After reading the DFP article in the January 29, 2003 edition, I am sure there are many readers who may be confused or angered by what seemed to be a certain degree of animosity shown by members of the Boston University College Democrats during the President’s State of the Union address. I agree that there certainly is a need for clarification surrounding the comments as quoted in the article regarding the Tuesday night speech. First and foremost, this was a gathering of friends and not an officially sanctioned BUCD event.
The Boston University College Democrats chapter greatly respects the President and the office of the Presidency. As a result of that respect, BUCD holds the President to a high standard. We believe that the President must promote policies that benefit the whole country, and not just a few privileged citizens. We believe that the President must, as he inferred in his introduction to the State of the Union two days ago, address the problems of the country now, and not leave it in ruins for future administrations and generations. Therefore, when many members of the organization reacted with skepticism and laughter to President Bush’s proposals in the State of the Union, it was based on Mr. Bush’s past actions, broken promises, and expected negative consequences of his current proposals.
On education, Mr. Bush created a lot of publicity last year in his annual address about his participation in the landmark Leave No Child Behind Act, which should have provided billions of dollars of education funding. However, Mr. Bush has continually proposed budgets that would under-fund this important legislation by $6 billion. Not million, billion. Apparently, Mr. Bush is content to leave many children behind.
President Bush’s “economic stimulus” proposal is further evidence that the Bush administration puts the bottom line of large corporations and the wealthy ahead of the needs of students and average Americans. To truly stimulate the economy, Mr. Bush should advocate an extension of unemployment benefits for the millions of workers who have lost their jobs since the LAST time Mr. Bush passed an “economic stimulus” plan that was supposed to pull our economy out of recession. Rather, he remained silent on the issue in November when both Senate Democrats and Republicans pleaded with him to endorse a compromise between a House and Senate bill which would have done just that. He remained silent. The law that was passed in early January, touted as an unemployment “extension” merely guarantees workers who are currently receiving benefits that they will receive their promised 39 weeks. If you had already run out of benefits, too bad.
Mr. Bush’s proposal to exempt stock dividends from taxation is another example. Many dividends are already exempt or under special rules. As a result, half of the $360 billion that the U.S. Treasury will lose over the next 10 years if Mr. Bush gets his way will go directly into the savings accounts of the wealthiest one percent of Americans. This is not an economic stimulus package. It’s a kick back to those who are already on firm ground. And while Mr. Bush claims that the “average family” will receive $1000 in tax cuts under his proposal, he is averaging the $85,000 any millionaire will receive with $200 a person half the country will receive.
Though Mr. Bush was a governor himself before entering the Oval Office, he seems to have forgotten what his proposed tax cuts will do to state budgets. Ohio Governor Bob Taft said it bluntly when he pointed out that if Mr. Bush’s proposal is passed, Ohio would lose $175 million next year in revenues. This means less funding for police, anti-terror and anti-gang units, fire departments, schools, and infrastructure.
As for the environment, Mr. Bush’s policies are truly laughable. His attempt last year to open up the Alaskan Refuge for oil drilling would, according to environmental experts, destroy one of the last remaining refuges in the area. In exchange, the Congressional Research Service reports that the U.S. would only receive a maximum of six months’ supply of oil, and that supply would not be available for another decade.
Mr. Bush denies that there is global warming, but in a positive step towards stemming the tide of that problem, he endorsed the creation of hydrogen cars in his speech. Good, if the funds are actually appropriated. The Bush administration’s “Healthy Forests” initiative is also worth more than a chuckle. The very idea that opening up national forests for logging fire-resistant old growth trees would stop forest fires is beyond belief. And let’s not forget it was the Bush administration that encouraged the EPA to lower the acceptable level of arsenic in our drinking water.
An important detail that the DFP article left out was the praise that many Democratic observers gave President Bush during his speech. For example, to see him finally willing to address the need for foreign aid and AIDS relief in Africa was wonderful. His support of the need for affordable prescription drugs is also important, though his plans to accomplish this goal are not preferable.
Though I was appalled at the reported reactions of several members of the Boston University College Republicans (including cheers when the President twice referred to the torture and violations of civil rights of suspected terrorists in our country and abroad) I will not respond directly to those comments because I can only assume that a certain percent of their reaction as reported in the article will be on my end as misinterpreted as others will misinterpret the reaction of some of my fellow College Democrats.
In the end, the most important thing to take from the President’s State of the Union address is this: America has a lot of problems right now, and the way in which we address those problems matters. Admitting to causing and enlarging a huge federal deficit is one thing, but making the poorest 95 % of Americans suffer more as a result than the upper 5% of Americans is ridiculous, and it is unfair. When Mr. Bush talks about compassionate conservatism, let it be applied to all Americans. And when Americans disagree with the President over the way in which the country should move forward, it isn’t un-American. It’s our right and responsibility as citizens of the Land of the Free.
Ellen Weis President BU College Democrats CAS 2003 617-352-6371
Nick Kassotis Vice President BU College Democrats CAS 2004
Laura Sargent Secretary BU College Democrats Cas 2004
Jason Dooley Treasurer BU College Democrats CAS 2004
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
