SOU: various analyses

State of the Union Response
Claim vs. Fact analysis by the Center for American Progress
January 20, 2004

National Security

AFGHANISTAN

• "As of this month, that country has a new constitution, guaranteeing free elections and full participation by women._ Businesses are opening, health care centers are being established, and the boys and girls of Afghanistan are back in school. With help from the new Afghan Army, our coalition is leading aggressive raids against surviving members of the Taliban and al-Qaida. The men and women of Afghanistan are building a nation that is free, and proud, and fighting terror and America is honored to be their friend."
  
  A November 2003 report issued by a U.N. delegation, including U.S. ambassador John Negroponte, said_Afghanistan starkly contrasts with the President's optimistic assessment. The U.N. delegation reported that "insecurity caused by terrorist activities, factional fights and drug-related crime remain the major concern of Afghans today."_ Throughout the nation "individuals and communities suffer from abuses of their basic rights by local commanders and factional leaders." The problems are exacerbated in many areas of the country "by terrorist attacks from suspected members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda."

WMD

• "We are seeking all the facts. Already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day."_
  
  In nearly 10 months, "not a single item has been found in Iraq from a long and classified intelligence list of weapons of mass destruction." David Kay reportedthat "we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook steps to build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material." He also said there has not been evidence of "mobile biological production efforts" and that "Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991."

TROOPS

• "And the men and women of the American military -- they have taken the hardest duty…Many of our troops are listening tonight._ And I want you and your families to know:_ America is proud of you…When you and your friends see a man or woman in uniform, say "thank you."__
  
  The Administration has repeatedly tried to reduce basic services to men and women in uniform. It has tried to reduce hostile fire as well as separation pay for the troops and fought efforts by Congress to allow military retirees to collect their full disability pay._ Also, critical items, such as effective body armor, Humvees, and helicopter anti-missile systems have been in short supply._ The Administration also has launched an assault on military families, consistently trying to limit the benefits that military families and veterans receive from the government, announcing its intent to close commissaries, and considering closing schools.

_

INTERNATIONAL CREDIBILITY

• "For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America."
  
  American claims are very much in doubt, and the President is largely responsible. Last year, the President said that “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”_ The White House later admitted the claim was inaccurate. In fact, it was removed from a previous speech months earlier by the CIA because of concerns about its accuracy. The primary basis for the claim was a badly forged document.

Economy/Jobs/Workers

ECONOMY

• "Because you acted to stimulate our economy with tax relief, this economy is strong."
  
  According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, without the tax cuts, "the economy would have still have had 6% real growth." Meanwhile, a new poll shows that more than 4 in 5 Americans said their tax burden had not been eased by Bush’s tax cuts. And while the President says the economy is strong, wages are stagnating.

JOBS & WAGES

• "Jobs are on the rise."
  
  While the unemployment rate dropped in December, it only did so because the economy was so bleak that 255,000 of the jobless simply stopped looking for work. Additionally, the jobs that are being created are lower-paying. As the Economic Policy Institute notes, over the past two years, "expanding industries paid $14.65 per hour, while contracting industries paid $16.92."_ Just last month, a U.S. Conference of Mayors report showed new jobs created during the 2004-05 period are forecast to pay an average of $35,855, much lower than the $43,629 average pay of jobs lost between 2001-03.

WORKER PROTECTIONS

• "Our agenda for jobs and growth must help small business owners and employees with relief from needless Federal regulation."
  
  This agenda refers to the President's efforts to curb overtime pay, reduceworkplace ergonomics protections, and starve the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of its funding.

JOB TRAINING

• "I propose increasing our support for America's fine community colleges, so they can train workers for the industries that are creating the most new jobs."
  
  Over the last three years, Bush has proposed almost $1 billion in cuts to job training, including a $300 million (25%) cut to vocational education and community colleges and the total elimination of the $225 million Youth Opportunities Grants program. Congress obliged the President, eliminating the youth grants, and freezing the funding for federal job training and vocational education.

SOCIAL SECURITY

• "Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account."
  
  Under the Administration’s current plan “workers aged 35 today who retire at age 65 and do not choose the private accounts would have their Social Security benefits reduced 17%" from what they are promised now. Further, for someone born today, "benefits would be 41% lower compared to what current law” promises. Social Security privatization "is risky and involves trading some of today's inflation protected, lifetime guaranteed benefits for an account subject to market risk and not guaranteed to last a lifetime or keep pace with inflation."

