More SOTU Thoughts

Over all I thought the President, President Bush not Mr. Bush -- Ron Regan, did a good job. I agree with Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) - the President looked more relaxed, comfortable, most likely because the Iraqi elections when so well, not sure I agree that all his (President Bush) eggs were in that basket as implied by Mr. Reynolds, but the President did appear very comfortable and very confident, not that he ever lacks confidence. Some quick thoughts below…

The President addressed some of my concerns over his first four years -- fiscal conservatism… I hope these suggestion come to pass or partially are enacted.

Now we must add to these achievements. By making our economy more flexible, more innovative, and more competitive, we will keep America the economic leader of the world. America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government. I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline. So next week I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: a taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all.

I really would have liked more detail on the healthcare issues -- although I understand there are time constraints and believe Social Security was the chosen subject to concentrate on.

To make our economy stronger and more productive, we must make health care more affordable, and give families greater access to good coverage, and more control over their health decisions. I ask Congress to move forward on a comprehensive health care agenda - with tax credits to help low-income workers buy insurance, a community health center in every poor county, improved information technology to prevent medical errors and needless costs, association health plans for small businesses and their employees, expanded health savings accounts, and medical liability reform that will reduce health care costs, and make sure patients have the doctors and care they need.

On Social Security, I was glad the President nixed higher payroll taxes and thought it was a good technique to point out other's attempts to fix an "unbroken system", per Democrats. Moreover, I do believe the real problem Democrats have with personal accounts is they will not control or even have the ability to access the funds in these accounts.

All these ideas are on the table. I know that none of these reforms would be easy. But we have to move ahead with courage and honesty, because our children's retirement security is more important than partisan politics. I will work with members of Congress to find the most effective combination of reforms. I will listen to anyone who has a good idea to offer. We must, however, be guided by some basic principles. We must make Social Security permanently sound, not leave that task for another day. We must not jeopardize our economic strength by increasing payroll taxes. We must ensure that lower income Americans get the help they need to have dignity and peace of mind in their retirement. We must guarantee that there is no change for those now retired or nearing retirement. And we must take care that any changes in the system are gradual, so younger workers have years to prepare and plan for their future. As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts. Here is how the idea works.
Right now, a set portion of the money you earn is taken out of your paycheck to pay for the Social Security benefits of today's retirees. If you are a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future.
Here is why personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver - and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security. In addition, you'll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away.

President Bush did mention "the sanctity of marriage", but I am sure some will not be happy with the short comment -- but, is there a need? Think about it; several states passed laws and the courts, even with judges "legislating from the bench", have up held the "federal defense of marriage act". Everything cannot be done overnight and he did make mention of it; albeit enough to irritate both sides; one that he even stated it and the other because he did not dwell on it long enough.

Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

I thought it good that President Bush pointed out that judicial nominees, usually get the up-or-down vote and not a filibuster; however, when have Democrats been concerned with traditions of the Senate -- most don't even care about tradition of this country.

Because courts must always deliver impartial justice, judges have a duty to faithfully interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. As President, I have a constitutional responsibility to nominate men and women who understand the role of courts in our democracy, and are well qualified to serve on the bench - and I have done so. The Constitution also gives the Senate a responsibility: Every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote.

Complete transcript of the speech here.