From Fact Check.Org

Here's FactCheck.org's analysis of President Bush's January 23rd State of the Union Address:

Facts Of The Union
Bush selects his facts carefully to dress up the State of the Union address.

January 25, 2007

Summary
We found some puffery in President Bush's State of the Union address. He proposed a 20 per cent cut in gasoline use, which turns out to be only an 11 per cent decrease from current levels. The President claimed to have cut the federal deficit in half, which hasn't quite happened yet. He trumpeted the 7.2 million jobs created since the worst of the 2003 job slump, ignoring the 2.7 million jobs lost during the first part of his tenure. And once again Bush spoke of "energy independence," though the nation's dependence on imported oil has grown steadily since Bush took office despite all the talk and enactment of his energy legislation.

Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, in a nine-minute response from the Democrats, also chose his data selectively. Trying to put a gloomy cast on a generally upbeat economy, he claimed that worker wages "are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth." Webb would have been more accurate had he said "national income" rather than "wealth," but it's true that real wages (after inflation) are rising nicely after a long stagnation.

Analysis
Bush delivered his State of the Union address Jan. 23, concluding that "the State of our Union is strong [and] our cause in the world is right." That broad judgment we'll leave to others to evaluate. Some of the specific facts the President cited, however, we found to be selective, and one we found to be incorrect.


Gasoline Cut

Bush overstated matters when he proposed to slash the nation's use of gasoline by one-fifth over the next decade:

Bush: Let us build on the work we've done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years.

But, compared to what? In reality, Bush's stated goal is not so grand as he made it sound. A White House "fact sheet" says in the fine print that he's talking about a 20 per cent from projected levels, not from what motorists are using today.

There's a big difference. The Energy Information Administrationpredicts that if current trends continue American motorists will consume 12 per cent more gasoline than they do currently by the year 2017. Cutting that projected consumption by 20 per cent works out to a level that is just 11 per cent less than current consumption. That would still be a historic reversal and a major accomplishment, but roughly half of what Bush's words seemed to promise.

Foreign Oil

Bush – once again – spoke of lessening dependence on Middle Eastern oil and imported oil generally:

Bush: For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil.

He didn't mention that the nation has become significantly more dependent on foreign oil during his time in office. According to the Energy Information Administration, the US imported 60.2 per cent of the oil it consumed in 2006, up from 52.9 per cent in Bill Clinton's last year in office. Dependency has grown in each year of the Bush presidency save one, despite all the talk and enactment of his energy legislation.

Federal Deficit and Fiscal Discipline

Bush called for fiscal restraint and claimed credit for cutting the federal deficit in half:

Bush: What we need is to impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule.

Actually, Bush inherited a budget with a comfortable surplus, and then ran up enormous deficits that continue to the present. Under Bush, the national debt (debt held by the public) has increased by more than $1.5 trillion. The annual deficits peaked at $413 billion in fiscal year 2004, and has declined since then. But in fiscal year 2006 (which ended last Oct. 31) the deficit was still $248 billion. The latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office project a further reduction in the current fiscal year, to $172 billion. That would indeed be less than half the worst of Bush's deficits, but it would be only two years prior to fiscal 2009, not three.

As for spending restraint, Bush has shown little if any to date. He allowed spending to soar 42 per cent during his presidency, and didn't veto a single spending bill. (His only veto was of a bill to loosen restrictions on federally funded stem-cell research.) He did sign massive tax cuts, and revenues increased only 21 per cent during the same period.

Education

The President called for reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, saying:


Bush: Students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap...the No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children.

According to the government's own National Center on Education Statistics, the overall achievement gap between minority students and white students has decreased between 2002, when Bush signed the law, and 2005. But the act's impact on math and reading scores is debatable. Students in 4th and 8th grades performed at historic high levels in math in 2005. However, scores had been on the rise since before the law passed. In reading, there was no difference between 4th graders' scores in 2002 and 2005, and the scores of 8th graders actually dropped two points in that interval. The reading scores in 2005 were barely different from those in 1 992.

The Economy

When it came to describing the economy, Bush was pretty much on the mark:

Bush: Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising.

In fact, the 4.5 per cent unemployment rate for December was well below the historical average. For all months since 1948, when the BLS started publishing its current statistical series, the average rate has been 5.6 per cent. The current rate is not far above the 4.2 per cent rate that prevailed when Clinton left office.

Inflation remains reasonably low. The Consumer Price Index rose 2.5 per cent during 2006, less than the 3.4 per cent rise of 2005.

And it's also true that wages are rising, and finally rising faster than inflation. According to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average weekly earnings for rank-and-file workers rose 2.1 per cent last year even after adjustment for inflation. But last year's rise came after many years of stagnation. In December workers were earning only 2.9 per cent more per week than when Bush took office, taking inflation into account.