Budget/Taxes

TAXES

• "The tax relief you passed is working."
  
  The President's tax cuts are not meeting his own stated goals. In April 2003, theWhite House Counsel of Economic Advisors pledged that the President's "jobs and growth" package would create 1,836,000 new jobs by the end of 2003 as part of its pledge to create 5.5 million new jobs by 2004. But the economy added just 221,000 jobs, meaning the White House has fallen 1,615,000 jobs short of its mark. On top of that, recent growth in GDP is largely unrelated to tax cuts. According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, without the tax cuts growth last quarter would still be around 6%. Meanwhile, "fewer than one in five Americans said their tax burden had been eased by Mr. Bush, who has made tax cuts the centerpiece of his economic program."

SMALL BUSINESS & TAXES

• "Unless you act, small businesses will pay higher taxes."
  
  Most small business owners felt little effect from Bush’s 2003 tax cut._ 82% of tax filers with small business income received less than $2000 in cuts._55% got less than $500, 25% got no tax cut at all._Why is this the case?_ Less than 5% of those with small business income fall into the top two income brackets.

JOBS & TAX CUTS

• "For the sake of job growth, the tax cuts you passed should be permanent."
  
  Since President Bush's first tax cut in March 2001, the economy has shed more than 2 million jobs. He will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to end his term with a net job loss record. Additionally, the White House Counsel of Economic Advisors pledged that the President's "jobs and growth" package would create 1,836,000 new jobs by the end of 2003 as part of its pledge to create 5.5 million new jobs by 2004. But the economy added 221,000 jobs since the last tax cut went into effect, meaning the White House has fallen 1,615,000 jobs short of their mark.

SPENDING

• "We should limit the burden of government on this economy by acting as good stewards of taxpayer dollars."
  
  The Administration has been lavishing taxpayer dollars on Halliburton, a company which "may have overcharged the government $61 million on a contract tosupply fuel for Iraq," and would have been “overpaid $67 million in another contract to operate U.S. military mess halls if auditors hadn't questioned the arrangement." The company has received $2.26 billion in no-bid contracts from the Federal Government for reconstruction in Iraq. But after these revelations surfaced, the White House stripped out a provision from an Iraq spending bill that would have subjected the company and other price gougers to criminal penalties.

DEFICIT

• "We can cut the deficit in half over the next five years."
  
  The President’s proposal to cut the deficit in half deliberately "omits a number of likely costs" such as the continued cost of Iraq and its own defense spending plans. All told, he is proposing roughly $3 trillion in new tax cuts and spending, including $1 trillion to make his tax cuts permanent, $1 trillion to privatize Social Security, _$50 billion more for war in Iraq, $1.5 billion to promote marriage, and a Mars proposal that could cost $500 billion. The result is that the deficit is predicted to be "in the range of $500 billion in 2009" – not even near half of what it currently is.

Health Care

UNINSURED

• "I ask you to give lower-income Americans a refundable tax credit that would allow millions to buy their own basic health insurance."
  
  The new tax breaks rely on savings, so "the very people who lack the decent health insurance are short of adequate earnings from which to take out savings." Thus, "most of the tax breaks will go to people who don't really need them, while those who rely on genuine help will come up short." And while the President is proposing $3 trillion in new tax cuts and spending, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson still insists that health care for all Americans by 2010 is "not realistic."

HEALTH CARE COSTS

• "We must work together to help control those costs and extend the benefits of modern medicine throughout our country."
  
  The President's health care plan provides additional government subsidies to private health insurers that charge unconscionable prices to those who are sick, or refuse to cover them at any price; allows private health insurers to avoid state regulation and have even greater latitude to discriminate against the sick; and guarantees_billions of taxpayer money to the pharmaceutical industry while prohibiting the government from negotiating fair prescription drug prices.

DRUG DISCOUNT CARDS

• "Under the law you passed, seniors can choose to receive a drug discount card, saving them 10 to 25 percent off the retail price of most prescription drugs."
  
  Drug discount cards do not guarantee seniors a price discount. "Sponsors of drug discount cards will be allowed to change their prices – and the list of covered drugs – on a weekly basis." The Administration stated, "we have chosen not to establish minimum threshold levels for price concessions."

