State of the Union: Completely borked.

For the sake of A) getting homework done and B) my blood pressure, I did not watch the SotU last night. That really just means I'll spend even more time poring over the transcript. Here goes. Things that really bug me will be in italics.

Some in this chamber are new to the House and the Senate -- and I congratulate the Democrat majority. (Applause.) Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities. Each of us is guided by our own convictions -- and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we're all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this nation's prosperity; to spend the people's money wisely; to solve problems, not leave them to future generations; to guard America against all evil; and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us.

Sorry, but...no. Congress is not their to guard my country against evil. Guardianship against evil is between a person and their god/higher power/giant teapot/spaghetti monster/whatever the hell else. Not between their congressional representative and said person. I vote for people based on their policies, not on their opinion on good and evil.

I don't even know what that last clause means. Keep faith with those we've sent to defend us? Presumably, this means...wait...oh, god, I get it now. "Support our troops" is now a congressional priority. *sigh*

We're not the first to come here with a government divided and uncertainty in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences, and achieve big things for the American people. Our citizens don't much care which side of the aisle we sit on -- as long as we're willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done. (Applause.) Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and to help them to build a future of hope and opportunity -- and this is the business before us tonight.

First sentence: No shit, sherlock. America didn't invent partisan government. Second sentence: probably a bit optimistic, but OK, I'll roll with it. Third sentence: No, that is entirely untrue, and stop speaking for me, Mr. Bush. I do care which side of the aisle someone's on. I don't like to vote by party but I usually do, as my views are without a doubt on the far left side. I disagree pretty solidly with most people on the right side of the aisle. On some issues I'd rather nothing happen than some half-assed "bipartisan" bill getting signed off on.

A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy -- and that is what we have. We're now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs -- so far. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move, and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government, but with more enterprise. (Applause.)

So how does the government keep the economy growing without governmental meddling? Oh, right - just subcontract the work out to huge corporations. Which many high-ranking government officials are or were major shareholders of.

First, we must balance the federal budget. (Applause.) We can do so without raising taxes. (Applause.) What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. (Applause.) Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. (Applause.) I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and we can balance the federal budget. (Applause.)

1) If you want to balance the budget you have to either raise taxes or cut spending, or both. We don't want to raise taxes? That means we're going to need to cut spending, as Mr. Bush clearly understands.
2) The two biggest money-gobblers are Social Security and (surprise!) the Department of Defense. This is deceptive because the actual budget for the DoD generally doesn't include things like...uh, the two current wars that we're involved in.
3) Here's a theory: Stop paying money to people for quitting work (Social Security) and stop paying for idiots to run around with guns and to research cutting-edge planes or what have you that we will never use.

Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour -- when not even C-SPAN is watching. (Laughter.) In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate -- they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet, they're treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process, expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress, and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.

Actually not that much to say here. For the most part I do agree. Government spending should be completely transparent (see above re: DoD).

And, finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience, and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound. Yet, we're failing in that duty. And this failure will one day leave our children with three bad options: huge tax increases, huge deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits. Everyone in this chamber knows this to be true -- yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act. So let us work together and do it now. With enough good sense and goodwill, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid -- and save Social Security.

Okay. Medicare and Medicaid - yes. Well, if I had my absolute say I'd say trash them and replace the entire system with a nationalized system like in Britain or Canada or, you know, every other civilized nation. Our country has some of the best doctors, best researchers, etc. We have the highest standard of living in the world, and it's disgusting that there are people who can't afford medical treatment.

But I'm not entirely sold on Social Security. If you're disabled and can't work? Yes, as an American citizen I feel you're entitled to certain assistance. But if you're just...65, and decide you don't want to work anymore? Well, that's a choice, so why should the government pay for you to sit around and eat bonbons all day? Chances are you're collecting from some sort of private pension or retirement fund. And likely, I'm never going to see a cent of that deduction out of my paycheck. I'm not convinced that fixing Social Security should be a priority; I think it ought to be scrapped and replaced with something that actually makes sense.

Spreading opportunity and hope in America also requires public schools that give children the knowledge and character they need in life. Five years ago, we rose above partisan differences to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, preserving local control, raising standards, and holding those schools accountable for results. And because we acted, students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap.

*twitch* No! No no no no no no no no. NCLB is horrible. It punishes already underachieving districts and schools. It hurts the teachers who are brave enough to take on the worst students, it in no way preserves local control, and it takes money away when schools do poorly on tests. That is, if a school's standardized test scores don't meet certain levels, that school loses funding. Which, obviously, will make the scores shoot up. I personally believe that the NCLB act is one of the worst things to happen to public education in a very long time.

