Cribbing from the Best

In a speech right here in New York, today, Bush addressed the state of the economy and decried the sort of wildly disproportionate compensation for CEOs that has become par for the course. Some choice remarks:

''The fact is that income inequality is real. It has been rising for more than 25 years,'' the president said. ''The earnings gap is now twice as wide as it was in 1980,'' Bush said

It's funny...I almost feel like I heard something just like that recently:

"When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries...The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day."

Poor Jim Webb...less than a month on the job, and he's already been co-opted by the Plagiarist-in-Chief.

First War, Now Warming

As if this administration hasn't misled the American public enough (promises of WMDs and being greeted as liberators come to mind), advocacy groups are now claiming that the White House pressured federal scientists to play down global warming. Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) charged that "there may have been an orchestrated campaign to mislead the public about climate change."

Remember when Bush mentioned climate change in his 2007 State of the Union address?

"America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change." (Applause.)

Yes, Mr. President. Global warming - or "global climate change" - is a very serious challenge. Please treat it as such by allowing scientists to express the gravity of the situation to the American public.

"A Sorry State of the Union"

The Dems' own Brittany Brewer got an excellent Op/Ed published in yesterday's Spec on the numerous failings of Bush's poorly received (but cheerfully liveblogged) State of the Union. For your convenience and edification, you can find it reprinted below:

The State of the Union address is typically an opportunity for the President to dramatically present the successes of the past year and to gain support for an extensive list of new initiatives for the coming year. In last Tuesday's speech, President George W. Bush abandoned this tradition and attempted to address several key issues facing the nation. Much to the dismay of the newly elected Democratic Congress, however, the Bush's solutions were far less constructive and bipartisan than hoped for.

Bush seems to think that it is the government's responsibility to care for the elderly, disabled, and poor children, while all other Americans are responsible for supporting themselves. Every American should be appalled by a plan that ignores their needs: it penalizes people with high-quality, comprehensive plans, and fails to make health care more affordable for those suffering without. As U.S. Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-New York, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee argued, the policy is a bad idea, as it increases middle-class tax liability, a move that will only temporarily and inadequately address the problem.

In his speech, Bush praised the No Child Left Behind Act, a contentious piece of legislation, for its continued success, stating that it "has worked for America's children" and asked Congress to reauthorize it. While it is no surprise that Bush requested reauthorization for a program he initially proposed and implemented, it does seem outlandish that he obscured the fact that his administration has neglected to adequately fund the program since its inception in 2001.

Democrats were unimpressed by Bush's proposals for education reform. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, who delivered the Democrats' response, argued that "college tuition rates are off the charts" and that Bush's programs will not succeed in resolving these issues if they are not properly funded.

Bush displayed a similar disingenuousness with his economic proposals: balancing the federal budget, reducing earmarks, and reforming entitlements. Bush promised to eliminate the federal deficit, one which he both created and worsened over the course of his tenure, within the next five years. He promised to expose earmarks, yet he has rejected ethics reform so many times that the Democrats made it one of their biggest priorities for the first 100 days. He promised to fix Medicare and Medicaid and save social security, all of which he has attempted and failed to accomplish in the last seven years of his presidency.

In response, Webb observed that "when one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries," a scrutiny that most Americans can probably identify with after listening to the Bush's address. There is a divide between the America of workers living from paycheck to paycheck and the America occupied by executives who earn more in one day than many of their employees make in an entire year. Tragically, when Bush discussed the economy, he did not deem this gap worth addressing.

After alluding to the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001 and the tenacity of our enemies, Bush reiterated his plan to send about 20,000 more American troops to Iraq, proclaiming that "to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy." Democrats responded with contempt following his first proposal of the plan and in their response on Tuesday, they stood unified in demanding "an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq." Bush now stands alone in his belief in the potential of additional troops, since even his own generals have advised him that an increase in troops will not help the situation and Republicans continue to desert him on this issue.

Both the victory of the Democrats in 2006 and Tuesday night's address demonstrate one thing: this nation is ready for a change. Bush's approval ratings are lower than ever, with only a 28 percent job approval rating in a recent CBS poll. Democrats in Congress must force Bush to respect their demands and to seek bipartisan cooperation. While Bush has acknowledged this challenge verbally, he has done little to execute it. Fortunately, the American people have placed their trust in a party that is demanding change from their president. The Democrats have vowed to join Bush if he responds favorably to their demands. As Webb declared, however, "if he does not, we will be showing him the way."

Lukewarm reception ahead

Tomorrow night Bush will give his State of the Union Address, but how will the Congress and Americans respond? Judging from the election results, end of the 100 Hour Plan and Bush's overwhelming opposition to the will of the American people, it looks like the response is set to be cool.

Aside from Democrats being in control of both chambers of Congress, Republicans aren't exactly excited about their leader's political tactics. Case in point: the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which saw Senators Snowe and Hegel siding with Democrats over the ridiculous troop surge idea. Standing ovations should be rare. And having Speaker Pelosi sitting behind Bush in the direct view of the camera will be awesome--opposition will be there for all viewers to see at all times.

Apparently Bush is set to discuss alternative energy (nuclear, ethanol (BOOOO), hybrid cars, etc). I suppose he finally went back on his prediction that the war in Iraq would make oil prices cheaper.