1-29-08, 9:22 am

In his final state of the union address, which his handlers touted as his last big effort to reclaim his legacy, George W. Bush repeated the same tired phrases and hackneyed platitudes he has often advanced as deep thinking and serious policy in the past.

Bush muddled his way through domestic issues. He mentioned New Orleans, though 40 percent of the tens of thousands of displaced city residents live below the poverty line and some estimates have only 30 percent of the city up and running. Two years too late to show concern for the storied city, Bush even failed to mention it last year.

On economic issues, his only proposal to fend off recession was making his tax cuts for the rich permanent, stating falsely that without it, the 'average household' would see their taxes rise by $1,800. There were no bold proposals to invest in the crumbling infrastructure to help boost the construction industry, the hardest hit as a result of the housing crisis. Bush made no gestures to directly assist low-income families during the crisis or aid the growing numbers of unemployed by extending unemployment benefits. He refused to even hint at long-term institutional reforms that would provide relief or economic security for working families.

He pretended to care about balancing the budget, a feat he never attempted in the first seven years of his administration, even when his party controlled Congress. Recall that he never vetoed a single Republican spending bill, adding about $5 trillion to the national debt before Democrats swept to power in 2006.


Bush's blind allegiance to health savings accounts was apparent as well. He ignored the best analysis that has shown HSA's do nothing to make health care affordable and only help upper income families enjoy additional tax breaks. The average income of HSA users is about $133,000, and middle and low-income families gain no tax benefit from them.

He rejected out of hand serious health care reform – even as an economic stimulus concept. Many working families would be happy to put their dollars back into the economy if they knew they could afford insurance premiums and medical care. And imagine what would happen if working families paid little or nothing for health care. Imagine the immediate savings for corporations with big employee premium costs if the right kind of health care reform passed.

He did visibly anger some Republicans with talk of needing to address global warming, but he offered no new, or, for that matter, any way to accomplish it.

It quickly became evident that Bush was simply going through the motions, repeating the same tired and failed ideological talking points of the ultra right, hammering away on taxes, and issuing veto threats about spending he suddenly opposes. Despite a strong warning against earmarks, Bush succeeded in adding 580 earmarks into veterans appropriation bill in 2007, including earmarks for pet projects like a Laura Bush library program and his father's foundation.

Bush repeated his mantra of tax cuts for the rich several times and promoted free trade. But there is one gaping hole in his theory: his tax and trade policies have not stopped (and can't stop) the looming recession. Indeed, his ideological penchant for deregulation and killing oversight has led to one of the biggest credit collapses since the Great Depression.

Even the International Monetary Fund Director General Dominique Strauss-Kahn now admits the need for regulation to prevent the kind of collapse created by the housing bubble and the subprime lending crisis.

All signs point to huge splits in the capitalist ruling class about the validity of the ultra-right economic argument (for various reasons) and a shift toward a window of opportunity to rebuild and reinvent social democratic institutions that ultimately could strengthen the working class for its protracted struggle.

On foreign policy, Bush rattled off a long list of countries he doesn't like and events that took place during his presidency. But their was no urgency or even much threat behind it. Though the Democratic sweep in 2006 delivered a brutal blow to Bush's presidency, his veto pen and Constitutional authority still give him great power to do great damage.

We heard remarks like 'Al Qaeda is on the run,' we'll bring justice to the perpetrators of 9/11, a re-hashed version of the old line that 'when Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down,' Iraqi democracy is visible in their 'ink-stained thumbs,' and much-doubted claims about how the enormous domestic security apparatus he has built thwarted a planned terrorist attack on a Los Angeles building. He even repeated the claim that 'a free Iraq will deny Al Qaeda a safe haven,' apparently forgetting about the safe havens it has in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

None of this was new. Some of it unsubstantiated. All of it gave Bush's speech the appearance of a 'night to get through,' as Time magazine writer Margaret Carlson said on MSNBC. Keith Olbermann called it little more than 'the edited highlights of the Bush presidency.' Chris Matthews said it was a list of 'New Years' resolutions never achieved.'

In her Democratic Party response to the speech, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) called for a politics that moves beyond ideological division to focus immediately on three key things: in addition to short-term projects to boost the economy, passing S-CHIP expansion as a means of creating a long-term institutional economic stimulus for working families, which Bush has vetoed twice; changing course in Iraq, which Bush has vetoed several times; and, a new energy policy. 'Join us Mr.President,' she said, and together 'the new American majority,' a concept Barack Obama has hit on in his recent speeches, can make huge changes before you leave office.

In a brief interview on MSNBC following the Democratic response, Barack Obama described Bush's speech as 'warmed over past state of the union speeches.' Obama called for an urgent strategy for dealing with the economy, both short and long term, including extending unemployment benefits and reducing college costs. He also said, 'We have to have a plan to exit from Iraq.' Obama rejected the promise of endless war embedded in Bush's proposed 'status-of-forces' treaty with Iraq that would make occupation and combat operations permanent.

Bush also made vague promises and threats about peace in Israel and the Occupied Territories, but other than gaining applause when he called for a two state solution to the crisis, unfortunately, offered little in the way of specifics, urgency, or seriousness.

Clearly, this speech was not intended to be a road map of governance in his final year. It was little more than pandering to the extreme right-wing base of his party in order to avoid leaving office with the lowest approval rating on record. He hopes for a couple-point bump, say White House insiders, to get him past the Nixon trough.

A pathetic end to a dangerous presidency.