TheAgitator.com
Notes on SOTU
Wednesday, January 29th, 20031) Let me be the first to give Bush some credit. I’ve never felt more Republican than I did for the first fifteen minutes of the speech. His rhetoric on taxes was pure bliss. In fact, I was hugging every word until he got to health care.
2) Michael Gerson, Bush’s chief speechwriter (and a Hoosier, I might add) is an extraordinary talent. I found myself growing goosebumps, even when I disagreed with what ol’ W was saying.
3) Back to health care. The $415 billion in extra funding for Medicare is unfortunate, but expected. Same with the prescription drug benefit, which is a step in the opposite direction of a health care system run by “doctors, patients and hospitals” — what W. claims to want.
What’s inexplicable is the Democrats’ response. Gov. Gary Locke of Washington described it as a move toward complete privatization. How is $415 billion in extra federal funding a move toward privatization?
4) Private Social Security accounts. Check. Nicely done.
5) Energy. Boondoggles and corporate welfare. Bush’s energy bill last year was a joke. A behemoth amalgamation of political patronage and backslaps to Big Oil, and to nuclear energy, which will never, ever be profitable without government assistance. This time, Bush is giving an extra billion to the auto industry to create a hydrogen car. Sounds grand. Sounds visionary. But it’s unnecessary. We’ll get a hydrogen car when markets indicate to the auto industry that a hydrogen car is palatable to the public and, therefore, profitable. Tossing them a billion dollar bone won’t get such a car on the market any sooner, because if the public’s not ready for one yet, or the technology isn’t quite right, no car company’s going to mass-produce a net loser once that billion dries up.
6) $450 million for mentors. Cheesy, unproductive feel-goodism. Why does it cost money to be a mentor? I’ve mentored kids since college. Find a school in your area that has set up a program for at-risk youth. Or find a Boys and Girls Club. Tell them you want to mentor. Then, mentor. It’s that easy. It’s not a lot of money, but it’s another program that’s best left to civil society organizations. And it’ll cost you and I about a buck-fifty each to implement it.
7) $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa. As I’ve written before, if we’re going to spend money on foreign aid, this is probably the least worst way to do it. There’s evidence that crisis-fighting aid outlays really do do some good. And of course there’s no questioning the dire situation on the African continent. I still maintain that it’ll be difficult to get this money past the kleptocratic, corrupt, dictatorial regimes (many of whom — such as South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki — pretended for a criminally long period of time that the problem didn’t exist) to the people who need it.
A great example of how better to fight the epidemic is Coca-Cola and its Africa Foundation. The soft drink giant is using its vast presence in Africa — including its marketing teams, its bottling companies, and its supply routes — to fight the disease on a local level.
“Drug Education Programs.” He means ONDCP. He means he’s proud of the fact that his administration is lying to you — frequently — and spending your money to do it. For shame.
9) Iraq. Again, Gerson impresses with lots of pomp, and some mighty turns of phrase. But I’m still not convinced. I find it odd that Bush has promised “hard evidence” when Colin Powell makes his case to the UN. Shouldn’t that case be made to we, the people, first? Why does the UN get to see it before we do? Who do Powell and Bush serve, the United States or the United Nations?
10) I know, I’m going to be accused of being one of those “all or nothing” libertarians for this, but why gloat that you’re “only increasing government spending by 4%?” That’s still an increase. It’s time to start going the other way. And, as Cato notes, while Bush did propose very few new programs, he made zero proposals to eliminate old ones. Isn’t there some agency, task force or bureaucracy that’s served its purpose, or outlived its mission?
With the creation of the Homeland Security (the mammoth bureaucracy that, paradoxically, is charged with streamlining the problem of bureaucracy amongst our vast milieu of intelligence agencies), the federal government is likely to grow more under this president than under any since Roosevelt. I’m not sure how he can make that work, and work in a tax cut, without making some hard, politically unpopular, Karl-Rove’s-pissed-off decisions.
Overall? I got a few goosebumps, as I said. I rolled my eyes a few times, too. Aggravating as this guy can be, though, for some damned reason, I can’t help but like him. And I can’t help but think that sooner or later, he’s going to make good on his campaign pledge to trust the people, not the government.
You are beginning to scare me.
1) Feeling Republican? Please.
2) Goosebumps during a political speech? Are you sure you don’t want Saddam the Airport Dick near your anium?
