Previous Editorial (8/15): A Look at a Stump Speech

I'm writing this as I listen to George W. Bush give a stump speech in Beaverton, Oregon, thanks to Oregon Public Radio's webstream. This is the first campaign stump speech of Bush's that I've listened to all the way through. Here are my reactions to some statements that Bush made in his speech.

"Every child needs to know how to read, write, add, and subtract." This just plain pisses me off. Yeah, kids need to learn how to do these things. But you know what? Most kids have learned how to do these things by the second grade. Reading, writing, adding, and subtracting are not enough. Children need to be taught how to think for themselves, how to be analytical. Yes, there are kids that don't know how to read, but the vast majority of them do, and the vast majority of them need to learn how to do more. Children need to be taught that learning is a lifelong process - it doesn't end at knowing how to read or add. Reading and basic math skills can get you a job at McDonald's or Wal-Mart, but that's about it. Why is Bush aiming for the bare minimum? Can’t we do better than that?

Bush also said that America should vote for him because Laura Bush should be the first lady for four more years. I don't understand this at all. He didn't go on to offer examples of what she's done in the first four years that would warrant voting for him for her sake, and I honestly don't know what she's done. I read in interview with her where she said she liked gardening...but that's most of what I know about Laura Bush. She seems nice, I guess. Maybe that's what he's going for; vote for me because my wife seems nicer than Theresa Heinz-Kerry. But first ladies don't have a history of doing a whole lot; therefore there is no reason to justify voting for someone based on his wife.

"A stronger America is one in which people can find work. And our economy is vibrant." "I argue that we've overcome [the recession and economic problems] because of well-timed tax cuts." Wrong! Today the Congressional Budget Office released a study that found that the burden of taxes has shifted from the richest to the middle class. The Congressional Budget Office is non-partisan. It is headed by the former senior economist of the Bush White House. If they say that the middle class is being taxed more, it must be true. As my friend Brian says, "It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that when the middle class is squeezed by taxes, they don’t spend." When the middle class doesn't spend, the economy doesn't grow.

Bush then said that international trade is getting better. (Sorry, I wasn't able to type fast enough to get the exact quote.) But is it? The Commerce Department said that trade deficits have widened; exports fell 4.3 percent to $92.8 billion in June, the biggest decline since September 2001. Imports climbed to an all-time high. What does this mean? It menas that we're making less of what we use, and other people are buying less of what we make. That's bad for the economy on both ends.

He followed this by saying that Kerry has made $2.2 trillion in promises to stimulate the economy. "It's bad economic policy to run up the taxes." It's also bad economic policy to have a $7 trillion deficit. Bush hasn't been able to help the economy with his $7 trillion deficit, so if Kerry thinks he can help it by spending LESS than $7 trillion ($2.2 trilion is less, yes?), we should give him the chance, right? If we don't, that deficit will at least double by the time Bush is out of office. Your kids, your grandkids, your grandkids' kids will be paying that off.

Bush then said that we shouldn't raise taxes on the rich because "the rich are able to get accountants so they can dodge taxes. Then guess who pays? You do." This is the most retarded logic I’ve heard in a long time. Bush is saying that we shouldn't raise taxes on the rich because they can afford to hire accountants, who will then find loopholes for them to not pay taxes. The money has to come from somewhere, and since the rich have accountants to keep it from coming from them, it will come from you. But by lowering taxes on the rich, if you follow his line of logic, the money has to come from somewhere. And if it’s not coming from the rich, it’s coming from you. And you can’t afford an accountant, so you’ll just pay them blindly. A more logical argument would be "The rich have accountants to help them go through loopholes, so we’re going to work to close those loopholes."

He also said: "Everybody who pays taxes should get relief. We shouldn't play favorites." We shouldn't play favorites? SHOULDN'T PLAY FAVORITES??? The Bush White House is ALL ABOUT playing favorites, from tax policy to environmental policy. Give the rich people (who donate to Bush's campaign) bigger tax cuts! Let energy executives help write the energy policy! If you're one of George W.'s buddies you're going to be living high on the hog while he's in office. Screw the poor people, ignore the middle class!

My favorite quote of the speech, however, was this: "You can't solve the problem unless you're willing to diagnose the problem in the first place." Why was it my favorite? Because it's true. It's so true. And Bush has thoroughly ignored this statement throughout his four years. He didn't look at why the economy was failing, instead he threw money at the rich and said that would make it go away. It didn't. He didn't look at the real threats to national security when he went to war in Iraq. Bush does not diagnose problems; he acts blindly and then justifies his acts after they're done.

Bush went on to talk about Iraq and how people were being beheaded because terrorists are trying to "shake our will." The arguments aren't any different than those Bush has offered for the last year and a half about why we went to war; he had no choice, he wouldn't trust a madman who wanted to attack our country. In light of the lack of weapons of mass destruction that could be use to attack our country, shouldn't the arguments have changed?

Actually, in light of the changes in the past four years, shouldn't Bush's rhetoric have changed? It hasn't though. He keeps saying less taxes for the rich. He keeps saying the economy is "vibrant" when it isn't. He keeps trying to justify a war with made-up reasons. If Bush can't clearly see the state of our country, he shouldn't be looking at us from the oval office.