The Sad State of the Union

I did not watch the State of the Union address, continuing the practice I started in 2001. I reasoned then that I had never cared what an illiterate redneck had to say before one stole an election, so why start now? Anyway, I did read about the speech afterward, and see that Bush placed a lot of attention on Social Security reform. He wants for people to be able to invest part of their money instead of just getting a handout. He’s talking about 1-2% or so, but that might just be a first step.

I’m not sure that it’s a good or bad idea yet. I’m glad to see someone thinking about ways to keep the program from going bankrupt. I am terrified of people investing in a market that does not always go up, up, up, and so possibly being left with less according to market fluctuations. If it’s only a small percentage that’s invested, that’s a different story. That also could give root to brokers and fees and all sorts of other costs for people, which could end up giving them less money when all is said and done. The jury is still out on the whole thing.

It should be noted that not only do many Democrats oppose Bush’s plan, but so do many key Republicans. They say that Social Security can possibly be fixed in other ways…tinkering with the retirement age, fiddling with taxes, etc.

This is my problem: Bush says there is a crisis, and that his way is the best way to fix it. Right away, an alarm should go off. This is a man who believes that our country is better off with record deficits, tax breaks for the wealthy, and an energy policy that benefits energy and oil companies instead of the American people. He believes that a swaggering, macho foreign policy that alienates our allies is in our best interest. Don’t even get me started [again] on Iraq. With all these precedents, why should we think that he actually has it right this time?