7) Coke, a software giant?
I think you just stayed up too late watching the speech. Maybe another cup of coffee would help…or a beer.
It is a very touchy feely review. You seem to have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. The whole point was to make us feel goosebumps and end up liking Bush. You are right, Gerson is a genious.
It was a good speech, well delivered, and I like most of what he said. However, I think it was the Democrats’ Response that was really worth the price of admission.
Democrats looked like complete morons. Unfortunatly, it was because Bush managed to beat them to the checkbook on most of the issues. They’re still trying to sell the “Tax cuts only for the Richest (X)%” argument. In this case, “X” was back to 1.
I had wondered why Locke was picked to give the response. I guess someone had to jump on the grenade.
This is a little late to use, but a great concept to watch out for next year (and future years).
http://www.marcmelzer.net/sotudg/
Radley, I agree with you on most of your SOTU analysis. My only major disagreement is in the hydrogen car research funding - and only then it is with an explanation.
1) You are wrong in that the reason to oppose the funding is that there is no market for the hydrogen car - the reason to oppose the funding is because the free market can develop the hydrogen car more efficiently than government funded research.
a) There is clearly a market for a car that runs on water. It is cheaper to run and pollutes less. People do want it, which is why funding it is palatable to the masses.
b) The free market, however, will be able to develop the hydrogen car for cheaper because it will have an interest in outcome (i.e. profit motive). Every penny saved in researching efficiently is a penny earned by the company.
2) Despite the market for a hydrogen car, the main reason the car companies have not started producing one yet is the entry cost is too high. To develop a new technology like hydrogen power on a scale large enough to run a car takes a prohibitive amount of money. The research and development cost makes the first cars too expensive for the average consumers. The car companies therefore are not able to sell a ton of them and the overhead associated with each car made is then passed on to the few consumers who are purchasing them (Hollywood). R&D + overhead = way too expensive. Therefore car companies don’t get in while they are still making large profits on gas engine cars.
3) Bush’s plan can work if money is given to directly to the car companies in exchange for research associated with hydrogen power cars.
a) The profit motive is kept by having the free market run the research. A penny of federal money saved is still a penny earned for the car companies.
b) Lest you fear the companies taking federal money and not developing the H-car, free market competition will require that they actually see it through. If all the companies receive equal amounts of funding, and it is sizable enough to make it profitable to develop the car, they will all have to follow through. If they don’t and even one of the other companies does develop the car, the companies that don’t will be at a huge competitive disadvantage, and will probably go out of business. There is suddenly pressure to develop the car quickly that was never there before.
4) Finally, although government funding of free market enterprise is normally not desirable (because of the increased cost to achieve the same result) it may be in this case. Such an invention would lead to an unarguable public good, in terms of the security associated with becoming entirely self sufficient in our energy needs, the health benefits that might occur from lower pollution, and the economic advantages and possibilities that would come from such a ground breaking, and efficient energy source. Where society stands to benefit so much from its creation, it may justify the increased cost that would be associated with government funding rather than waiting on the free market.
Yes, the free market does things cheaper - always. But sometimes, very rare times, the benefit an invention to everybody is so great that it justifies the cost increase associate with government funding in order to speed up the free market’s development time.
There is a strong case for government funding in technological and medical R&D. It is so expensive, risky, and even if successful, the pay offs are so long term that private investment rarely meets demand. Market failure is very common in R&D and there are a lot of technologies that would not exist without government support.
Did anyone notice Bush rolling out support for a “democratic Palestine” last night?
Did anyone notice that both Pelosi and Kennedy were asked, “have you seen any evidence that Iraq is linked to terrorist groups” and both responded, “I have seen nothing that links Iraq to the events of September 11th.” That leads me to believe that both of them have seen evidence that Iraq is linked to terror groups but they don’t want to admit it.
As an Engineer at one of the US big two auto makers (Daimler left out since the take over) I worked very close to the hydrogen fuel cell projects, as well as the electric (battery) cars. I can tell you that the technology exists, but the costs are way to high. Current price for a fuel cell stack - close to a million samolians. IT WILL BE YEARS IF NOT DECADES BEFORE HYDROGEN FUEL CELL CARS ARE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE.
