstein: No. The states are in deep doodoo, and the budget has nothing for them except more unfunded mandates. That will have to change
Annandale, Va.:
When did we become such a vengeful and callous nation? President Bush famously said that Jesus was his favorite political philospoher. And yet, in the State of the Union address, he made a joke about how many al qaeda have been killed. The line about many al qaeda "not being a problem any more" was in the prepared text. Bush actualy made it worse by adding the "Let's just say" lead in impromptu. This is reminiscent of his "dead or alive" comment and seems to reflect a callous disregard for life that is contrary to the relgiious beliefs he likes to carry on his sleeve. Why does no one call him on this?
Norman Ornstein: I thought the joke about the suspected terrorists killed was in very bad taste. YOu can be tough without seeming to be callous. That was the one line that made me wince
Hyattsville, Md.:
How can deficit spending be good for the economy? I thought conservatives were supporters of fiscal discipline and budgetary responsibility? Also, if this President is so concerned about our national security, why did he allow his OMB to GUT the Homeland Security budget?
Norman Ornstein: Deficits can be good, if they are kept to a small share of the GDP, and do not become structural. Short term deficit spending to jumpstart an economy, or to keep from encountering deflation, can make sense. The fear is that large, long-term tax cuts, along with runaway entitlement and large defense spending, can get huge deficits that can't easily be contained
Athens, Ga.:
Dear Mr. Ornstein, Thank you for taking time today.
As we heard again last night, the President routinely asserts we are at war and that this war is likely to expand to Iraq, but fails to articulate, request, or even acknowledge the sacrifices incumbent upon the citizenry during this time of war. Accepting a tax cut is not sacrifice, nor is mentoring a student. The manner in which we choose to prosecute this war represents serious tradeoffs. Why is the administration silent on the commitment the public must make to winning the war on terror and, probably, the war in Iraq?
Norman Ornstein: I think it is a big mistake to fail to signal to SAmericans, as we are facing terrorism and are on a wartime footing, that it means sacrifices from all of us. Guns and butter times ten should not be the message
Washington, D.C.:
Is it just me or was the Democratic response incredibly weak?
Norman Ornstein: it wasn't just you
Boston, Mass.:
Last night, Mr. Bush continued to push tax cuts and other parts of his domestic agenda, but didn't mention the increased deficits and national debt that have begun to emerge and that will necessarily result if these plans are enacted. Was he trying to avoid a prickly issue or does the White House think that the American people simply don't care about budget deficits/national debt?
Norman Ornstein: it was both. he doesn't want to dwell on deficits, and he is content at the moment to let the Democrats call for fewer tax cuts. Until AMericans tie bad economic performance directly to deficits, he can weather the politics
Chicken Hawks:
I'm a Gulf War veteran who thinks the administration's bellicose rhetoric, once again prominent in last night's speech, is damaging our standing in the world for the foreseeable future. Do you see any irony in the fact that the ones in the administration who are most eager to go to war (Bush, Rumsfeld) are the ones who have no understanding of its consequences? Bush certainly has no clue (he can't even account for his whereabouts when he was supposedly in the National Guard). And even General Schwarzkopf has cautioned about the enthusiasm with which Rumsfeld seems eager to overthrow another country.
Norman Ornstein: watch for Al Franken's take on this; it is hilarious
Harrisburg, Pa.:
The State of the Union was primarily President Bush's speech to the American public. Many were hearing his positions for the first time. Yet, for those of us who read the Washington Post and Norman Ornstein, I don't recall hearing anything President Bush has not already said. Did he actually say anything new in his speech?
Norman Ornstein: other than the AIDS initiative, there wasn't much that had not been discussed in the press or leaked in advance-- except some of the specifics on Iraq's bad behavior and particular weapons. It is the delivery, tone, and emphasis of items and priorities that really matters here
New York, N.Y.:
It seems like every pundit I tuned into last night said that Bush's rhetoric regarding most domestic policies, especially Medicare and HMOs, was full of half-truths (e.g. seniors who want prescription drugs will actually have to get off Medicare, leave their family doctor and enter an HMO). Why is the trend in politics -- loudly say what the public wants to hear, without committingto anything, and then reversing course or dropping it entirely -- ok?
Norman Ornstein: much of the rhetoric on domestic policy, I thought, could have come from a liberal Democrat. The policies will be different. We'll see if voters make a judgment on that. Much will be up to the Democrats and how they handle it
Greenville, S.C.:
I heard much more about alternative energy sources than I expected. Is this just a sop to the greener wing of his party or is Bush the oilman really committed to this cause?
Norman Ornstein: I haven't seen any enthusiasm for alternative sources yet, but a commitment of funds for the hydrogen project was very interesting
Falls Church, Va.:
When giving a list of the biological and chemical weapons that Saddam has, I'm struck by the notion that many of these items were sold to Saddam by the U.S. in the mid 1980's, such as the spores that could be cultivated into anthrax. Does Saddam have any biological or chemical weapons that were NOT sold to him by the U.S.?
Norman Ornstein: your point is well taken, and embarrassing to us. But yes he does, from sources including the French and the Germans (surprise!)
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Stay Tuned to Live Online:
Broder
on Politics, Noon ET
Federal
Diary Live, Noon ET
Pop
Talk: David Segal, Noon ET
State
of the Union: Arab Reaction, Noon ET
Color
of Money Book Club, 1 p.m. ET
State
of the Union: The Nation's David Corn, 1:30 p.m. ET
Israeli
Elections, 2 p.m. ET
Dirda
on Books, 2 p.m. ET
Israeli
Elections, 3 p.m. ET
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com.
Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.
| |
© Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company | 