HEALTH CARE SAVINGS ACCOUNT

• "Millions of Americans will be able to save money tax-free for their medical expenses, in a health savings account."
  
  The creation of "Health Care Savings Accounts" provides an "incentive to shift more costs to workers, who may be asked to ‘match’ their employer's contribution to a HSA with its high deductibles and high co-payments." Workers "in the higher tax brackets would secure large deductions for deposits into HSAs." As a result, they will "weaken traditional employer-based insurance" and "place older and sicker workers at risk." Experts believe premiums for comprehensive employer-based health insurance could "more than double."

REIMPORTATION

• "Any attempt to limit the choices of our seniors, or to take away their prescription drug coverage under Medicare, will meet my veto."
  
  The Medicare legislation bows to the interests of pharmaceutical companiesand prohibits Medicare from using group purchasing power to negotiate the lowest prices for seniors. At the same time, the FDA refuses to allow the reimportation of cheaper medication from Canada, claiming safety concerns. Critics accuse the group of "overstating the health hazards of foreign drugs to help the drug industry defeat legislation legalizing the purchase, or 'reimportation,' of U.S.-made drugs from Canada."

Education and Other Priorities

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

• "I refuse to give up on any child and the No Child Left Behind Act is opening the door of opportunity to all of America's children."
  
  President Bush has repeatedly proposed budgets that drastically underfund his own No Child Left Behind Bill. While he recently announced his support for $2 billion in funding for disadvantaged and disabled children,” this increase comes after he eliminated $1.6 billion in education programs for the poor._All told, Bush has proposed an education budget that leaves a $6.2 billion shortfall for Title I – the main program for disadvantaged students. At the same time, his budget has proposed to cut $400 million (40%) out of after-school programs, resulting in 485,000 children being thrown off these programs. He also proposed to freeze teacher training grants, meaning a loss of opportunity for 30,000 teachers.

PELL GRANTS

• "I propose larger Pell Grants for students who prepare for college with demanding courses in high school."
  
  Using a new formula developed by the Department of Education to calculate eligibility for the Pell Grant "will eliminate 84,000 students from the Pell program - and will reduce Pell awards to another 1.5 million students." The President’s last budget proposed cutting the maximum Pell Grant from $4050 to $4000. Today, "the average Pell grant...has gone from covering 77% of the cost of a four-year public college in 1980 to 40%."

CIVIL LIBERTIES

• "Key provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire next year._ The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens, you need to renew the PATRIOT Act."
  
  First and foremost, the Justice Department has not presented any evidence that the PATRIOT Act has lead to the successful prosecution of a single terrorist crime. Additionally, before Congress could responsibly extend the PATRIOT Act, it would have to know how it’s been used. But Ashcroft himself – despite on multiple, explicit, bi-partisan requests from Congress – refuses to make straight-forward, unambiguous disclosures about the bill’s use. Finally, the Justice Department's own Inspector General has already found_34 credible complaints of civil liberties violations connected with the Patriot Act. A federal advisory panel headed by Jim Gilmore (the Gilmore Commission), former Republican Party chairman and Governor of Virginia, issued a report early this morning that sharply criticized the Administration's anti-terror policies. The Gilmore Commission cautioned that "important civil liberties issues must be considered when evaluating measures for combating terrorism.”

DRUG TREATMENT

• "In my budget, I have proposed new funding to continue our aggressive, community-based strategy to reduce demand for illegal drugs [including] an additional 23 million dollars for schools that want to use drug testing as a tool to save children’s lives."
  
  In his FY04 budget, the President proposed cutting funding for the Safe and Drug Free Schools program by $25 million.

Published on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

An Annotated Critique of the Foreign Policy Segments of
President George W. Bush’s 2004 State of the Union Address
by Stephen Zunes

• "As we gather tonight, hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women are deployed across the world in the war on terror. By bringing hope to the oppressed and delivering justice to the violent, they are making America more secure.”
  
  Though no one should question the commitment and bravery of American servicemen and women, their missions – invading and occupying foreign countries and engaging in high altitude bombing and urban counter-insurgency operations that kill civilians – has brought more fear than hope, delivered more violence than justice, and has created an unprecedented level of anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world and beyond that has actually made America less secure.
  
  
  "We have faced serious challenges together and now we face a choice: We can go forward with confidence and resolve or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us.”
  