Private Social Security? If it’s not optional or if it is still in the hands of _ANY_ government offical then forget it. Social Security should be completely eliminated period. It is nothing more than another tax setup to keep the political class rich and in office. As long as it exists people will still have to rely not on their own ability to pay for their needs (like medical care) but by the willingness of corrupt elected officals to hand over the money. There are plenty of people in this republic who could use the money taken from them by the government to help front the cost of things they need. People have had hundreds of thousands of dollars taken from them but when they get sick they aren’t allowed to touch that money. That is anti-liberty system no matter how you slice it. The individual’s right to take care of themseleves with their hard earned dollar out weights the needs of many–regardless of how many there are. That _IS_ liberty.
Bryan -
Many of your arguments about funding for hydrogen cells were the same that were made (or could have been made) for the so-called “Supercar” project that cost taxpayers $1.5 billion in the past 10 years, with no real results.
The Chicago Tribune did a three part series on the effort, which is online at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/car/one/chi-startingup-special.special
Basically, the government teamed up with the Big Three and set a goal of an 80 mpg car. But the supervision, spending decisions, mistrust, and general ineptitude of the participants made it a waste.
Each of the Big Three decided on a hybrid car (to take diesel fuel), and planned to introduce it in the middle 2000s. Japan made a gasoline-electric hybrid and beat them by several years. And still there are no American hybrids out there, even as they become more economically viable.
[Incidentally, Toyota and Honda appear well-ahead of the Big Three in fuel cell research as well, as they are already leasing prototype fuel cell cars to California researchers and governments (http://www.hfcletter.com/letter/December02/features.html).]
Also, the idea that the market will force each of them to go forward in order to stay in business is wishful. Because fuel cells will require hydrogen refueling stations, the transition will be so gradual that if it ever happens it will give all of the market participants plenty of time to adjust.
It’s a billion dollars better spent elsewhere (or not even spent at all).
I’ve seen articles on some of the fuel cell vehicles, and I was under the impression that most of the cost of fuel cells results from the R&D. If spread over a larger market, it would be affordable.
Some of the obstacles to that larger market appear to be distribution infrastructure for the H & O2, and consumer fears of Hydrogen as a fuel…. Toyota “Hindenburg”, if you will.
This issue is counter to most of my positions with regard to government funding in what should normally be a market driven issue.
The great success of the automobile was due to it’s superiority to every other alternative, and the great benefit to individuals in their everyday life.
Fuel Cell powered vehicles do not seem to offer any direct benefit to consumers individually, but rather to society as a whole. So, fuel cell cars will not be widely accepted until they can compete directly with cost, reliability and convenience. It will be difficult to improve cost, reliability, and convenience until they are widely accepted by consumers.
Situations where societal needs are not met by a market driven by individuals meeting their own needs is exactly why government is sometimes necessary.
I don’t agree with what you said about nuclear power, Radley. What do you mean, it “will never, ever be profitable without government assistance”? Government “assistance” is the problem, Radley. The only reason no more nuke power plants have been started in 20-odd years is due to total strangu-regulation by the Feds.
It’s not much different from the airline industry. You cannot wipe your ass without having an Federal inspector come in from downtown. No innovation is allowed, as it will not be approved by the man.
Funny how all this “lust for oil causes terrorism” talk and the whole SUV argument would be silly if some mis-informed “environmentalists” had not shut down growth in the nuclear power industry in the late 70’s. I guess it worked out good for them, as otherwise there’d be nothing to rant about to keep the bucks flowing in.
Also, good comments Mr. Fangsign! Abso_______ lutely.
Hmm, there is at least arguably a tough chicken-and-egg problem with fuel cell cars and hydrogen “filling stations.” But then the thing to do would probably be something like, let private firms do the research, and have the gov’t commit to help with the transition to H if & when we get something viable.
According to Chris we are close. Now how much you can trust anything you read over the internet is one thing, even if it is posted by a reader of the Agitator. Still, assuming for a second that he is right, if what we are looking for is that final R&D push to make the production cheaper or smaller or whatever - or if we are looking just to subsidize the initial overhead until they are producing on a large enough scale that it is self-sufficient, maybe Julian, it is time for government involvement now.
Is it just me (I ask because, ironically, it usually is), or did anyone else think that Governor Locke would make an ideal spokesperson for…(insert name of large “evil” corporation)?
In your free time, check the pages on win casino free machine online slot - Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
You are invited to check the sites on am 300 diet pills guide … Thanks!!!
You may find it interesting to take a look at some helpful info in the field of betting …
cash advance