Now the task is to build on the success, without watering down standards, without taking control from local communities, and without backsliding and calling it reform. We can lift student achievement even higher by giving local leaders flexibility to turn around failing schools, and by giving families with children stuck in failing schools the right to choose someplace better. (Applause.) We must increase funds for students who struggle -- and make sure these children get the special help they need. (Applause.) And we can make sure our children are prepared for the jobs of the future and our country is more competitive by strengthening math and science skills. The No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children -- and I ask Congress to reauthorize this good law. (Applause.)

Again: NO. Just - no! He's talking about vouchers and you know it, and it's disgusting. Decent student in bad school + vouchers = decent students leave bad schools; public schools get worse. We're not doing anything good for any students with vouchers! We need to improve our public schools, not abandon them. That's a white flag. It says "yep, these schools suck, I give up," and that is not acceptable. It's absolutely horrifying that people even consider that as an option. We need to just start pouring money into our schools. Teachers should not need to buy basic supplies out-of-pocket. Schools should be big, and clean, and safe, and high-tech.

Furthermore: Yeah, math and science. They're important. I certainly believe that - I don't particularly like math or some sciences, but I took four years of each in high school, and go to a college that require four years of math and three of science. But what about the other subjects? What about literature? No, forget that - what about basic grammar and spelling? Music? History? Geography? Our schools are filled with students who can't point to their own state on a map of this country, or explain the difference between they're and their, and don't know who Beethoven was. We need to meet international challenges in all areas, not just the maths and sciences.

A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available health care. (Applause.) When it comes to health care, government has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children. And we will meet those responsibilities. For all other Americans, private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs. (Applause.) But many Americans cannot afford a health insurance policy.

See above re: socialized health care. We have people living in the richest, most educated country in the world that can't afford a visit with a doctor.

And so tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income on payroll tax -- or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills. At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, this proposal would mean a substantial tax savings -- $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care affordable for more Americans.

I...what the hell? People who have health insurance through their work will pay less tax, while people who need to pay for it on their own will pay comparatively greater taxes? What the hell is this? How does this - even if I'm completely misinterpreting it - how does altering the tax code fix health care?

My second proposal is to help the states that are coming up with innovative ways to cover the uninsured. States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick. I have asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with Congress to take existing federal funds and use them to create "Affordable Choices" grants. These grants would give our nation's governors more money and more flexibility to get private health insurance to those most in need.

Well, that's a novel approach. But why not just nationalize health insurance so that everyone has it???

There are many other ways that Congress can help. We need to expand Health Savings Accounts. (Applause.) We need to help small businesses through Association Health Plans. (Applause.) We need to reduce costs and medical errors with better information technology. (Applause.) We will encourage price transparency. And to protect good doctors from junk lawsuits, we passing medical liability reform. (Applause.) In all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors. (Applause.)

Or, we could nationalize health insurance, stop allowing the health care industry (doctors, insurance agencies, pharmaceutical companies) to be such bastions of pure evil, and nationalize health care.

Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America -- with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we're doubling the size of the Border Patrol, and funding new infrastructure and technology.

Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border -- and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won't have to try to sneak in, and that will leave Border Agents free to chase down drug smugglers and criminals and terrorists. (Applause.) We'll enforce our immigration laws at the work site and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers, so there's no excuse left for violating the law. (Applause.)

God, yes. Those Mexicans picking fruit out in California are really destroying the country. And I hate how often terrorists come in over the Mexican border, because - wait...has that, like, ever happened?

We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. (Applause.) We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country without animosity and without amnesty. (Applause.) Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate, so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law. (Applause.)

Why is amnesty a bad thing? For someone who's so fervently Christian that's a pretty ballsy goal.

Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America's economy running and America's environment clean. For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.

Remove 'foreign' from that sentence and I agree, wholeheartedly.

It's in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power. (Applause.) We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. (Applause.) We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol -- (applause) -- using everything from wood chips to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

We made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies here in Washington and the strong response of the market. And now even more dramatic advances are within reach. Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we've done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years. (Applause.) When we do that we will have cut our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- and that is nearly five times the current target. (Applause.) At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

Achieving these ambitious goals will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but it's not going to eliminate it. And so as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must step up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways. (Applause.) And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. (Applause.)

Know what else we could do? Drive less and in smaller cars, and use less electricity. Actually, I bet that would be a whole lot easier.


We will now take a brief intermission so that I can do some studying. More later.