Job Gain

The President puffed up his description of the economy using an apparently bogus number. And in fact, when we dug into this we found that the White House has been using inflated numbers for job gains for more than four months.

Bush: We're now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs -- so far.

The 7.2 million figure is correct according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, counting an unusually large upward adjustment in the figures for total non-farm employment that the BLS announced in October. However, as in the past, Bush concentrated only on the period since August 2003, which was the low point of the prolonged job slump that plagued the first 2-1/2 years of his presidency. Since 2.7 million jobs were lost that time, the net gain from the time he took office has been 4.6 million jobs, a respectable number but still not so large as the one Bush highlighted.

Democratic Response

In contrast to the President's upbeat description of the economy, Democratic Sen. James Webb of Virginia painted a rather bleak picture:

Webb: Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world.

As previously mentioned, real wages (after inflation) are actually rising, and certainly not at "an all-time low." When we asked what Webb was talking about, his aides cited a recent article by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, that cited "unprecedented income inequality." Another liberal-leaning think tank, The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, using data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis,found that wages and salaries as a share of all national income was at an all time low. In other words, income from such things as stock, bonds and rents is rising faster than paychecks.

— by Brooks Jackson with Viveca Novak, Justin Bank and Emi Kolawole



Sources


Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National),"Total Nonfarm Employment , Seasonally Adjusted"

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National, "Average Weekly Earnings, 1982 Dollars"

Energy Information Administration, "Table 2. Energy Consumption by Sector and Source," Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030 (Early Release).

Energy Information Administration, "Table 1.7 Overview of U.S. Petroleum Trade."

Aron-Dine, Aviva and Isaac Shapiro. "Share of National income Going to Wages and Salaries Remains At Record Low," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 16 January 2007.

Mishel, Lawrence and Jared Bernstein. "New data reveal unprecedented income inequality," Economic Policy Institute. 17 Jan 2007.

Clinton throws her hat into the ring.

Yes, the pool has increased in size, and, yes, Clinton and Obama are leading the pack in terms of media attention. The host of NPR's weekly quiz show, "Wait, Wait Don't tell Me" referred to Kucinich as a "hopeless" candidate. He was relegated to the sidenotes in 2004 as well, but this year could be different if people would only listen. Clinton has worked very hard for a long time, but despite her branding by conservatives as a "liberal," she's terribly moderate. Obama opposes the war and argues for the poor, but his legislative resume is awfully short. Kucinich has all the values of Obama and then some (Kucinich definitely bests Obama in terms of animal rights and the environment) and all the experience of Clinton and then some (he has 40 years' experience in civic life and was recently, unanimously nominated as Domestic Policy Subcommittee of Government Oversight, the subcommittee with "the broadest oversight authority of any subcommittee in the federal government." Courage, Democrats. Courage, Kucinich supporters. A better world is possible.

Surge

Today, the Democrats in Congress voted to raise the federal minimum wage for the first time in ten years. In worse news, this evening, President Bush gave a twenty-minute speech outlining his "new plan" for Iraq. This plan principally features a "surge" of troops. The Democrats, happily, are winning the rhetoric war by calling Bush's plan by the Viet Nam-era term "escalation" rather than allowing the current administration to rename it a "surge." But a victory in the war on rhetoric will not save the lives of the 24,000 men and women about to be deployed. Senator Ted Kennedy hopes to block Bush's plan; he recommends a congressional vote. Representatives Jim McDermott, Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich and others agree. Perhaps enough legislators will join their efforts to end this war and to save American and Iraqi lives.

MUNY Explained

OK, as a final answer to those who keep harping on what happened in Cleveland 30 years ago, here, finally is Dennis's side, as explained in a letter from his wife, Elizabeth.

Dear Friend,

Today marks the 28th Anniversary of Cleveland's default and finally the truth is out about Muny Light.

Joshua Scheer at Truthdig has posted an interview, newspaper articles and TV news stories which show the great courage it took for the then 32 year old Mayor, Dennis Kucinich, to save Cleveland's public power system.

The city went into default, because the banks would only accept the public utility as payment on the city's debt. Nothing else would do.

The story exposes the very real issues of corporate greed, media manipulation and corruption all of which were overcome when the people were supported by the very courageous Mayor, Dennis Kucinich.

Visit http://www.truthdig.com/interview/page2/20061214_battle_muny_light/ for the full story, TV and newspaper articles.

Scheers interview has been described by some as being the most important populist manifesto in the last 50 years.

The people of America are very, very lucky to have Dennis working for them!