  This assumes that those who believe that the Bush Administration’s policies are illegal, immoral and counter-productive are living under illusions that deny the dangers from terrorists and despots. This rhetorical device ignores the many strategic analysts and ordinary Americans who have no pretense about the forces arrayed against the United States yet believe the country must choose better means to protect itself than continuing the policies of the Bush Administration.
  
  
  "The first to see our determination were the Taliban, who made Afghanistan the primary training base of al Qaeda killers…. Businesses are opening, health care centers are being established, and the boys and girls of Afghanistan are back in school. With help from the new Afghan Army, our coalition is leading aggressive raids against surviving members of the Taliban and al Qaeda.”
  
  While life has improved markedly in the capital of Kabul, the vast majority of Afghanistan is under the grip of warlords, ethnic militias, opium magnates and overall lawlessness. While women and girls are now legally able to attend school and go out of their houses unaccompanied, many are now too afraid to do so because of the breakdown of law and order. Furthermore, the “aggressive raids” the United States is leading are unfortunately not just against “surviving members of the Taliban and al Qaeda,” but often end up being against innocent villagers. Indeed, more Afghan civilians have been killed from U.S. bombing raids than American civilians were killed from the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
  
  
  "Since we last met in this chamber, combat forces of the United States … and other countries enforced the demands of the United Nations, ended the rule of Saddam Hussein and the people of Iraq are free.”
  
  The United Nations did not demand an invasion of Iraq or an end of Saddam’s regime. It demanded that the Iraqi government destroy its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems and open up to intrusive inspections to confirm that it had done so. Iraq eventually came into compliance with these demands, allowing UN inspectors to return to conduct unimpeded inspections anywhere in the country in 2002 and apparently eliminating its WMDs and delivery systems some years earlier. An invasion was not necessary for Iraq to comply with the demands of the United Nations since it had already done so. While the people of Iraq are free from Saddam Hussein’s rule, they are not free. They are living under a foreign military occupation and the United States occupation authorities has thus far rejected popular demands by the Iraqis for direct elections to choose their own government.
  
  
  "Having broken the Ba'athist regime, we face a remnant of violent Saddam supporters. …These killers, joined by foreign terrorists, are a serious, continuing danger… We are dealing with these thugs in Iraq, just as surely as we dealt with Saddam Hussein's evil regime.”
  
  While Ba'athists are apparently taking the dominant role leading the armed resistance to the U.S. occupation, increasing numbers of Iraqis fighting U.S. forces are not supporters of the former regime, but are non-Baathist nationalists who resent their country being controlled by a foreign army. If U.S. forces were simply battling remnants of the old regime and some foreign supporters, it would largely be a mopping up operation where attacks would be decreasing over time. Instead, the resistance has been growing. While those planting bombs in crowded civilian areas are undeniably thugs and terrorists, the vast majority of attacks are against uniformed foreign occupation forces which – while most unfortunate – are generally recognized as legitimate acts of resistance under international law.
  
  
  "Today our coalition is working with the Iraqi Governing Council to draft a basic law, with a bill of rights. We are working with Iraqis and the United Nations to prepare for a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty by the end of June.”
  
  Unfortunately, the Bush Administration and its handpicked Iraqi Governing Council are trying to set up a government through regional caucuses that they can control, rejecting popular demands for direct elections. Under this system and with U.S. occupation forces remaining in the country, it would be a stretch to consider the establishment of such a government “full Iraqi sovereignty.” The United Nations has thus far been understandably reluctant to support the establishment of what many would see as a puppet regime.
  
  
  "As democracy takes hold in Iraq, the enemies of freedom will do all in their power to spread violence and fear. They are trying to shake the will of our country and our friends, but the United States of America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins. The killers will fail, and the Iraqi people will live in freedom.”
  
  By defining the U.S.-occupation as “democracy” and those who are fighting the occupation as “enemies of freedom” who “are trying to shake the will of our country,” President Bush is trying to make Americans and others who are calling for a U.S. withdrawal appear to be unprincipled cowards.
  
  
  "Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons… Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible and no one can now doubt the word of America.”
  
  This is misleading on several counts. First of all, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs were well-developed, whereas Libya’s WMD efforts were in their infancy. Secondly, there was no direct diplomacy between the United States and Iraq in the twelve years prior to the invasion: there were sanctions, threats, and air strikes. Most importantly, the implication that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was what led Libya to give up its program flies in the face of logic: not only did Iraq give up its W MD programs through United Nations efforts prior to the U.S. invasion, but – despite dismantling its weapons and opening up to inspections – the United States invaded anyway.
  
