This past Wednesday, George W. Bush gave his State of the Union address to Congress. The president must report to Congress every year, and most presidents use this opportunity to disseminate their agendas for the next year. Bush's State of the Union was no different.

Domestic issues

Bush tackled domestic issues after reporting that "the state of our union is confident and strong." The first item on his agenda was a budget for the next year which "holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009." But how does Bush expect to increase military spending while cutting the deficit in half? "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," he says. Ah, of course! Domestic programs will take a back-seat to the War on Terr' (that's not a typo; imagine saying "war on terror" with a Texas accent). No word yet on what government programs will be cut. Probably programs for poor people and minorities. And babies.

Bush then talked about job-training and giving money to community colleges. He also talked about "rewarding entrepreneurs" by "free[ing] small businesses from needless regulation." Bush likes to trump up the folktale of the "small businessman," but the truth is that multinational corporations are far more prevalent and make a lot more money in the United States than the "small businessman." Besides, it's hard to be a small businessman with Super Wal-Mart taking your customers and destroying your town. Bush will also "protect honest job creators from junk lawsuits," meaning that his administration will work to protect multinationl corporations from lawsuits, "junk" or not. Good for him.

He then talked about medical liability reform, which isn't a terribly big issue in reality, but one that his friends at insurance companies would love to see dealt with. They're paying out so much money, it's hard to make a profit!

Then Bush said this:

Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid and more production here at home, including safe, clean nuclear energy.

My Clear Skies legislation will cut power-plant pollution and improve the health of our citizens.

And my budget provides strong funding for leading-edge technology, from hydrogen-fueled cars to clean coal to renewable sources such as ethanol.

Four years of debate is enough. I urge Congress to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign energy.

Let's redact that. Four years ago, Bush submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encouraged alternative sources a little bit, but ultimately concluded that we should continue using fossil fuels. His Clear Skies legislation lessened pollution requirements, taking them back to levels not seen since the 1970s, and allowed busineses from one state to buy and sell pollution credits, allowing a business in one state to consume the balance of unused pollution credits from a business in another state. "Clear Skies," like "Healthy Forests" and "No Child Left Behind," is an Orwellian-titled piece of legislation which actually does the opposite of what it says it does.

Bush wants to reform the tex system (not going to happen) and reduce restrictions on immigration (not a bad idea, actually).

But the centerpiece of his domestic agenda Wednesday night was Social Security reform. He painted a picture of a system barely clining to life:

Today, more than 45 million Americans receive Social Security benefits, and millions more are nearing retirement. And for them, the system is sound and fiscally strong.

I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you. For you, the Social Security system will not change in any way.

For younger workers, the Social Security system has serious problems that will grow worse with time.

Social Security was created decades ago, for a very different era. In those days, people did not live as long, benefits were much lower than they are today, and a half century ago, about 16 workers paid into the system for each person drawing benefits.

Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and therefore drawing benefits longer. And those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades.

And instead of 16 workers paying in for every beneficiary, right now it's only about three workers. And over the next few decades, that number will fall to just two workers per beneficiary.

With each passing year, fewer workers are paying ever-higher benefits to an ever-larger number of retirees.

So here is the result: Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before.

For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra $200 billion to keep the system afloat. And by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than $300 billion. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt.

(AUDIENCE BOOS)

If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.

I've included "audience boos" because the audience actually booed! Last year, Democrats booed during the applause, but this is the first time I've ever since Bush -- or any president, for that matter -- booed while he was still talking! Democrats hate Bush's Social Security reforms, probably because, in the wake of their loss in November, they have to rally behind something, and opposition to Social Security reform is the best shot they have in lieu of developing an actual platform.

Factcheck.org reports that Bush's dystopic predictions are not entirely true. Factcheck reports that Bush's estimate, which comes from the Social Security Administration, is not as dire a prediction as the Congressional Budget Office's. CBO says that Social Security depletion won't occur until 2052 and "figures that the benefits cuts wouldn't be so severe, a reduction to 78% of promised benefits." Either way, the system wouldn't be "bankrupt" in the sense that a person can go bankrupt; Bush is using deceptive vocabulary. The system would still pay out benefits, but it would spend more than it takes in.

To read more about Bush's mischaracterization of Social Security reform, read the article entitled "Bush's State of the Union: Social Security 'Bankruptcy?'" at Factcheck.org.

After talking about Social Security, Bush renewed his pledge to opposte federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that does not utliize one of the few existing lines of stem cells. He talked about the spectre of "judicial activism" (meaning that contemporary culture is not a valid legal argument for re-interpreting past legal interpretations, but "tradition," "values," and "Western civilization" are perfectly acceptable arguments against altering a previous interpretation of a law to reflect changes in society since then. Brown v. Board of Education, by the way, was considered "activist" by Southern states that didn't want to integrate schools).

He also announced his support for a federal constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. Thanks, George. It would be the first amendment that takes away rights from a group of people. Welcome to Germany, 1933.

Foreign policy

He then transitioned smoothly into a discussion of foreign policy, all of which constitutes the War on Terr'. He talked a lot about freedom (a word he uses so much that it's starting to lose its meaning; what about freedom for homosexuals? Nope, they're not real people. Next question, please).

Nevertheless, "The United States has no right, no desire and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." I don't know how to explain this one as anything but a lie. If we are working for freedom, and the United States model is the best model for freedom, then we must necessarily impose our form of government on others.

Is Bush going to Iran? "Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing and end its support for terror." It still remains to be seen whether or not they're making nuclear weapons.

He ended his address with one of his trademark "Let me tell you about a guy I know, I guy like you and me" stories. The story was about a girl named Safia whose father was assassinated by Saddam. She finally got to vote in Iraq, and they flew her into Washington so she could be present as an example of what a good job Bush is doing.

The next four years will be difficult ones for people who believe in individual liberty, human rights, and don't believe in pre-emptive or opportunistic warfare. At least he can't get elected again. Unles they pass a constitutional amendment.