Thank you

The Best: Redux

Following this text is the letter I received yesterday from Congressman Dennis Kucinich which announces his 2008 candidacy for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

Once again, Kucinich will be considered a "vanity" candidate, but how can that be when Senator Barack Obama has significantly less legislative experience? He will, once again, be considered "unelectable", but how can *that* be when polls are largely on his side in terms of Iraq, the bellwether issue?

In 2004, we picked the safe, electable candidate, and we got four more years of Bush, four more years of war, two right-wing Supreme Court Justices, fewer protected lands, a higher core temperature for the earth, and less funding for education, the poor, and the hungry. In 2004, Kucinich's slogan, "How Much Change Do You Want?" seemed ill-timed. Isn't it human nature to fear change? But now, when the lack of an incumbent makes a change of guard inevitable, it's a timely question. Go, Dennis.

Here's the letter:

Announcement of Candidacy for President of the United States

Dear Friend,

We are living in a time of great tests of our humanity, which also present great opportunities for transformation. The war in Iraq is a veil that shrouds our creativity and our potential for prosperity. It cuts us off from the world at a time when it is imperative that we acknowledge our interdependence and interconnectedness.

This is a moment with a profound feeling of destiny. America has been an extraordinary international power to manifest that which we focus our energies upon. This power is true of individuals as well as nations.

In a way, when we focus on terror, we bring to ourselves that which we fear. We focused on terror in Iraq and paradoxically helped to create the circumstances, which have propelled Iraq into civil war and chaos.

The prestigious Lancet report on excess casualties in Iraq estimates that the war in Iraq has caused 655,000 Iraqi deaths, and that 20% of those deaths are a direct result of the actions of coalition forces.

This war sacrifices the lives of innocent Iraqis, the lives of our troops, and the physical resources and good will of our nation. We are sacrificing our financial future, borrowing money from Beijing to occupy Baghdad in a war that military generals and the Iraqi Study Group have concluded is impossible to win militarily.

We are focusing our resources on the power of destruction rather than the vision of a world in which we want to live: A world of prosperity and peace, equity, beauty and justice. It is time for us to stand together to bring the troops home and stand by the people of Iraq through implementing a real policy for the security, recovery, reconciliation and restoration of their nation.

We as a nation have the opportunity to embrace the challenges of our time and take a new direction, starting with ending the war in Iraq. The leaders of my party have said that they will not stop funding the war, and are openly supporting a supplementary appropriations bill for an additional one hundred and sixty billion dollars ($160,000,000,000), on top of the $70,000,000,000 that was appropriated to Iraq for financial year 2007, back in October of this year. This would bring war expenditure for 2007 to $230 billion, double the expenditure of 2006, and by far the largest appropriation of the war so far.

Today, I announced my candidacy for President of the United States in a quest to call my party to courage and integrity on this issue. This is a journey upon which I hope you will join together with me to ensure that our country calls forth our great potential with the same courage of our forefathers and mothers who birthed the vision for our great nation.

You can see a video of my Announcement speech on www.kucinich.us (Our site has undergone its own transformation!)

Our campaign will change the direction of the Democratic Party, the war in Iraq and our nation.

Please join me to help make this great turning possible.

Thank you



Dennis Kucinich

A Belated Gloat

Well, the results are better than we could have dreamed. Congress, Senate, Rummie's resignantion; even the South Dakota abortion ban lost. It's been a good week.

Strategies

Finally, Bush says he may change strategies in Iraq. Yesterday, he said he wouldn't. Still, not one of these strategies fixes the overall strategic problem: The war is not working and never will.

His insistence to "go it alone" in waging war on Iraq is as infuriating as his insistence that he NOT go it alone in establishing peace with North Korea. If the goal is to stop terrorism, why choose the diametrically incorrect strategy in each situation? What's worse: he doesn't recognize his strategies as hubris; he calls them a mandate; he calls them fights for "freedom"; he calls them obedience to God. And so, people die. October set records in Baghdad.

Meanwhile, Democrats scramble to capitalize on the national mood before the midterm elections by airing anti-Republican commercials of increasingly dubious ethics. In my home state, one Republican congressman's half-quote, used by the DNCC to damn him in a commercial (ostensibly) in support of his Democratic opponent, actually vindicates him when seen in its full context. Are we really that desperate? Why would we resort to the traditionally Republican strategy of flat-out lying? (For a recent example of right wing false spin, on a FOX news episode after the break of the Foley story, Foley was referred to, eight times, as a "Democrat.")

Adopting Republican campaign tactics is a dangerous strategy for Democrats, especially when this is paired with the even less logical strategy of banking on anti-Republican sentiment to sway the electorate away from the status quo. People's disgust with the Republican leadership, while warranted, will not guarantee their shifting allegiance unless the agenda of the Democratic alternative is clearer than merely being an alternative.