  
  "Let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam in power…Already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.”
  
  Last year, President Bush falsely claimed Iraq had large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. At most, all he can claim now is that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.” These were virtually all legal and inconsequential remnants of old programs, not new WMD programs starting up again that posed a potential threat. With strict sanctions remaining in place against the importation of military equipment, dual use technologies and raw materials to Iraq that could be used for WMD development (which, unlike the economic sanctions, were strongly supported worldwide) it is hard to imagine how Saddam Hussein could have ever re-started his WMD programs.
  
  
  "Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world.”
  
  Not only does it appear that Iraq was apparently in compliance with UN Security Council resolutions at the time of the U.S. invasion, there are more than ninety UN Security Council resolutions currently being violated by countries other than Iraq, the vast majority by governments supported by the Bush Administration. U.S. policy has done far more than Saddam Hussein in weakening the authority of the United Nations.
  
  
  "The world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place.”
  
  Putting aside the fact that previous Republican administrations helped keep the regime in power during the 1980s (its most dangerous and repressive period), many of Iraq’s neighbors and independent strategic analysts believe that a weak and disarmed Iraqi regime – even under Saddam’s oppressive rule – represented a better and safer environment than the current situation where Iraq is torn by guerrilla warfare, terrorist attacks, separatist movements, and a rising tide of Islamic extremism.
  
  
  "Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq.”
  
  Despite some notable exceptions, most of the 34 countries contributing to the U.S. occupation have sent only very small and highly-specialized units (such as medical teams or construction workers) and have done so only under diplomatic pressure and financial incentives. Americans make up over 85% of the occupation forces and have control over virtually all of the political, military and reconstruction operations by these other countries. By contrast, most of those who are calling for internationalizing the operations in Iraq are advocating placing Iraq under a United Nations trusteeship similar to that which guided East Timor to independence following the 1999 Indonesian withdrawal.
  
  
  "From the beginning, America has sought international support for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.”
  
  In reality, it was not a few nations, but an overwhelming majority of the world’s nations that opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, public opinion polls show that even in countries whose governments did support the U.S. invasion, the majority of these countries’ populations opposed it. It is highly unlikely that there would be any opposition in the United Nations Security Council or anywhere else for the U.S. government to “defend the security of our people.” The invasion of Iraq, however, was not about defending the security of the American people but an illegal act of aggression, according to the United Nations Charter, which has been signed and ratified by the United States and virtually every country in the world.
  
  
  "As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny, despair, and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East. We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friends.”
  
  The unfortunate reality is that the United States is not pursuing a “strategy of freedom,” but continues to be the primary military, financial and diplomatic supporter of the majority of tyrannical regimes in the Middle East. The United States supplies the equipment and training for internal security forces for dictatorial governments in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Uzbekistan that crush popular movements for reform as well as providing the military equipment for occupation armies that suppress movements for national self-determination from Western Sahara to the West Bank.
  
  
  "Our aim is a democratic peace, a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great republic will lead the cause of freedom.”
  
  No country has given more military and economic support to more dictatorships and occupation armies in the Middle East and in the world as a whole than has the United States. The monetary value of U.S. military aid to Middle Eastern countries is six times our economic aid. The top commercial export from the United States to the Middle East is not consumer items, high technology or foodstuffs but armaments. Virtually all the recipients of such weaponry are governments that engage in gross and systematic human rights abuses. Unfortunately, U.S. policy has little to do with peace or freedom.
  
  Perhaps even more disheartening than these misleading statements by President Bush during his State of the Union address is that, in their formal responses to Bush’s speech, Democratic Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle failed to challenge them other than a vague appeal for stronger diplomatic efforts. None of the analysts on the major networks challenged these misleading statements either. Meanwhile, the two Democratic presidential contenders who dominated the Iowa caucuses the previous evening were senators who have largely supported Bush Administration policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel/Palestine and elsewhere in the Middle East.
  
  President Bush can get away with such misleading rhetoric because he knows the mainstream media and the Democratic Party will allow him to do so. Unless the American public demands greater accountability from the news media and the Democratic Party leadership, George W. Bush will have four more opportunities to make similar State of the Union speeches.

Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project and is the author of 'Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism' (Common Courage Press, 2003)